Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 3

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. No-one seems willing to come forward and clean it up after a week and a half on AfD. QuiteUnusual states that "deleting and starting again might actually be the best approach" — here is your opportunity to do just that. Grandmasterka 10:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Darood-e-pak

Previously tagged as proposed for deletion by Fram (talk · contribs), but the notice was removed by Mahdi7 (talk · contribs). Fram's statement: "Are you certain that these are the English names for the practice? Darood-e-pak gives 24 Google hits, Darood-e-abrahimi gives none. As it stands, this article is unverifiable. Furthermore, the current article is a how-to guide (see WP:NOT, not an article describing the origin, circumstances, and importance of the rule (or rite or whatever you want to call it). If the article can not be made encyclopedic, it should be deleted." As it stands now, the article resembles a poorly written and incoherent religious pamphlet (on an obscure Urdu word). Kaveh 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know so little about the subject I feel unable to vote - however it is incoherent to the general reader and seems to jump from subject to subject (why is Mo's family in there?). --Charlesknight 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article actually is Shiite Muslims view of PBUH and other PBUH(Islam) article of Sunni View i wanted to merge that article into that one, so that one article has comprehensive information on the PBUH issue which is the " Real " issue . The origin of Shiite and Sunni Divide, it's not the issue of using different words for praising Muhammad by one Group of Muslims, it is complete article but i guess should be under PBUH (Islam) but fellow Sunni Muslims brother never want World to know .. What's the real story behind ? Islam was hijacked rather than religion of Hijackers right after the death of Muhammad (SWT) therefore Muslims like Osama (Wahbi Muslims) are very much opposing Shiite Muslims for prasing Muhamamd's Family as Muhammad's Family was against them and infact Killed by Wahbi Islam's leader Yazid. Home of Wahbi Islam is Saudi Arabia and Shiite Islam is Iran. There are two Islams. Muhammad's Islam and Ummayad's Islam(Terrorist). Dont' you see so many people being killed on daily basis in Iraq - Sucidie bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and killing Shiite and US forces! it may seem propoganda but this is what is happening around us. I ask the World ... Prove any Shiite Muslims invovling in " Sucicide Bombings " ?--www.mahdi.ms 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom (thanks!), and as WP:POVFORK (after my prod was removed, I also proposed a mergo to Peace be upon him (Islam), but Mahdi7 removed this again). 05:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keepbut article is in need of a serious re-write. Poorly written article, however topic is notable and may be able to be made encyclopedic.Ramsquire 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep the topic maybe notable, but the language is poor, the article structure is poor and seems to link together unrelated ideas. Needs a complete hack - deleting and starting again might actually be the best approach QuiteUnusual 23:59, 3 October 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 No consensus. This is the very model of a modern no consensus AfD. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be held outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernest the Pirate

fairly nn, unfinished/unreleased film. Fails the proposed WP:NOTFILM and gets 48 unique google hits [1]. I like Ernest films as much as the next guy, but this wasn't even finished or released, and would be best left a trivia point on Ernest's main page. Giant onehead 23:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete may be notable if sources can be found. As it is, it is probably better to delete, leaving the mention at Ernest P. Worrell. Eluchil404 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think a lost Ernest movie is notable enough to have an article, though the fact that there's so little information about it makes it harder to justify.Zincomog 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, needs WP:V sourcing... but if this is done it could be kept.--Isotope23 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Source and Merge It is never going to be a big article so better to keep but to merge into a bigger article.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per Argentino.Ramsquire 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks notability. Nonexistence of the subject is an argument against keeping around an encyclopedia article. Certainly the present article doesn't say much and has no verifiable sources. EdJohnston 14:01, 8 October 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. Punkmorten 10:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Reding Royals

Notability not established. User who authored this has a history of creating vanity articles, but I don't know enough about sports to determine whether this is also a vanity article. —Psychonaut 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "however these claims have yet to be proved based on lack of evidence, and facts"... Yes, there are certainly a lack of facts in this article. Irongargoyle 23:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Vanity or not this is about a high school athletic team. No notability is possible. -- Bpmullins 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think it is school-magazinlish, non notable, baised, poorly written vanity article. Does not deserve to be included in Wikipedia —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.Ramsquire 23:30, 3 October 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 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Blind King

This entry fails the criteria of WP:BAND; a failed speedy candidate. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, although I'd reconsider if a discography was posted that showed it met the band criteria. Article alludes to their recording, but a discography is essential, in my book. Akradecki 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Changed my recommendation after above suggestion was carried out and notability was established by inclusion of discography and independent reviews in article, per note on discussion page for this project and a further review of the article. Akradecki 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The discography doesn't meet WP:BAND. Their CDs are self-produced, latterly under a faux brand. Eusebeus 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - IceCreamAntisocial 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I still don't think there's anything that points to passage of WP:MUSIC. And why the hell are the two external links in the reviews section a review, and then a recopying of that review? -- Kicking222 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Ramsquire 23:32, 3 October 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. Punkmorten 10:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk Walford

This entry fails the criteria of WP:WEB; a failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Completely non-notable, Original Research. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 00:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.Ramsquire 23:32, 3 October 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. Punkmorten 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Duel Class

Prodded by User:Fram "Non notable webcomic, perhaps recreate the article when the graphic novel has been published by a reputable publisher, has received some award, and/or has had reviews by major independent magazines}". Might benefit from more discussion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of webcomics-related deletions. —freak(talk) 21:32, Sep. 27, 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete NN webcomiccruft. Anomo 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete another nn webcomic. Eusebeus 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. Wickethewok 14:56, 3 October 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. Punkmorten 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Watergear

watergear does not exist in English as one word, except as a trade mark. I have not moved it to 'water gear' because it would still just be a dictionary definition. Delete. Bridgeplayer 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and do not Transwiki Dicdef, Doesn't appear to even be a real word, so don't move to Wiktionary. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 00:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• How do I know this isn't something made up in school one day? Until I have a source I must vote delete. Alba 17:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef of a constructed word that nobody uses. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ramsquire 23:55, 3 October 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 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hasbrooke Internet Services

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Delete. Deli nk 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Was edited based on comments on article's talk page, but still do not meet the requierments of WP:CORP.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'd expect an internet services co. to generate a lot of ghits, if nothing else, but it doesn't. No gnews reports either. Don't see how this meets WP:CORP guidelines or is verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 4 October 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 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim Jarrell

upcoming candidate for Michigan State House of Representatives, in which most members do not have articles. This article fails the guidelines of WP:BIO and WP is not a crystal ball. Google search for "Tim Jarrell" Michigan gets about 70 unique hits [2] Giant onehead 19:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 05:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per established precedent (if not policy, although I mightbe in for an avuncular correction), being a candidate is not grounds for notability. Eusebeus 14:52, 3 October 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 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Arlette Baldacchino

Non-notable, fails biography policy, only 151 google sites, some of which are mirror sites Maltesedog 19:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. Drew88 07:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Eusebeus 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spokespersons aren't automatically notable. Punkmorten 10:19, 4 October 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. Punkmorten 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip Beattie

Not notable enough to have a place on wikipedia. Note: He is not the same as Dr. Philip Beattie of New Zealand/Ireland. Maltesedog 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per above. Drew88 07:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Drew88 is the author of this article! Maltesedog 16:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn Eusebeus 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - If the author of the article is supporting its deletion, it should get speedied. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 03:48, 4 October 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. Punkmorten 10:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interest rate hedge strategy

I have no idea what exactly this is about, but it's from a series of rather questionable edits by User:Mister doodi which all look strongly like original research to me - this article even mentions that the strategy was invented by Mister Dodi. -- Ferkelparade π 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Original Research. However hedge strategies are real enough (Hedge (finance)), where a merge of anything a content expert deems valuable might be usable. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I looked on Google and at least 3 companies mention using "interest rate hedge strategy". Whether it is the same strategy mentioned in the article, I don't know. I think the article could stand a section on why the interest rate hedge strategy is significant and perhaps the history, but if it is legitimate, I don't think it is OR since it can be found in other independent sources.Ratherhaveaheart 22:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as obvious OR. The google search is immaterial, since the phrase is certainly not inconceivable. Eusebeus 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious OR. No reason to keep this version. Gazpacho 19:49, 3 October 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 16:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Turning Point of Tampa

Advertising, no claim of notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN.--Húsönd 18:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ramsquire 23:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom.UberCryxic 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shahid Hussain Bokhari

NN comptuer science researcher. There are thousands of other similar nn researchers with similar credentials. --Ragib 19:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: Since this didn't have any discussion at all, it should be relisted to have more opinions. --Ragib 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep - not with 34k + google hits and sites listed in ICASE, german, - Multiscale computing, Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Georgia Tech and the like. The article though, is in need of help.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Illinois Urbana-Champaign is a mailing list announcement about a talk. If I give a talk tomorrow (which I would within a few months), I'll be listed in the mailing list announcement as well. The "German" link you mention above is a bibliography site, and (I'm listed there as well) 5th year PhD students, newly hired Assistant professors have similar publications listed there. I do not see any crowning achivement listed in any of his biographies. That's the main point. To be notable, there must be something that distinguishes him from thousands and thousands of other professors, post docs, research scientists etc. --Ragib 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the large number of google hits occur because his first name and last names are very common. Narrow it down to "shahid bokhari", it gives out 571 hits. Google "Shahid H. Bokhari", it says 11k hits, but go to the 18th page, and the rest of the pages are duplicates. (Incidentally, now almost any one gets at last 8,000/9,000 hits (I myself get 9,000 hits in google). So, Google hits isn't really a measure of notability, unless they yield other results of notability. --Ragib 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt mean he is nn,. It means you are notable as well then.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Does the "Highly Cited" link mean anything?Hornplease

The links for that is VERY dubious. I didn't find Knuth there, who is perhaps THE most famous computer scientist now. Most of the listings seem to have random people (number in several thousands), who are not notable in Computer Science at all. --Ragib 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete verifiability and notability issues. Ghits is much smaller (~350) when the exact phrase is employed. Eusebeus 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. To give perspective, there are a total of 320 computer scientists in the world on the ISI Highly Cited list. He's in that group. Also he is a fellow of both ACM and IEEE. In my opinion, this is notable. The article could certainly be written to better convey his contributions. E.g. the name of his best known paper. EdJohnston 14:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. notability established with highly cited. --Buridan 23:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

its not abt the talks that he gave or the google hits that he gets. There may be others that may have similar credentals as Dr Bokahri..but he has done some of the pioneering work in the field of parallel & distributed systems and computer architecture. He has over 1000 citations and as i recall, one of his papers had more than 300 citations... This amount of pioneering work and this many citations....are crowning achievemments... I am sure there wont be any newly appointed assistant professors...having over 1000 citations... FAHAD SAEED

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11) by Eagle 101. MER-C 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Adforum

Non-notable company, does not meet WP:CORP. The article is written as an advertisement. Previous attempt at deletion unsuccessful, since the templates keep getting removed. --Elonka 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, per WP:SPAM, and because partner is not a verb. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (as nominator). Insufficient proof of notability. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB. --Elonka 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Tagged as such. MER-C 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G11 per MER-C. --Aaron 03:28, 4 October 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. Luna Santin 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane Melendez

Non-notable candidate for local election, does not conform to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections#Elections first, then individual candidates. Deleted under WP:PROD and recreated. Accurizer 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom, until she wins.Obina 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." I take it that such information is not available yet for Diane Melendez. What we currently have is a stub-like article, so it should go. EdJohnston 03:23, 10 October 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. Punkmorten 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Set-wise voting

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverfiable protologism per WP:NEO and WP:V. See here for only two unique GHits that are not Wikipedia or mirrors. --Satori Son 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Satori Son. Ramsquire 00:01, 4 October 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. Petros471 16:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New Monkey (music)

Article claims to be about music but states it isn't even a real genre. Rest of article is about a nightclub and appears basically off-topic. Yamla 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Just for reference's sake: the previous AfD. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Spearhead 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this article is linked as a legitimate music style from the top of an important article, "chav". silsor 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeap, that's true, but it would be fairly easy to link to Makina instead, which the New Monkey article claims is more literal in any case. The rest of the article is about a specific nightclub and really has nothing to do with the music. --Yamla 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

to the above comment, i would like to say did you even read the article? obviously you did but you just didnt understand it. the chav article claims the music to be called new monkey can you honestly tell me that there is a genre called new monkey?? but you would want that article to be deleted would you. The new monkey is a nightclub, i was educating people like you that it is a common misconception. YOU JUST CANT HELP PEOPLE THESE DAYS.

go ahead delete it if you like and re write it yourself because obviously you have a much more in-depth knowledge of bouncey spanish techno music and north england rave scene than i do.

P.S. The article is called new monkey (music) as that was the default name that was already set on the chav page, so this is no fault of my own. i am simply here to educate, or at least try to so take it easy will you.

• Delete New monkey is not a genre of music. The nightclub is not notable. Catchpole 11:34, 10 October 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 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lavamus.com

nn website, alex200000ranks--Socp 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn website, does not meet WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 07:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not a speedy. MER-C 02:49, 4 October 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. Petros471 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigma (band)

A punk band from Arizona with virtually no coverage outside of the state, promoted by bassist Jon Kabir’s record label. (I’ll be adding his article to this one, for the record. They apparently played at the Warped Tour, but it would appear that was a one-show deal much like many other local bands get to do on the smaller stages, and I can find no reference to them and the Warped Tour together. Matter of fact, I can find few references to them outside of AZpunk.com[3]. In essesnce, they appear to fail WP:MUSIC entirely, with no records on major recognized labels, no national or international tours, etc. PROD removed from both articles with no comments. ‘’’Delete’’’ Tony Fox (arf!) 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the following articles to this discussion:

Jon Kabir

Member of above non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO Tony Fox (arf!) 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, as per nom. Jon Kabir's Google results. PJM 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Three albums being distributed by Asian Man Records meets WP:MUSIC criteria. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:MUSIC:"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." They claim two full-length albums on Shadows Cast Records, the bassist's label, distributed by Asian Man Records. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Besides Asian Man, also distributed by Anti-Flag's label. OK, so they don't have the 2+ albums on a major label, but the distro by two major indies, to me, seems a fair equivalent. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per failure to meet WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Thryduulf 23:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per above comments. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:42, 9 October 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.

• Sigma (band) now redirects to Sigma (group), which is another band. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacopo di Poggibonsi

I came across this article scouring through the Wikify backlog, and at the time it was mostly unformatted, copy-pasted text from http://www.umich.edu/~engtt516/ , the source of the hoax (possibly done as vandalism in an attempt to validate or provide another credible source for it). I quickly tidied up the article to return it to being a proper, factual account of the hoax and added some references, but, while the subject is somewhat interesting (I love the idea of a classroom of kids copy-pasting from the internet and then being told everything they wrote is baloney), I still don't believe this qualifies as a particularly notable hoax on its own (certainly not on the level of Bonsai Kitten and other well-known sucker-bait) - Google returns fewer than 300 hits for his name, most of them linking to the UMich site or the assignment plan[4]. Therefore, I nominate this for AfD as a non-notable minor hoax. Also, to pre-empt any comments, I'm well aware of the irony of this article having only one or two credible sources - the very lesson it was trying to teach! If this had become a more widespread hoax, there would be more references out there than mere links to the source website. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Very cute, but fails notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just a passing thought, but wouldn't this be useful in Wikipedia space as a warning on the need for multiple, independent reports ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, that's not a bad idea - a brief explanation and a couple of links to the lesson plan and the fake biography somewhere in WP:V or similar. It makes the point very vividly. ~Matticus ^T_C 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a matter of courtesy since that does rather give the game away. Eusebeus 15:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This subject is just as valid as anything else and presents valuable information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. An interesting article, but I believe it fails WP:HOAX: "Hoaxes must be notable to be included in Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years." Actually this AfD is recursive, because if you admire the hoax and wish it long life, you should delete the Wikipedia article as a courtesy (per Eusebeus), since otherwise the next round of gullible students would Google the Wikipedia article and get tipped off. EdJohnston 04:29, 9 October 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. Punkmorten 10:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Asko Makitalo

I believe this article should be deleted due to lack of biographical notability. The article seems to claim significance in being listed in Who's Who's. I don't believe Mere listing in Who's Who warrants a wikipedia article. When I follow the link I am unable to find the subjects name. Regardless of verifiability, This article needs to explain what the subject did in order to get into Who's Who. If that information is already in the article then there is a strong case for deletion of this article. I also suspect this to be a vanity page. A google only revealed posts in forums. Zudduz 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Excluding the person's own posts on forums and his e-mail address which is firstname.surname@etc, he basically gets no Google hits. And even with all those unrelated and self-achieved hits, the count is at 52 (22 unique). The correct Finnish name is Mäkitalo, but that gives even less results. Besides, both Asko and Mäkitalo are common names in Finland. Who's Who claim is unverified and probably not notable enough on its own. Fails WP:BIO. Vanity CV. Prolog 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Surely he likes some privacy, and also due to SPAM it is wise. And most good places needs registration.From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sukututkijat/messages gives the count88. Perhaps there are some Genealogists in Wiki, whom could give her opinion about that Genealogy aspect? (as soon as that capter is finaliazed)--Jack007 16:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The above comment is by the article creator aka. Asko Mäkitalo himself [5]. Prolog 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If genealogy has been your hobby since '02, how exactly did you get in Who's Who? Prolog 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe the subject of the article is in Who's Who in Science and engineering --Zudduz 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, looks more like vanity and personal spam than valuable encyclopedic content. bbx 07:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I just noticed that WP:VAIN has a section on Who's Who and it goes like this: "Who's Who" directories and registries should be viewed critically as evidence of notability. These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, overinclusive and may be nonexistent -- some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The mere inclusion of a person in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability. Prolog 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Reply. The real Margues book, never take fee. Description about this very book [Who's Who in Science and Engineering ]. According my knowledge it has always been reliable.
    • This "Publisher of Who's Who in America since 1899" is the real one, there has been another fake book with same name (or sound like?). Look selection criteria at the bottom of page.
    • I agree that this listing alone would not grant notability, but with Genealogy aspect it does. This kind of information serves Genealogical Reseachers.--Jack007 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply. The link provided above states that complete who's who db "features biographical profiles of 1.2 million of the most accomplished individuals". 1.2 million is too many people to consider their mere inclusion notable. We must instead examine what one has done in order to get in to who's who in order to determine notability. The article does not note anything remotely notable in science and engineering when held up to wikipedia notability stadards. Also the genealogy work is only a hobby. I'm glad you enjoy and excel at it but merely being good at a hobby is not notable.--Zudduz 16:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply. Correct numbers are: "biographical facts on the more than 50,000 men and women leading today’s scientific and technological revolution."--Jack007 17:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Reply. I was referring to your link to http://www.umkc.edu/lib/online/Databases/marquis.htm at the top of the page.--Zudduz 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pure vanity; clearly fails WP:BIO; only about 40 Google hits for "Asko Makitalo", which include this article and a couple of dozen postings by the subject on various mailing lists. --Russ (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, somebody's using Wikipedia as an online resume service. ColourBurst 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Quarl under preliminary CSD G11 criteria. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dotspotter

Non notable new company, fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Will only launch its first product in 2007... Fram 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "The company is expected to launch their first product in early 2007." = non-notable + crystal balling -- IslaySolomon 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as crystal balling and per [6] - cos Big Daddy says so. QuagmireDog 16:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. Marked. ColourBurst 18:02, 3 October 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 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Function of Water in Relation to Food Processing

Reads like an essay, contains no links, doesn't appear relevant to anything else on WP. Djcartwright 13:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

delete - The article was added to Articles for creation. Since last Wednesday, the author found some sources (which was good) but he ignored the advice of the only response: "Declined. This reads like a student assignment essay, not an encyclopedia article. You may wish to find existing articles in which to include such information rather than making it a separate article. Thank you. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)"

~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and comments above. Michael Kinyon 09:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - there is nothing here not covered already somewhere else, and there seems no reason to reproduce the information under this form here LHOON 13:52, 6 October 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 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quadrinity

The article is factually incorrect. If one Googles for it, where it's related to theology you'll most often find it as a rhetorical term used in reductio ad absurdum arguments against the Trinity, not as something someone thinks Christians actually believe. Or someone uses to describe what he feels is overly intense devotion to a figure like the Virgin Mary, but again as part of an argument and not a genuine "misconception". As such the term might be discussed in articles like Nontrinitarianism, but there's not enough to say even about its correct meaning to merit an article. (In fact, Islam is well aware that Christians worship a Trinity; the Koran mentions it a number of times.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As long as this is unreferenced one just has to assume it's original research and there's no indication that this is

1. such a widespread misconception
2. a misconception known under that name. Pascal.Tesson 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Nothing to verify this is not original research. Thryduulf 23:27, 9 October 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 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ring of Glory

inactive wrestling promotion that has only done one show (as far as I know) and doesn't look to be active. Should be merged to Vince Russo if not deleted. Giant onehead 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is SPAM, I beelive. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Though it's not technicaly spam, (since the promotion is defunct,) it was never terribly influential within pro wrestling. I agree that it is best represented as a footnote in Vince Russo's career. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 09:33, 4 October 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 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

DDT Digest

wrestling website which was modestly (at best) popular among wrestling fans in the late 1990s, but has not been updated regularly since 2001 (when WCW, it's focus, folded) and I have doubts that it satisfies WP:WEB Giant onehead 06:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - alas. I miss the Digest. Likely doesn't meet WP:WEB, and has been thoroughly inactive for far too long. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. WP:WEB says that the article about a web site MUST list external reviews to document its notability. This article does not do so. EdJohnston 04:13, 9 October 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 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Zarafa Outlook Sharing

This non-notable application fails the proposed WP:SOFTWARE and current WP:CORP. The 50 unique search engine results yield no obvious sources to improve this article to encyclopedic levels of notability. Erechtheus 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• On many websites only the name Zarafa is used. Because the name Zarafa was already in use on Wikipedia, I used the name Zarafa Outlook Sharing. When you search only on Zarafa you find much more links, such a Redhat Partnership, Freshmeat and a lot of Zarafa resellers.milo-oostergo 09:22, 27 September 2006
• Comment The issue is whether you find the sorts of reliable sources that may establish notability. I saw nothing obvious when conducting a search of Zarafa and the word "software". If you are aware of appropriate coverage, I'd suggest noting it either here or citing it in the article itself. Erechtheus 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, please do a search for zarafa and linux, and you find much more links. See also the site of the developers from Exchange4Linux. milo-oostergo 21:46, 27 September 2006
• Delete. Insufficiently notable, and no credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 05:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:WEB, nothing to say why this is notable. Thryduulf 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Glen 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

David Eden

Delete. Only two relevant Google hits, and they both come from the company's webpage. Non-notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for eden-electronics.com: 540,604. Also, this company just does not meet the criteria from WP:CORP. --Stubbleboy 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it were the "leader" it should have press mentions, but doesn't. Arbusto 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Talk to any experienced bass guitarist about bass amplifiers and it is very likely they will speak highly of David Eden amps. 'The Leader in Bass Amplification Technology' is the companies motto. You can't just magically change the motto of a company. It is their motto. CHeck it out on their website. I think this page should be kept. What harm is it doing? Kingyj 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When you do a Google search for 'david eden amp' there are heaps of results resulting to David Eden bass gear, what are you talking about!? David Eden is a real respected Bass Guitar amplifier brand and I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. Why the sudden urge to go deleting articles? Perhaps there should be more focus on improving accuracy and comprehensiveness of articles. Kingyj 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep Nearly 700,000 Google articles. You can even buy David Eden amp Tshirts ([7]) for goodness sake! Close this Afd asap please. --Dweller 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep because seems eminently notable. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43 5 October 2006 (GMT).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DisplayConfigX

Ad for software, no independent verification of widespread use/notability provided.--Peta 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this reads like an advertisement. Stubbleboy 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I created this article as a place for information I collected on the web on using LCD televisions as computer displays. I also added material to Extended display identification data and Native resolution and created the redirect Pixel perfect. A could have created an article named Display tweaking software (or something similar) and redirected DisplayConfigX and PowerStrip there. However I did not have information on PowerStrip and was not sure what to call this more general article.
  DisplayConfigX is notable, it was mentioned (though not redlinked) in the article Extended display identification data before my edits. Google gives 20,400 hits for DisplayConfigX. Most of these are forum posts where desperate users are searching for vital information they could not find in Wikipedia. (Some of these are even posting their newby questions on Wikipedia talk pages. [8])
  PowerStrip gets 1,360,000 Google hits, but this is Windows software. -- Petri Krohn 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Relisting one more time. I think if there are no more !votes, this AfD should default to no consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of how this software meets the notability requirements in WP:SOFTWARE. Petri, forum posts are not considered reliable sources. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. ♠PMC♠ 22:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete zero results for news [9] and for review searches [10] at CNET; nothing at Slashdot [11]. Such results are unlikely for a notable piece of software.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Arbusto 05:34, 11 October 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. I think the arguments to delete far outweigh the arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Albion Swords

This entry fails to meet the requiremnts of WP:CORP. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Arbusto 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my note here (in reply to a PROD tag put up recently). In short, the company "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." This includes two printed books I know of, a community driven consumer watchdog organization (in the form of individual reviews of purchases) and, while not nearly as significant but important for showing spread and breadth of notability, a number of online collectors and historical martial arts reconstruction based informational forums. From what I understand, the above criteria qualifies it as meeting WP:CORP standards. The article does need significant addition, however, as well as editing for 'advertisement' (as I also noted in the talk section). -- Xiliquiern 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It still looks like an ad. If you have any news articles, a significant number of google hits, press mentions, court mentions, celebrities, etc. that would demonstrate notablity. Arbusto 05:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it still look like an ad? I'd like to fix it, but no one has stated what about it makes it an ad - so far the article consists only of a corporate history and doesn't include any information at all about specific products, testemonials, or anything of that nature that could be considered biased. In fact, the advertisement page actually recommends adding more information about products and services, something I thought would have made it look even more like an ad. Also, I get 655,000 google hits with a search, and 962 with a "unique" search - I don't know what the magic number is for these, but that seems pretty high in general, with the unique search discounting a lot hits based on "Albion (sword name/type) Sword". I suppose even though it meets the criteria specifically as written, it's up to the communities interpretation of what really counts to decide what stays and what goes. Does that criteria page ever get changed or edited - it might be worth it to prevent future complication and misunderstanding.

• Here's an article from the Union Tribunethat makes pretty good mention of them, in the first paragraph as an "eye catcher". -- Xiliquiern 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good start. WP:CORP states multiple news mentions. Arbusto 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Well, it states an article is notable if it meets any of the following criteria "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

• Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
• Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories."

We now have the two books published on historical combat reconstruction giving recommendation and information on the company, as well as members of its staff (Signmund Ringneck's Knightly Art of the Longsword and Knightly Arts of Combat - Signmund Ringneck's Sword and Buckler Fighting, Wrestling, and Fighting in Armor by Lindholm/Svard), that newspaper article, and the online publications of MyArmoury.com as a consumer-led watchdog organization (reviews of personally purchased products to inform others of their quality and worth). As far as I know, none of those fall into the category of reprints of press releases, self-promotion, advertising, or "trivial coverage" (telephone listing, etc) so there are currently 4 verifiable sources of notability. -- Xiliquiern 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to argue over this. I explained what it lacks for me and others to vote keep. Arbusto 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no intent to argue. I just wanted to collectively represent the sources that have been gathered - I actually thought you had overlooked the others and noted only the newspaper article, as you made no mention of the others at all, neither dismissing or confirming them. I now understand your position and hope you can see how I could have been confused and my reasons for clarifying. I am somewhat confused how one can ignore specifically mentioned requirements (published books) but that individualism and freedom of interpretation is what gives Wikipedia its character. -- Xiliquiern 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete After researching I just don't think they are notable enough. Only 960 google hits, none of which are very significant. Stubbleboy 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. As far as notability is concerned, this is a tough call that could go either way, but I'm inclined to be lenient. The article I read didn't seem much like advertising, and was at least crystal clear about what the business sells; that puts it in sharp contrast to mere spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be a simple plug for the company.--Freddulany 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:CORP, nuff said. Eusebeus 15:17, 3 October 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 no consensus. Petros471 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A II Z

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete going to have to agree with nom. No awards, no notable members...it looks like they only had one album. Stubbleboy 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain In light of conversation with Headshaker I am striking my vote of delete. The entry may fail to meet criteria of said WP:BAND, however he has convinced me that the article could be used on an encyclopedic level for future research from the linked page List of NWOBHM artists. --Stubbleboy 11:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The above is missing the point. The statements No awards, it looks like they only had one album are correct (Simon Wright was a notable member) but overlooks the fact that the band was influential within the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal. I suspect that the above two gentlemen are not authorities on this genre of music. If they were, they would not be making their arguments. Indeed, the origin of this disputed article was an attempt to add to and expand upon the list of bands including bands even more obscure than A II Z already cited as significant NWOBHM bands in the List of NWOBHM artists, written by someone (not me) who is an authority. I would add that another NWOBHM band not yet on that list and with even less success was a band called BLITZKRIEG, who no less than Metallica cite as an influence, and who covered their one significant track (also called "Blitzkrieg"). I intend to create an article about Blitzkrieg in the near future. To summarise, my argument is that this band was a significant force within the NWOBHM, which in general launched heavy metal as a major musical genre, and therefore historically represent along with contemporaries a turning point. The article actually needs upgrading by NWOBHM experts, not deletion, which I would view as the censorship of knowledge. I would like to read the views of genuine rock historians on this issue, particularly NWOBHM eyewitnesses and former NWOBHM journalists.

Headshaker 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The band isn't even mentioned on Simon Wright's page, who yes is definetly notable. They were never successful outside of Britain, so how does that make them encyclopedic? If anything mention on Simon Wright's page that he was in the band, but they don't need their own page. Stubbleboy 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Although a google search for "A II Z" music only returns 748 hits, much of that is CD vendors and reviews, so they're at least recognised. However, they completely fail to meet WP:BAND and it says in the article itself that they never acheived major success outside of Britain and that they vere very shortlived, hence my vote. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 06:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that the band is unknown outside of Britain is irrelevant because the NWOBHM was by definition a British phenomenon. The majority of NWOBHM bands never became known outside of that country. Several of those however, of which AIIZ should be included, were genuine originators of the sound which ultimately launched heavy metal as a worldwide genre. If this band is deleted as an article, then by implication the majority of the bands in the section List of NWOBHM artists are not eligible either. I am also therefore wasting my time researching those bands as it was my intention that every one should have their own article. Wikipedia would then have been a full reference for the history of this significant genre, a "one-stop shop" for everything there is to know. Thus there is more at stake here than the issue of this particular band. My understanding of the underlying principle of Wikipedia that it should indeed be such a one-stop shop of knowledge. Am I mistaken in this? Is finer detail to be excluded? If this is the case, which I believe would be tragically short-sighted, an alternative would be to give summaries within List of NWOBHM artists or to link out to external info sources (defeating the point of Wikipedia IMHO). I would be interested in other opinions from authorities of hard rock and heavy metal on this issue and indeed what my next move should be. Headshaker 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In the absence of further comments or votes it would be a travesty if this article was sunk on the opinion of three unknowledgeable individuals. Surely it should be authorities on the genre of NWOBHM who should decide its worth. Headshaker 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please review WP:CIVIL as it is not nice to call people unknowledgeable. So our opinions differ, we are still entitled to them. The title in itself is unencyclopedic. Who is going to search for A II Z?? Stubbleboy 02:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment With regard to the first point, unless you can truthfully say you are an authority on the NWOBHM, the adjective is a statement of fact, not an insult, obviously limited to the context of this specific subject. I clearly never meant to imply you or the other two were unknowledgeable in general. Regarding the second point, yes you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I am equally entitled to challenge the credibility and credentials of your opinion. Regarding the third point, by this invalid argument bands such as UB40, AC/DC and JJ72 would also be "unencyclopedic". Regarding the fourth point, the answer is that people researching the NWOBHM in general would learn of the band at general articles such as List of NWOBHM artists and seek to find out more detail. I would refer you to the above comments as to what I'm trying to achieve. Headshaker 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Simon Wright. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added the pertinent info from this article to Simon Wright. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's nice that you're an expert on NWOBHM, Headshaker, but we can't just take your word for it. Find some more third-party reliable sources for the information and we can talk then. (The reference that's there is good, but we need more than one.) ColourBurst 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a valid point. I generally like to launch articles and let others improve them, but in order to save the article and safeguard my long-term aim for an article on every significant NWOBHM band, I will do some digging. I would like to be given two weeks from this entry to do so. Headshaker 05:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If this article is improved (wikified), I think it merits a spot of its own. It is my belief that any group which has an entry in the allmusic.com guide deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Why would you even use Wikipedia to find information on musical artists if Allmusic had a more comprehensive guide? -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator, Gay Cdn, that they do not meet the criteria in WP:BAND. I see that three specific claims are offered in the article: (1) that they are especially popular amongst NWOBHM fans, (2) that their music is archetypal of the genre, and (3) that NO FUN AFTER MIDNIGHT is a NWOBHM cult classic and much-sought rarity. I think that WP:BAND makes (2) be a proper claim, so I'd be willing to listen if someone could offer third-party confirmation of that fact. But then they would apparently need to be a leading or most popular member of NWOBHM, and I didn't hear that anyone was claiming that. EdJohnston 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I respect the above for attempting to argue the case within the correct context, i.e. the genre of NWOBHM. With regard to the issue of third party confirmation, I've tried to provide this by greatly expanding the references, which now includes one literary source. The defence now rests and makes its closing remarks. I would ask the arbiting administrator to consider carefully the implications of the decision, as it affects the whole purpose of Wikipedia, as either an introductory reference to a field of study or a complete "one-stop shop". It feels wrong that I as an authority and a fan of the NWOBHM should now have to be fighting to defend an article as a result of the actions of someone who is neither. I perceive it as an attack on knowlege, and any attack on even small details of knowledge is to me reprehensible. Perhaps the AfD policy should be reviewed so that AfD's can only be raised and upheld by administrators with a knowledge of the wider subject. Headshaker 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I agree with you, but in this case, with the lack of sources, I know it'll probably be deleted. That's why I'm hoping a Re-direct will emerge instead. At least the info will still be on Wikipedia. If someone comes looking for this band, it will be re-directed to the musician, whose article I've edited to reflect the information about the band. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

---

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

The result was Keep or Merge to Electric Light Orchestra. Whether this article is kept or merged is a debate that can be resolved outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin Walker

Notability/importance in question. This person was a cellist for one year for an orchestra, and then "got married and settled down." This assertion of notability is tenuous at best. NMChico24 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Former member of ELO who have had numerous hits in both the UK and the US. Catchpole 21:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ELO is notable, but that doesn't mean a cellist who played with them for one year is. What other notable projects has he been involved with? I was unable to find much about him outside of the info posted to Wikipedia and mirror sites. --NMChico24 21:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this cellist I have been expanding the ELO members section and feel his contribution to the band is worth mentioning How many cello players do You know had a top ten rock hit?

--The Equaliser 14:09 02 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, NMChico24

• Merge to Electric Light Orchestra. He has no notability outside the group, but it's fine to mention him and give a brief description in the article about the band. GassyGuy 01:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• On a side note, I would recommend the same for a lot of the other band member articles, which as standalone articles appear to be ELOcruft. GassyGuy 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as violating WP:BLP and WP:V, unless reliable sources are provided, in which case merge per GassyGuy. Pan Dan 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Electric Light Orchestra. After searching around, it looks like all this information is easily verifiable (except perhaps that he left because he wanted to raise a family) and probably does not run afoul of WP:BLP (which is essentially a guide to avoiding libel, which is irrelevant here, where no negative claims are made). However, I don't see any indication that Walker is notable outside the ELO. --Hyperbole 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge per Hyperbole -Harmil 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Googled him and see little notability. Glenn4pr 05:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep arent members of notable musical groups automatically notable, regardless of the length of their tenure? Jcuk 07:59, 3 October 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 Merge to individual game articles. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also redirected to Madden NFL which, given the information from Green hornet that this article contains a comprehensive soundtrack listing, makes even more sense. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Madden NFL series soundtracks

• Delete. This is not an article but a list. This information should be posted on an outside website and appear as a footnote or link or other reference within the body of the article on Madden NFL series. It doesn't merit a seperate article. This kind of article creation is causing an excess of articles in a non-encyclopediac mannerGreen hornet 00:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC
• Merge to the individual game articles, as there's no overall connecting theme to the soundtracks, so no reason to have a single article linking them. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Amazon.com. These soundtracks are compilations and there's really no need for this here, for neither it is encyclopaedic, nor Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information.--Húsönd 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge the soundtacks of Madden fail WP:MUSIC, and are redundant to the game articles.-- danntm ^T _C 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to game articles. Ramsquire 00:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into individual game articles as suggested above. I've found Madden's music the past few years to be the low point of the games, but there's no denying the series has some very big-name artists attached to it, and was an industry pioneer in doing so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- although this debate should already have been closed, it appears in the favor of a merge, I did a little research and noticed that Madden_NFL already has, and has had even preceding my delete nomination, the complete soundtrack list for the 2007 edition. So I really have to say that not only is this listcruft, but repetitive listcruft. Green hornet 04:58, 11 October 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. Nufy8 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gangsta Of Love

Notability not established, very few google hits Khatru2 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - although it looks more like a vanity page than a WP:HOAX to my eyes. Googling the subject, "MICHAEL ANGELO JAUREGUI," returns a whopping five unique Ghits. --Hyperbole 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable singer/personality. -Harmil 02:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Húsönd 03:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, note that it has been deleted before (but not under AfD, so speedy G4 does not apply) ColourBurst 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.--Jersey Devil 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This page is a joke.Dudeman1st 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic Power Outage

Not notable event, with very little information. Linnwood 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete At first I thought this article was about the Northeast Blackout of 2003, which was a clearly notable event. This apparently is about a blackout centered in the U.S. South. I'm having trouble verifying most of the information, including the duration of the blackout, whether it was one event or scattered events, and the bit about fatalities. I have doubts about its notability. --Hyperbole 01:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A major weather event that resulted in loss of power and life. I cleaned up the article, removed what could not be cited, and found some additional sources. -Harmil 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A power outage that affects hundreds of thousands of people is likely notable enough.--Húsönd 03:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Widespread breakdowns of modern infrastructure are, in a legitimate sense, disasters, and deserve coverage. Notability is not an issue, verifiability was, but Harmil has done an excellent job at refactoring this article into an appropriate stub with the potential for future expansion as sources permit. Serpent's Choice 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what deserves coverage. We don't need to. Notability is the issue, and something is demonstrably notable if it has been noted. It is newspaper journalists and editors, and historians, that determine whether events "deserve coverage". They decide what is notable. If journalists, historians, and whatnot that are independent of an event publish multiple non-trivial works about that event, then per the primary notability criterion it is notable. Uncle G 14:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much improved, more sources. But there are probably more out there - actually, I know there are. Crystallina 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mark for improvement including references. If it isn't improved in a few months, renominate. *Sparkhead 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Freak weather condition, correctly stubbed as blackout. Merge if there is another article listing freak weather events. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. I'd really like to see a few more User:Cool3/AfD good sources, but this appears just barely notable. Cool3 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very Very Weak Keep due to issues about notability, very little news coverage. Ramsquire 00:14, 4 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Thomas

Profile of candidate to US congress election Nehwyn 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable congressional candidate. We don't need an article for every person who runs for public office. What has this person done besides launch futile congressional campaigns? --NMChico24 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless they have something else to recommend them, such candidates tend to be non-notable until they win a seat. Fails the political section of WP:BIO --Mnemeson 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with above, Non-notable congressional candidate. Article also contains unsourced conspiratorial speculation. — Linnwood 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If he wins this year, then he can have an article. TJ Spyke 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and slight propaganda.--Húsönd 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete There are hundreds of congressional candidates every year that get wikipedia pages. Steve Kagen, who is running for the Eight congressional district in WI, is running for congress for the first time and he gets an article. Jeff Thomas has run several times. The standards for non-notable are too subjective. User Gwjones2 8:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Above account is not 'new' per se, however has only edited to two articles - Russ Feingold (four times, months ago), and Jeff Thomas (nearly sole contributor). Thanks for making us aware of another article that needs deletion - WP:BIO has a section on politicians, and people merely running for office don't qualify --Mnemeson 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I just added several citations and did not have any before, because I did not know how to do it. I reworded the article to make it more balanced but the editing will not appear for some reason. If you edit the article you can see the changes. If you feel that more editing is necessary, please feel free to do so.

• Comment I fixed the formatting so the full version of the article can be seen and debated (you had your / on the wrong side of "ref").--Isotope23 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate if he (hopefully) wins.-- danntm ^T _C 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, good point... this could absolutely be recreated if he wins the election he is running in; he'd meet WP:BIO at that point.--Isotope23 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but remove the speculation. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Thomas in a brief search of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website. The article has the potential for expansion. Minus the speculation, the article is verifiable and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Articles about candidates for national office with verifiable information about them shouldn't be deleted, period (if part of the article is not verifiable, delete that part)--Zantastik talk 16:55, 6 October 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 redirect to 2006 redefinition of planet. – Avi 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy over Pluto's classification

Already covered fully in 2006 redefinition of planet and Definition of planet. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to first if linked in any article. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 01:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above, redirect. — Linnwood 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and/or Merge and create a redirect to Pluto. I quickly skimmed the articles and didn't see anything in this article that wasn't redundant with Pluto and 2006 redefinition of planet. Someone might want to double-check and make sure that's the case, but I'm pretty confident we've got a fully redundant article. --Hyperbole 01:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect (without deletion). JYolkowski // talk 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, it talks about the controversy specifically, the other articles talk about Pluto the body itself and the definition of planet. That info can be shortly summarized there, with a link to this page for people who want to learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs)
  • To the person who placed the above vote: please note it doesn't count unless you sign it. 23skidoo 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't a vote. Uncle G 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Untrue. Definition of planet has a whole section on controversies. Why did you not consider simply adding to it? Uncle G 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Pluto anything not already stated there. That's where people will expect to find this sort of information. 23skidoo 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Pluto. No redirect is necessary. Michael Kinyon 08:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. Redirects are inseparable parts of article merger. Uncle G 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, d'uh, I blanked out for a moment. I've never actually been in favor of having merges and redirects linked, and I subconsciously (unconsciously?) substituted my preference for reality. In any case, I've changed my mind: just Redirect to Pluto. Michael Kinyon 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pluto. This should all be covered at the main article on the planet... er dwarf planet... whatever it is. A link to 2006 redefinition of planet from Pluto basically makes this article unnecessary.--Isotope23 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - salvage any relevant, non-POV material for use in the three articles that already cover this issue and leave a redirect if so desired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if not, then merge with Pluto and 2006 redefinition of planet. 132.205.93.148 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pluto - This is clearly redundant. George J. Bendo 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2006 redefinition of planet. I can't find anything in this that is not already covered in other articles. --Nebular110 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Redirect not needed unless there's some pressing need in an article. Marskell 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't really see much to merge, but someone could merge anything they see as useful. I see no reason to maintain this as a redirect. It's only linked from one article and I seriously doubt anyone will type "Controversy over Pluto's classification" into the search bar. Cool3 15:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the last "The debate continues" Tulkolahten 22:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under the new G11 spam criteria by User:Teke. ColourBurst 05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Deathknot Records

Delete. Indie label that does not meet WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC. Google search ( ^{[Check Google hits]} ) does not bring up anything to substantiate notability - mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Prod tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 01:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also poorly written and SPAM. --Húsönd 03:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - "So far nothing has been released by Deathknot Records,". Spam. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Birds of lebanon

WP:NOT a directory. Surely there's a better location/way to list this information? Also, prod removed without comment. --Alan Au 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep & clean up. List of Kansas birds is a featured list. YellowDot 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to List of Lebanon birds Lists are not always an indiscriminate collection of information, I believe that this one is alright.--Húsönd 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, this one is useful. MER-C 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm willing to speedy keep this, provided someone moves it to List of Lebanese birds. --Alan Au 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists such as these are of obvious use to birdwatchers, and in fact are a standard reference tool. It should be standardized in name and form with similar articles, but that's no grounds to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I moved the page to List of Lebanese birds per the several suggestions above. (List of Lebanon birds redirects.) - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment is there anything special about birds found in Lebanon? I thought that flora and fauna by purely geographic entity is not accepted; I assume that birds do not really respect national boundaries and we may find Lebanese birds in Israel or Syria, and perhaps further afield. Carlossuarez46 02:37, 5 October 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. Nufy8 01:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ebel

Hardly notable German artist. Google shows 670 results for his name, and Amazon reviewer profile comes third among asorted list of other results. YellowDot 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO, the stuff out there on the internet is just various self-promotions. --Daniel Olsen 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'delete per Daniel Olsen DesertSky85451 03:42, 4 October 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 merge and redirect to ABC Unified School District. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bragg Elementary School

Article about a school that fails to assert notability. Reads like a vanity article for the school's student leadership team. Contested prod. MER-C 02:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to ABC Unified School District. It's a non-notable elementary school. TJ Spyke 02:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm an elementary/middle/high school deletionist. Needn't say more.--Húsönd 03:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a description of your personal views and biases, not a justification to delete an article. Alansohn 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, of course it's a description of my personal views and biases. But this is one of the many AfD nominations that do not fall into a specific WP deletion policy. Thus, users' personal views and biases do serve as justification as long as a consensus is reached.--Húsönd 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Again, I appreciate that you are stating your own personal biases. However, this is not relevant to this or any other article. We all deserve an explanation of why this article should be deleted, which might include reading the article, rather than a blanket statement that you think every article for every single elementary, middle and high school should be deleted, regardless of characteristsics and content. Alansohn 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hey, I do read the articles before taking a position, biased or not! :-) And I disagree that my statement was not explanatory. If I'm a school deletionist, it's obviously because I believe that the overwhelming majority of schools are not notable enough to justify inclusion. Anyway, if you prefer a more robotic justification that does not make assertion to my personal views, I may just add: delete per nom (fails to assert notability).--Húsönd 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: You did need say more. "delete per nom (fails to assert notability)" shows that you might have read the article and have issues with whether this specific article belongs on Wikipedia. Your original vote provides no context or justification; as written, you would vote to delete any and every school article, regardless of content or notability. And to pose the question to you, does this mean you object to a merge/redirect, or do you feel that any useful information in this article should be deleted?Alansohn 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I do acknowledge that my first statement might have sounded as if I promptly vote delete on sight. I apologize for that. Replying to your question, I would oppose a merger (I believe that there is nothing relevant about this school that would justify saving content), and would stand as neutral to a redirect.--Húsönd 17:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge at best - generic elementary school. Whether or not there are flower barrels outside the classrooms is... impressively irrelevant. Opabinia regalis 03:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's 1st sentence. Pan Dan 03:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to ABC Unified School District. Not a very promising start for an article, but deletion is destruction. Alansohn 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Alansohn. Catchpole 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons defined at User:Silensor/Schools as well as the proposed version of WP:SCHOOLS. Working on this article as well, feel free to help, there are plenty of sources available. Silensor 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And see response essay at User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with ABC Unified School District. Unlikely to be more than locally notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedars 11:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: just another school. Fram 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The only claim remotely pointing to notability are some very minor awards. In general, while I have some minimal understanding for making highschools notable by default (even if I disagree) there is absolutely no basis for that claim for elementary schools and its continued assertion does not somehow make it true. JoshuaZ 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does this mean you object to a merge/redirect, or do you feel that any useful information in this article should be deleted? Alansohn 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Sjakkalle. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge  ALKIVAR™ 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per the above. --Myles Long 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, locally notable is enough. Do not merge, let the article grow on its own. bbx 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we include locally notable corner stores and retail outlets? Maybe we should have separate articles for each Wal-Mart. JoshuaZ 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge merge merge! Preferably, no schools (aside from the absolute most notable) would have their own pages. The rest would be combined into "school district" pages, which I think is definitely the best way to go (especially for elementary schools). -- Kicking222 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to ABC Unified School District. This is an elementary school, and there is nothing in WP:SCHOOLS that would allow this to be kept (it does not meet any of the criteria). The only "growth" this article will ever see is the addition of an infobox - it will never be more than what it is. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Coredesat (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to ABC Unified. WhisperToMe 23:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, this is an important school. Bahn Mi 00:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Organic growth is nothing but a buzzword and do you care to explain why the school is important? JoshuaZ 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can you explain why you feel that any information about this school is so utterly insignificant that you oppose a merge and insist on delete? Alansohn 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Sure- Because there isn't any evidence that there is anything inherently notable about this school and no reason to bother keeping it at all. Merge implies some reason that we want the information here, I have seen no reason to think that (I don't mind mergers in general and won't mind a merger too much in this case but it would make much more sense to just delete it). And I note that the above does not constitute a response to explain Bahn Mi's assertion which is still unanswered. If you could explain how this school is important I'd appreciate it. JoshuaZ 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: Why attack indviduals for their belief that school articles are worth keeping when they only serve as counterweights to your own deletionist biases? Are you suggesting that you would delete information about this school if it were merged into ABC Unified School District as nonencyclopedic? Alansohn 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You are being ridiculous. First of all, I didn't make this an attack about "individual beliefs" (if anyone you did by responding to my inquiry for logic with an essentially unrelated inquiry. If you had put your inquiry where my deletion comment was that would have made sense, but the placement here seems to be some sort of ad hominem attack, in that the implication seems to be something along the lines of "oh look, he has what might be an extreme view, therefore his request for further information should be ignored" (and before anyone makes noise about it, this is ad hominem in the technical sense, not a personal attack and I'm not claiming otherwise). And no I wouldn't delete such information from the school district article because a small summary of a little info about each school in the district is not intrinsically unreasonable (see my above comment wherein I say that I won't mind a merger too much). I also object to your claims that I have "deletionist biases" - thinking something should be removed when you think it should stay doesn't magically make me habe "deletionist biases" and claiming that is ironic since you are in fact attacking individuals even as you claimed that I was doing so. Finally, none of this is at all relevant to the basic question to which I have not yet recieved an answer- why is this school "important"? JoshuaZ 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: Schools are "importatnt." They certainly are more important than "corner stores and retail outlets". My community taxes me a few thousand dollars a year to run each and every school in our public school system, presumably because society in general feels that schools, and the education they provide, are notable. I had put my comment asking for more details regarding your position, but it was ignored, hence my confusion at your failure to respond while pumping others for details of their justifications. While it doen't mean that all schools merit a Wikipedia article, schools are inherently important. After all, even deletionists went to school somewhere. And if they didn't, it explains a great deal. Alansohn 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment A variety of issues- first I didn't notice your above remark immediately below my initial delete comment (my apologies). Second, as to schools being important- there seem to a number of issues here. One, you may be engaging in the fallacy of confusing a part for the whole, just because a collective is important it does not make every individual in that collective important (to use an analogy, humanity as a whole is important, that doesn't make every human important (or if you have an issue with humans, use roaches ). I'm glad that you agree that "importance" in some sense doesn't mean that each merits an article- but that is then an issue since that is precisely what seems to be what Bahn is trying to argue - that they are somehow important enough to merit articles and no argument for that has been given, as to your gratuitous swipe at "deletionists" (who seem to be some sort of boogeyman more than actual people anyways) possibly not going to school, one has the same problem- in fact, we have all gone to corner stores and retail outlets as well. JoshuaZ 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment I also went to my corner grocery store, but I never graduated from there. It wasn't accredited and the daily lunch menu of Doritos and Coke just didn't appeal to me. I feel -- and many others, including Bahn Mi agree with me -- that there is a significant essential claim to notability possessed by any individual school that any individual corner store (or individual human or individual roach) will never have. While I agree that this does not mean that every school merits a Wikipedia article, and I agree that this particular one does not, I am among the majority here that seems to agree that this information for this comparatively less significant school belongs somewhere and should not be deleted. This is why I chose Merge/Redirect and feel reassured by the majority that agrees with this approach. Alansohn 21:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment Joking aside, simply asserting that there is an essential claim to notability for schools is a statement which doesn't have any backing and neither Bahn nor others seem to have attempted to back it up other than the argument that everyone has been there. Nor does the above in any way distinguish why corner stores would be different (we have articles on many unacreddited schools and I don't see how accreditation is relevant to notability) or if one wants something other than corner stores, one could make the same argument for hospitals (we are all born there) graveyards (we almost all end up there eventually and then stay there) power plants (we all get electricity from them). Simply saying that one is in the majority does not by itself constitute an argument. JoshuaZ 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Comment Society seems to have this thing with education and schools that confers an inherent notability for all schools in general, and each particular one. We are taxed to fund universal public education and required to send our children to school for an education (or to educate them independently). The corner store meets none of those criteria. It's funny that you mention it, but I have created dozens of articles for cemeteries, several articles for hospitals and a power plant or two, and I would argue that hospitals, cemeteries (and even power plants) do have greater inherent notability than your corner store. Again, I do not believe that every school ( or hospital / cemetery / power plant) deserves a Wikipedia article, I do believe that any one of them starts with a leg up on notability than does any individual 7-11. While I acknowledge that being a part of the majority "does not by itself constitute an argument", it is sort of how democracy works and it's pretty much the main factor that the closing administrator will have to base his/her decision on. Alansohn 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Comment I'm in almost complete agreement with the above. Part of the issue here is that you are defending a position different from that of Bahn, indeed a far more reasonable position. I would agree that "hospitals, cemeteries (and even power plants) do have greater inherent notability than your corner store" but I think it is important to establish why this should be so and more to the point when this makes an entity inherently notable or whether it is more a reflection of these entities more easily gaining notability. I suspect from Bahn's comments here and elswhere that when he says that "this is an important school" he has some other meaning, that is, that this school is somehow important and to that I have yet to hear any backing. (I don't incidentally think how we are taxed to fund schools makes the schools somehow notable by themselves, again part for the whole problem). JoshuaZ 03:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above and per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. In an ideal world, that's what we'd do with most elementary and middle school articles. BryanG^(talk) 05:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, content meets all relevant policies. No objection to an appropriate merge. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ABC Unified School District, it has already been merged. Vegaswikian 04:00, 8 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Paige Lydon

Tragic, but non-notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Contested prod. MER-C 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject does not meet WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 02:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do NOT delete. Who says wiki is not a memorial, that this is not important ? Wiki is an evolving thing - what might seem rediculous six months ago will be commonplace tomorrow. The old timers won't like it, but they never do retrogrouch.Cinnamon colbert 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is Wikipedia, not Wiki; and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of articles for every person who ever died, and will remain so. There are other projects whose goals are to have articles on every person ever, such as Wikitree. This project's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. That won't be changed by consensus, or by voting, since it is the fundamental goal of the project. All encyclopaedias have criteria for inclusion of biographies, and Wikipedia is no different. Uncle G 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that people who die, but don't remain so, certainly deserve a Wikipedia article... =) JIP | Talk 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This says Wikipedia is not a memorial. ... discospinster _talk 02:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Tragic death, but Speedy delete per A7. Notability of subject is not even claimed. Pan Dan 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I repeat: say who ? who gets to make these wiki rules , anyway ? If a reasonable number of people like Paige Lydon then THISWP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information has to change.
  • Comment. This is where you can discuss the policies. ... discospinster _talk 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yeesh. Danny Lilithborne 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not free webspace. Opabinia regalis 03:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If you want to argue the policies of Wikipedia, this is not the place. Thanks for bringing attention to the other article, I'll be putting that up for deletion as well. --Daniel Olsen 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the cited policy. Policy is determined by consensus, which is currently that Wikipedia is not a memorial or many other things. If the policy changes, the article can be returned, but not before. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the nominator. Every violent death is a tragic occurence, but if we were to list them all on Wikipedia, we'd get swamped. Paige Lydon is simply not notable enough. JIP | Talk 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Non-notable. Should we list all 100,000+ people who died in the Pacific tsunami or the 1,000+ who died from Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? RickReinckens 23:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and move to Wikitree. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:45, 7 October 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 royale with cheese. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle Royale (Game)

This is not notable at all; some game created by some Toronto kids. WhisperToMe 02:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOTE. Daniel.Bryant 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed NN — Linnwood 02:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- per WP:NFT -- Longhair\^talk 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT. JIP | Talk 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT, of which this is a textbook example. Battle Royale isn't 'very recent', it's an Asian film which was released a few years ago which has had its title pinched. QuagmireDog 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NFT. Battle Royale is a long-standing phrase in the English language and also refers to one of the best films of all time. MLA 16:11, 6 October 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 No consensus, but cleanup. Arguments were equally valid on both sides. If, however, this article isn't cleaned up to address the concerns of the delete voters, this article should probably be re-nominated for AfD in the near future. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Motif of harmful sensation

As far as I can tell, this article is original research. This motif does not appear to be elsewhere attested, and many of the examples of this motif do not match the definition provided. Unless anybody can provide a reference to an article defining and describing this motif, it should probably be deleted. Mdcohn 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The term itself barely appears to rise above the level of a neologism, as attested by this dismal Google search returning mostly blog entries. Furthermore, the article makes no effort to correlate its indiscriminate list with the term using verifiable reputable sources, leading to the inescapable conclusion that this is original research, at best. Serpent's Choice 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR/neologism, and all I can find on Google is Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and sites for buying looking up sample term papers for reference use only. Opabinia regalis 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While this article could be improved, the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" does in fact have a standard meaning in folklore and narratology, where it does in fact refer generally to the harmful effect of unpleasant experiences such as seeing Medusa's head, reading the Necronomicon or watching The Ring. What's there now could be improved, but it's a reasonable start. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The very reason that I recommended this article for deletion was because I tried searching for a definition and explanation for the term in order to clarify the article but could not find anything to suggest that this was a standard term with a standard meaning (everything I found on Google seemed to be derivative of this very article, and some quick searches on JSTOR and Google Scholar yielded nothing at all). Indeed, I actually like the idea of the article very much, and I would be delighted if, as you say, this is an accepted term with an accepted definition. The suggestion that you make further down that the Aarne-Thompson motif index be consulted is an excellent one, and I will try to go down to the university library and do that later in the week if I'm still in town. So far, though, I haven't found any evidence that suggests that term wasn't invented by the article's original author. - Mdcohn 19:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • To follow up, I did consult Thompson’s motif index, and there is no equivalent category that I can find. There are, for example, entries for the Looking Taboo (C300-399), which includes such cases as the sight of a deity and the Lady Godiva incident; the Death Giving Glance (D2061.1.2.1), which includes tales of gorgons, basilisks, and a reference to the evil eye (which, in my opinion, is not a case of the Motif of Harmful Sensation); and Extraordinary Madness (F1041.8), which includes madness from seeing an ugly ogre, madness from hearing a prophetic voice, madness from seeing a beautiful woman, etc. But as far as I can tell there is no motif or class of motifs that generally refers to harm caused by perception. The best that I can think of is the nebulous F1041 group, which deals with extraordinary physical reactions. Most of the examples in the Wikipedia article would fit here, but there is a great deal that is unrelated. This, of course, is only proof that the Motif of Harmful Sensation isn’t attested in and has no direct analog in Thompson (at least that I could find). I will try to continue looking, though. - Mdcohn 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Though I enjoy this article (and have edited it in the past), I agree with the nominator that the term "motif of harmful sensation" is a neologism, and the article is an example of original research. The original author has pointed out these issues on the article's talk page (notice also the old peer review for this article), with no real resolution. Granted, this is a pretty well-researched article and does provide a useful neologism -- however, neologisms are unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not contain original research. If one could find a term or concept currently in use that is equivalent to "the motif of harmful sensation," and create a new Wikipedia entry for this non-neologistic concept, then the article could be salvaged, as this new entry could probably incorporate much of this article's current content. However, until that time, our duty (sad though it may be) is to delete this article as original research. Best, Docether 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification. Though the original nominator correctly points out that "many of the examples of this motif do not match the definition provided," that's not really pertinent to discussions of article deletion. A good edit of the article could clear up these problems ... however, you'd still end up with a well-edited article based on original research, which is sufficient for its deletion. -- Docether 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If it turns out that the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" had its origin here, it certainly has gotten around since then. Next time I am at the big library, I will check and see if there is anything in the Aarne-Thompson motif index that this might be retitled as. It might also be profitably related to Frazer's Golden Bough discussion of taboos, the famous "Not to touch the Earth, not to see the Sun" line springs into mind. It may be that all that is needed is a change of title, perhaps to something like Taboo in folktale and literature. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If you believe that the motif of harmful sensation is a subgenre of the taboo, then you may want to consider proposing that this article be merged with the article on taboo. Personally, I believe that the motif of harmful sensation, as defined in the article, is explicitly separate from the taboo "motif". To avoid clogging up this thread, let's take that discussion to the article's talk page. Why don't you start a section there on this subject? I think it would be a useful discussion, and might clear up some of the arguably overbroad inclusions in the article itself. -- Docether 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, if you can find a verifiable source (preferably offline) that uses the term "motif of harmful sensation" as a term of art/science, that would be great. Then we could use that source's definition of the motif as a starting-point for a less-OR rewrite of this article, and I'll happily change my vote to keep. -- Docether 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While the concepts this article discusses may be sound in some form, the article as it exists appears to refer to a neologism and is definately original research. Indrian 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A fascinating and well researched article. The demand for deletion seems to stem from the title being a neologism. The notion of harm from looking at or hearing something is obviously not OR. By that standard many articles have neologisms as titles. The article gives many instances of fiction or legends where harm comes from seeing or hearing something. The Mark Twain "Punch conductor, punch with care" story cited has been a favorite all my life. So do not read the title as a neologism, read it as the title of an article! There should be a Wikipedia somewhere (Deleteopedia?) for excellent articles like this when they get the boot from wikipedia by overzealous deletionists. I have saved a copy of it for future reference, but it should not be necessary for anyone to do so.Edison 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And just how can you call this article well-researched when not one source is used to justify the name given to the article or the definition ascribed to said term? All I see is a user-defined term and a bunch of randomly selected occurances that do not all fit the definition. You also have completely misunderstood the reasons people are asking for deletion. To say that the concept of harm coming from seeing or hearing something is not original research would be correct. To say that this concept has the precise definition suggested by the article title and body and that this definition is accepted by the academic community without sources to back that up is original research until proven otherwise. At least one user has attempted to find proof that this is a valid term of art and failed. Either provide a reputable source or two that shows this term is valid and generally accepted or save comments like "well-researched" for an article that deserves it. Indrian 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. It could use a tag requesting citations, but I don't see that as a reason to delete this article. I find the article interesting, whether or not the title might be a neologism. .AuburnPilot^Talk 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it’s interesting, but the very problem is that there are no citations to be found, as far as I can find. Google searches, searches on academic databases, and my own research with the Thompson Motif Index have yielded nothing. How can we go about defining this term when it has no academically accepted definition, and what authority do we turn to when we wonder whether the definition is correct or whether an example used in the article is truly an instance of this motif (as you can see, there is some small debate over some of these things on the talk page)? We are supplying our own definition, and that is certainly original research (as interesting as our own definition may be). Mdcohn 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is precisely why we have templates like {{references}}. It's better to request citations than simply delete an article because it doesnt have them. If deleting articles without citations was a good idea, I would have nominated Alabama a couple weeks ago. Instead, I added the {{references}} template and began adding some citations. Within a few days, other editors did the same. AuburnPilot^Talk 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is not that the article doesn’t have any citations; the problem is that no references or citations for this motif seem to exist. Indeed, the article’s original creator long ago admitted that he invented this term because he didn’t know what to call it, and nobody has ever been able to provide any references to any kind of literature regarding what it should actually be called and therefore what the definition should actually be. In fact, there was a peer review over two years ago to address this problem, and it failed to provide any references, citations, or conclusions on the subject. It is not as though this is a well-established idea and some references are missing – this term and its definition were invented because the original author was unsure about what to call it, and as far as anybody has said there is no attested motif that would be a good analog. Mdcohn 04:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the primary arguments being advanced is that the phrase "motif of harmful sensation" is not already in use. I suggest that while the premise may be correct, the conclusion is misguided. Suppose there were two words that described concepts suitable for a Wikipedia article; each word has a long history of usage in the literature and so there is no question of either being a neologism. They also happen to be describing the same concept. Do we create independent articles, each one on a different word for the same concept? No, and this is my point: Wikipedia has articles on things, not the labels of those things. Nobody may have yet come up with a good word for the common factor between the Gorgons and the shriek of the mandrake and the Zahir and Monty Python's joke-warfare sketch, but that does not mean that there is no subject there. As for whether it would be original research to collate extant examples of that common factor, I think insisting on that interpretation would be at the very least pressing the letter of the rules to the detriment of their spirit; it strikes me as not unlike protesting an article on Celebrities who have had wardrobe malfunctions on the basis that, even though reliable sources can be found verifying that each celebrity on the list meets the criteria, no reliable source can be found that previously placed all those celebrities on such a list. (There does seem to be original research in the article, as well as a number of examples of sensation that is not harmful but led to harm, such as Actaeon being blinded, not by peeping at Artemis, but by Artemis as punishment for peeping. These are cleanup matters, though, not valid arguments for deletion.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 11 October 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 06:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce, Jr.

I aborted a PROD of this article and have escalated it to AFD since the creator of the article is currently blocked and I assume would have contested the PROD if he could have. The article is about the son of a US president, who died in infancy at the age of 3 days. I assume the creator of the article would assert this baby is notable since he was the son of a president. A note in the article about the president seems reasonable to me, but an entire article about a baby who died 3 days after birth seems ludicrous to me. I'm hoping bringing this article to AFD helps convince the creator of this article that deleting this article reflects a consensus opinion. Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete While I don't think it's fair that people born into royal familes get articles just for being born, this person never did anything notable. Being related to someone notable doesn't automatically make you notable. TJ Spyke 02:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Royalty is considered innately notable largely due to historical encyclopedic precedent. That privledge does not extent to other famous personages, including US presidents, especially in the total absence of any possible further content for the article at hand. Serpent's Choice
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. - Triviaa 20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge anything not already mentioned on the pages for his parents, and redirect this to the father's article. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• merge and redirect this article should be merged with either of the two articles on his parents Franklin Pierce or Jane Pierce. Also the dates for his birth and death are incorrect in this article. I would have to double-check Internet sources on his father, but I am pretty sure he was born in the late 1830s or early 1840s. --TommyBoy 00:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Following up on my earlier comments, I have confirmed that he was born in 1836, and added a source for that info --TommyBoy 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. A clear cut failure to be notable per WP:BIO. Also, WP:NOT says that we are not a genealopgy archive or a memorial, both of which count against this. GRBerry 22:36, 5 October 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. I'm applying my admin's discretion here and I certainly hope I am not going to be accused of making a rash decision (though, of course, I would welcome a message on my talk page followed by a deletion review if anyone disagrees with my closure). There are a couple of concerns or factors in this AfD that led me to this decision, and I lent a lot more weight to people who !voted after the article was written down to a regular stub (at around 06:20 on 3 October 2006):

1. The original author asked that this article be deleted. While not the ultimate deciding factor in any deletion of an article, this is still A factor.
2. Second to the first point, the original author, and indeed, some other !voters, thought that the information is wrong.
3. Is there more than one Infotech Strategies? Perhaps, and if so, a disambig page would be useful, but in the meantime, it doesn't help to have a mish-mash of information on two or more companies residing in the article history, especially when the information on these two or more companies are merged to appear as one.
4. Regardless of whether the information is correct, this company might not be notable enough for an article. There are arguments for and against keeping this article solely on the basis of notability, but most of the arguments are that this company is not notable enough.

All these are the reasons I decided to close this article as delete. I have no prejudice against the recreation of this article if it turns out that there are two or more companies with this name, and these two or more companies are all notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Infotech Strategies

• Hello everyone, there seem to have been some misunderstanding. I began the page as a project and the information currently on the page is completely wrong. I would like to delete the entire page because the information currently on is incorrect. Most of the people listed with the company where never employees of the company, and info tech never took over any corporate entities. The company is also not a lobby group. I apologize for the whole mix up, and I would grateful if this page could be deleted. I am trying to avoided damaging a good company image with faulty information.:- KHNY 3, October 2006 EST

Blatant advert. -- RHaworth 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten into a regular stub. Zocky | picture popups 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Strong Delete ummmmk. Danny Lilithborne 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Infotech Strategies is a notable company and therefor should staySkynet1216 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What a convincing argument. I'm changing my vote. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Creator's only contributions. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't I already speedy this.... - obviously delete, advert -- Tawker 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I-have-to-jump-on-the-bandwagon-before-it's-too-late delete per nom. Daniel.Bryant 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Weak Keep after it was made into an extended stub, and minus the advert. Daniel.Bryant 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't feel that its unsalvageable spam(hence not 'speediable'), but its junk and I'd be left with a super-stub article since nothing is externally sourced. They look to be lobbists though,[12] but the only news on them I could find were press releases. Their section detailing them as such reads so slantedly positive its dangerous. Kevin_b_er 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Precious reliable sources are here. Enough to warrant keeping this article. After searching a long time, I finally found the bizjournals source, only to have it already be there, along with some profiles of the people involved. Was worried last night after some searching I would never see the verifiability for them, but not a problem anymore. --Kevin_b_er 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Quite a big lobbying group, if I'm reading [13] correctly, but the prose needs to be improved. Zocky | picture popups 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed, but the fact remains I can't find anything besides some basic numbers on their lobbying counts, (outside of their PR releases, of course). I'd love to find some nice reliable sources for them, but so far I've had tough luck. Kevin_b_er 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be pumping millions of dollars into lobbying US politicians and getting their clients on national TV networks. I think such activities are significant. Of course it would be best if we can dig up more data on them, but I think we should at least tellg readers that "Information and Communication Technology consulting firm" means "lobbying group". Zocky | picture popups 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Destroy. Ryūlóng 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If this is in fact a lobbying group that describes itself as a consultancy business, that may well make it notable. The original author attempted to blank the objectively written version, and removed the AFD notice. (I put back.) What's there now is free from advertising tone and seems written in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also protected the rewritten version of the page, which has been repeatedly blanked by User:KHNY, the initial author of the spammy version. The closing admin can of course undo this if that is warranted at the time. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not like they're doing something illegal or unusual. Lobbying groups usually call themselves things like this. Has the original author left any messages why they are unhappy with the current version? Zocky | picture popups 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I left a message at the user's page explaining the situation, and since I see no reason to expect further problems (we are talking about a serious company, not a bunch of thugs), I've unprotected the page. Zocky | picture popups 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hello everyone, there seem to have been some misunderstanding. I began the page as a project and the information currently on the page is completely wrong. I would like to delete the entire page because the information currently on is incorrect. Most of the people listed with the company where never employees of the company, and info tech never took over any corporate entities. The company is also not a lobby group. I apologize for the whole mix up, and I would grateful if this page could be deleted. I am trying to avoided damaging a good company image with faulty information.:- KHNY 3, October 2006 EST

• Might there be two "Infotech Strategies"? It is a rather vague and uninformative name to give a business, and that unfortunately seems to be the fashion these days. If there are two, the lobbying business is much likelier to be the one worthy of an article. At any rate, a consensus seemed to be developing to delete the networking or consultancy business and keep the lobbying business article. If there are in fact two, the article needs to be revised to say so, use the correct logo. If both have some evidence of notability (WP:CORP) so that both should be kept, and a neutral, encyclopedia style article (no advertising) can be written about yours, this is a job for a Wikipedia:disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• No I'm sure they're the same. "We help our clients develop legislative and regulatory agendas to support their public policy and business goals, develop long-term relationships with policymakers, and participate in the development of government policy at the highest levels."[14](emphasis mine). How is this not lobbying?

"Efforts to influence legislation by influencing the opinion of legislators, legislative staff and government administrators directly involved in drafting legislative proposals"[15] or "Lobbying"[16]. They're a public relations and lobbying firm. Of course, its hidden behind a lot of weasel and buzzwords. The fact that the company has spent millions speaks for itself. The article you wrote KHNY even included "Outreach to Decision Makers" What decision makers are we talking about here? "Infotech Strategies also help’s its clients develop long-term relationships with policy makers" is probably the most clear cut indication of the company's intention to lobby, just on behalf of companies that hire them. --Kevin_b_er 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The lobby thing is not the issue. The issue is does the information posted accurately portray the company? I just took a look their website and it all about technology and education. The company’s client list on their website does not include the clients listed on the posting. Are there two Infotech strategies?

• Delete. The creator of the page, KHNY, is now asking that it be deleted. Because of WP:SPAM and the tone of the article, I would have suggested that it be deleted in any case. This group is hardly so important that the encyclopedia is incomplete without it. Especially when it's so hard to verify the information. EdJohnston 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. KHNY created this page, and he/she says that the information is full of errors, now he/she wants it removed....then lets remove it. Why risk Wikipedia image with "what maybe wrong information" or "two different companies" I edited the page because the only correct information I see is the company's name and locations
  • Actually, the whole article (now that I reverted your changes) is fully sourced, and it seems clear that there is a company called Infotech Strategies that the article accurately (and surely incompletely) describes. This discussion tries to determine whether the company that this article describes is something that the encyclopedia should write about, nothing more. Zocky | picture popups 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note to the closing admin: Many of the delete votes above are for the initial version of the article, out of which only the infobox and one sentence remain. Zocky | picture popups 23:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Now if the niche is a firm that employees well connected ex politicos, then maybe. Just why is this notable? Vegaswikian 04:05, 8 October 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

H.C. Matthew Sim

Diplomat and author. Looks like an autobiography so I would like a notability check. -- RHaworth 03:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:BIO due to multiple reviews on his work. (I'm responsible for the de-prod and de-speedy, but not the article creator.) zephyr2k 03:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is more like an "about the author" blurb than an encyclopaedia article. Just being co-author of books that have been reviewed. The article cites no sources and so none of the claims are verified. Thryduulf 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Hes abviously an author, which gives him notability, but its correct that it looks like an autobiography and not an encyclopedia article. I say delete if it cant be rewritten. Aspensti 17:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.able 07:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity, seems to fail WP:BIO --Storkk 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC). Is wholly unverifiable, barely meets WP:BIO (as a "co-author" - whose contributions to "his" works are of unknown weight), it is doubtful it will ever grow beyond a stub, as long as we try to keep it verifiable. --Storkk 12:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified (auto)bio. Deizio talk 15:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, to quote User:Deiz, 'unverified (auto)bio.' Benn Newman 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Keep Benn Newman 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep wake up people: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" are noteworthy enough for articles on them, quote taken from WP:BIO. An article needing cleanup is not the same thing as an article needing deletion. Am I missing something here? Noroton 01:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It no longer needs major cleanup. I've done it. More sourcing would be better, but as it stands now it's a short, stubbish article with more references than most Wikipedia articles.Noroton 02:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep per Noroton.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, no significance or notability, crystal ball, etc.. Teke ^(talk) 04:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The GREAT Britain Show

Seems like crystal ball-ism as it stands now. Not especially notable, no external sources provided. Crystallina 03:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as web content which fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:22, 3 October 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whitstone school

No assertion of significance - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Húsönd 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Schools. Catchpole 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools as well as the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. I am currently in the process of refactoring this article, please feel free to lend me a hand. Silensor 07:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and see User:JoshuaZ/Schools as the relevant response. JoshuaZ 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Silensor Jcuk 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:SCHOOL. There are many hundreds of similar articles about schools. If we delete this one we would really have to go after them all. --Dave 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- That may be true, but precedent is no reason to keep. If you feel that by deleting this one we have an obligation to clean up other articles and merge them to their districts, then that means the community will just have to spend more effort on the topic. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 11:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Xe actually cited WP:SCHOOL as the reason to keep. This article cites two sources. The first of those definitely qualifies as a non-trivial published work. Uncle G 12:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Standard school inspection reports are trivial. JoshuaZ 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wrong. They are usually extensive, and this 33-page report certainly is. You apparently do not understand what a trivial published work is. For an example of what a trivial published work actually is, read this, which is just a directory listing. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Wrong. The extensiveness of the report is irrelevant, and you are confusing "extensive" with "nontrivial". Since an Ofsted report, as far as I am able to tell, is made on almost every registered school in its purview, they are not useful for distinguishing noteworthy schools from the alternative. JoshuaZ is correct. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. And if there are hundreds of similar articles, let's delete those, too. Shimeru 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Appears to be an independent school. Merge with the town (Shepton Mallet) if feasible, otherwise keep per the past precedent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Cedars 11:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no nontrivial mainstream sources provided. Additionally, no assertion of significance. --Kuzaar^-T-C-
  • That rationale is clearly not based upon reading the article, which cites one source that is a 33-page document about the school, that is an in-depth report on things ranging from the school's Young Enterprise program to its deficiencies in the teaching of art, music, and drama. Moreover, lacking assertions of significance is not a deletion criterion for anything except certain specific categories of articles, which does not include articles on schools. It is good that you are addressing the sources. But please actually read them. And please familiarize yourself with our deletion policies and criteria. Uncle G 12:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The info sourced from the Ofsted report appears to be in breach of Crown Copyright - which requires that all extracts quoted are reproduced verbatim without adaptation - the race percentages have been adapted. Catchpole 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's ridiculously weak argument that is bordering upon outright silly. Repeating a percentage figure is not making an extract of a document and quoting it. Data are not subject to copyright. If such reaching is your only way way to criticise the sources on the article's subject, then please consider whether your opinion actually has any foundation at all. Uncle G 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I was just surprised I didn't find your 99.6% figure in the report, then saw you had gotten your calculator out. I wasn't criticising the source, merely the use of the source in the article. It does seem strange that the most noteworthy thing you chose to include in the article - out of all 33 pages - is the ethnicity of the pupils rather than the average spent on each pupil from April 2002 to April 2003 was 3,025UKP or that 'provision in IT is very good. Catchpole 14:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not my figure, and I didn't write the article. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I will thank you not to speculate on my analysis of sources. I do not and have not found Ofsted reports nontrivial, nor the coverage provided by them to have been significant to assert notability at any point. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Analysing sources is what we do here at Wikipedia. It's a fundamental part of the task of writing an encyclopaedia. If you don't want people to point out where your analyses are wrong, or clearly not based upon reading the sources concerned, then Wikipedia is not for you. Moreover, any editor who finds 33-page documents on subjects to be trivial has a completely skewed idea of what constitutes a source for an encyclopaedia article. The notability criteria on WP:SCHOOL describe what the triviality criteria are actually aimed at, which are sources that are simple name+address directory entries with no real meat to them. A 33-page detailed study clearly is not a directory entry. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • How you managed to construe my concern with the Ofsted report on this school (which, as far as I know, are made on every registered public school under their purview, and thus is not a helpful factor for determining which schools have received significant mainstream attention) for a concern that the report was not extensive enough, I do not understand. It's great that an entity had a job to report on this school, but I do not find that sufficient to assert that this school has the thinnest claim to notability because of it. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And indeed, please delete all similar articles as well. The "cricket ground" line exemplifies for me the trivialities needed to fill such articles beyond directory length. Fram 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you, too, actually read the cited sources and consider what material they have available for expanding the article. Uncle G 12:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't consider the school inspection report a sufficiently important mainstream source. Every school has one, and this does not distinguish this school from any other. This one clearly states that this school is average in almost all aspects. In fact, most companies, shops, clubs, ... have numerous official reports (work inspection,; food inspection, whatever): would you include articles on all these entities if those were made public as well? If all you have are official, obligatory inspection reports, then you have nothing of value on its own (though they can of course be used as additional info on notable schools, if needed). I don't think this school is (or for that matter, most schools are) notable, so I have no interest in expanding the article. And if you need to expand the article by including that an equally non notable local cricket club uses the school cricket ground as their training ground, then that is for me a reason more to delete it, not a reason less. As for deletion policy and criteria, one of the criteria is WP:NOT an indiscrimante collection of information, which states that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries". Schools obviously are one of those classes, and to me they do fall under WP:NOT. These discussions are an ongoing attempt at consensus forming, and implying that one cannot vote delete because there is no consensus for it is circular reasoning. There is no policy or guideline that says schools should never bne deleted, and there is none that says that schools should always be kept. Applying more strict interpretation of WP:NOT or WP:CORP for schools is the right of the individual editor and the only way to perhaps, one day get a consensus by precedent. For the moment, there is no such consensus and no clear precedent (I have seen schools deleted, kept, redirected, ...). Fram 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Your thinking is confused and erroneous. What is necessary to consider about sources when writing an encyclopaedia article is not their importance, but their provenances and their depths. (Some very confused people talk about "notable sources" and "important sources". There are no such things. It is subjects to which the two distinct concepts of notability and importance apply, not sources.) A 33-page document produced by someone who is not only independent of the school but officially so, has depth and is clearly not sourced from the school itself. Your argument that companies have reports like this is also wrong. They do not. (If you wish to demonstrate otherwise, please point to the reports for Conflict Computer Limited (AfD discussion). You will find that you cannot.) Not even all schools have such things written about them.

        You are also abusing "not an indiscriminate collection of information", a criterion that is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is not a simple synonym for "I think that this should be deleted.", as it is sometimes abused to be.

        if you need to expand the article by including that an equally non notable local cricket club uses the school cricket ground as their training ground — The information is verifiable, and encountered when I looked to see what sources existed for the school. If you think that editors should not include verifiable information that they come across, and cite their sources when including it in articles, you have a very odd idea of how to write a verifiable encyclopaedia. If you think that it has a bearing upon notability, then you should re-read WP:SCHOOL (which makes no mention of cricket clubs) and this discussion (where you yourself were the first person to mention it). Please don't use straw men.

        implying that one cannot vote delete because there is no consensus for it — Please don't start the "stuck record" arguments over schools again, and please don't use yet more straw men. You were doing quite well in addressing the sources, which is the proper study of encyclopaedists, until you reached that point. The criteria for schools are WP:SCHOOL, whose primary criterion is the primary notability criterion that focusses discussion upon the provenances and depths of the sources that exist. This article has at least one source of suitable depth and provenance. You have yet to show that that source is unsatisfactory for the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia article. The only arguments raised against it so far have been your argument that other such sources exist to support other articles, which is clearly fallacious, and Catchpole's ridiculous argument that one cannot use government published documents as sources for encyclopaedia articles because numbers are copyrighted. Uncle G 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

        • The notability criteria for schools are not WP:SCHOOL, which is only a proposed guideline. The notability criteria for schools are undefined and hence up to the interpretation of the individual editors. Your criteria may well be WP:SCHOOL, mine aren't. As for the cricket quote, I did not say that it was unverifiable, just that it is a prime example of things that can be verifiable (and thus correct wrt WP:V, WP:OR and in this case WP:NPOV), and still of such extreme obscurity that they are very much not of encyclopedic value. Probably all results of all matches some team of the school ever played can be sourced to some local newspaper, but I don't think that means that they are of any value to the encyclopedia. This is just a prime example of why notability is a concept that should be a guideline. Other points you raise: it aren't only confused people that talk about important and notable sources: WP:V (a policy) says that "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The next paragrahp even talks about "reputable" sources. To parapharse this as "notable" or "important" sources seems not so confused to me. By the way, your sources can, according to WP:RS, be considered primary sources, which are not allowed as the main sources for an article. Certainly the "cricket" source is, on top of being about a very non notable subject, clearly unacceptable as a main source of information according to WP:V and WP:RS. Fram 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • It is confused. Please learn the difference between "reputable" and "notable". And, again, please don't use straw men. The only person who has suggested that the cricket source is the main source of information, indeed the only person to have raised the subject, is you. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't use straw men, and repeating it won't make it so. I raised the subject of the cricket ground because you introduced it in the article. I suppose that means that you find this info important, not trivial, and that you consider the source a reputable third-party source. Discussing a source you introduced in the article is not a straw men, as it does not misrepresent your position. A for your question on Conflict Computer Limited: talking about strawmen... An article about a company that is already deleted and that may well have been a hoax. Anyway, I have given below links to reports for nurseries, daycare centers, and donut sellers. Fram 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, with its 750 students it is notable to the society of Shepton Mallet . bbx 13:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are conflating notability and importance. Notability is not fame nor importance. The notability criteria for schools are WP:SCHOOL, and to satisfy the primary criterion there need to be multiple non-trivial published works about the school from sources that are independent of the school. Please address sources and the notability criteria, rather than making uncited and undemonstrated bare assertions of importance. Uncle G 13:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Catchpole. Not notable, nor does it meet WP:SCHOOL since inspection reports are trivial. Does not in any way assert notability (and no Uncle G, notability is not a default status). JoshuaZ 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't use straw men. No-one has said that it is. Arguing that a 33-page detailed published report on a subject is trivial is quite clearly a fallacy. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Re: the arguments above about whether the gov't report demonstrates notability: (1) With respect to Uncle G, the existence of sources of depth and provenance clearly pertains to verifiability of deep and provenant facts, but not so clearly to notability of the subject. To assert that the existence of deep and provenant sources automatically implies notability presupposes a particular outcome of a long-running and unresolved general debate among Wikipedia editors. (2) With regard to the question in this case of whether the gov't document establishes notability: As Uncle G writes in his essay, "A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable." The existence of gov't published documents about a school doesn't show that the world at large deems the school notable, just that people care about the quality and specifics of institutions of gov't education, hence the gov't mandates reports on schools. Likewise, the gov't issues reports on local businesses (for example health inspection reports on restaurants), but these reports don't imply that local businesses are notable. Pan Dan 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This idea that local businesses have reports is simply wrong. Once again, I challenge you to cite such a report on Conflict Computer Limited (AfD discussion). You will find that you cannot. Your argument, being built upon that false premise, is fallacious. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't say that my argument is built on that premise. Essentially I'm saying that the burden is on your side to explain why this (or any) primary school is notable. And the gov't report, even if it is deep and provenant, doesn't show notability. I would argue that in general, one has to look at the raison d'etre of the source, as well its content, to determine notability of the subject. In this case, as I explain above, the raison d'etre of the gov't report is not that anybody, or the world at large, considers the school notable. Contrast the mandatory gov't report with a hypothetical press report that Whitstone School, say, consistently produces kid geniuses. That press report would be issued because an editor would make a judgment that the school's feat makes it sufficiently notable. So the issuance of such a report might show notability. Not so the mandatory gov't report. Pan Dan 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge into article about the school district or the town.Edison 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — RJH (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's a normative statement about what you want to have happen not a reason for keeping. JoshuaZ 21:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow it some growth.  ALKIVAR™ 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor, Dave, RJH, Alkivar, et al. --Myles Long 20:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same goddamned reasons as always. -- Kicking222 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On behalf of God, I would like to clarify that His Supreme Beingness has endorsed the deletion of this and other schools not asserting any significance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, this article meets the proposed WP:SCHOOLS. Bahn Mi 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Organic growth is a buzzword not an actual argument. And WP:SCHOOLS is a proposal without any real consensus behind it. JoshuaZ 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep school, as settled. --Vsion 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Repeated no consensus, a handful of keeps, and a few deletes hardly is "settled". JoshuaZ 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this article is interesting and important to surrounding communities Yuckfoo 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Inspection reports are not trivial. They are substantial pieces of work, and the British government spends a lot of money on inspection teams who evaluate schools and write the reports. As well, the people who make funding and hiring/firing decisions pay a lot of attention to the Ofsted reports. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You are mischaracterizing the opposition. "Trivial" is not used to imply that no work goes into such reports, but rather that they are not sufficient "independently published sources" on which to hang an article. I'm inclined to agree -- are we going to develop articles on all restaurants because of government-mandated health inspections? Average schools should no more be placed into an encyclopedia than average businesses or average individuals. Shimeru 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The report cited here is independent of the school itself because such reports are required, by law, to be independent. "Trivial" in WP:SCHOOL is specifically dealing with the depth of material in the source. Directory entries are trivial. 33-page reports that discuss the subject in detail are not.

      are we going to develop articles on all restaurants because of government-mandated health inspections? — Your argument is based upon the false premise that all restaurants have the same sort of things published about them as what is cited in this article about its subject. That is not the case. (Once again, please cite such a report for Conflict Computer Limited (AfD discussion) if you wish to demonstrate otherwise.) Your argument is fallacious and falls apart from its foundations upwards.

      I suggest that editors who have made the "a 33-page detailed government report is trivial" argument ask themselves why xyr convictions have caused xem to adopt the patently wrong position of arguing that lengthy and detailed government-published documents on subjects do not constitute sources for encyclopaedia articles. If one's convictions take one to a point where one is making an argument that would clearly not hold water for any other subject, such as articles on drugs (which reference government reports from approval agencies) or towns (which reference government census reports), then it is time to question one's convictions. Uncle G 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

      • Comment The report may be technically independent of the school, but the fact that it is required by law is what makes it trivial as a source. If every school has such a report, then its existence says nothing in particular about the noteworthiness of the school. If the school is noteworthy for other reasons, however, then the report may indeed contain useful and relevant information for the article. I don't believe that was in dispute. On another note, all restaurants (in many countries) do have information "independently" published (by government agencies) about them, along similar lines as this (though perhaps not in quite as much depth). I do concede that Conflict Computer Limited probably does not have such health inspection reports, however, as it doesn't sound like a restaurant to me. Why you think that fact is relevant to my example, I couldn't say. Shimeru 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the school is found to be notable enough to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia, then the school inspection report is a useful source for some information. But to use an obligatory inspection report, made for every school in many countries (and, while not so often made public, made for many companies in many countries as well), as evidence that the school is notable is incorrect. When some source is produced for a very large number of similar subjects, that source becomes trivial as an indication of notability. Similar inspection reports are made for daycare centers and nurseries (see e.g. these pdf's[17], [18]. I can write a sourced, verifiable, NPOV (but short) article on L'Oven Fresh Donuts based on e.g. their five food inspection reports I can find here[19], and the same goes for many thousands of similar places. I could make quite a long historic overview of the reports of e.g. the specific Macaroni Grill in Denver (not the whole chain) from reports like this one[20] (29 reports in 6 years, this has to be important![21]). Does this source makes the subject notable? Of course not. So, until now, the only claim to notability this school has is that the local cricket club trains on a school field. Apart from that, it is a completely average school, as indicated by the inspection report. And so, this article should be deleted if you feel that schools must have some notability to be kept, and should be kept if you feel that all schools are notable. And that, obviously, is why I have supported a deletion. Fram 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This involves the word "trivial" in the proposal, which means "worthless" or "without value". When it comes to writing an encyclopedia, these inspection reports are of little value. However, due to their breadth, OFSTED reports are of significant value towards writing an encyclopedia. Because schools are written about in OFSTED reports, they are "notable", which literally means "worthy of writing about". JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Trivial" does also mean "commonplace", "ordinary", which perfectly fits the Ofsted reports: they are made for every school and even for some non-schools, so they are commonplace.[22]. And a commonplace source which says that the subject is average on top can hardly be used to show that something is notable, which is also "prominent, important or distinguished": this school is neither of the three.[23] 05:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mandatory OFSTED reports are trivial so far as schools are concerned. Not having one would be something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edgecution 19:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable and meets WP:SCHOOL. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Does it? WP:SCHOOL states "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." I don't think any such coverage has been shown, or we likely wouldn't be here. So is it likely to gain such coverage? Why? Shimeru 05:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. Having reviewed the excellent debate above, I remain unconvinced that the cited Ofsted report is sufficient to establish the notability of a school. I find the arguments of Kuzaar, Pan Dan, and Fram particularly persuasive. --Satori Son 01:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, satisfies all content policies. No objection to a merge as it stands, although giving some time to expand from the available source could be fruitful. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which of the policies (specifically as outlined at the proposed guideline at WP:SCHOOL) does the subject of this article meet? As above, no one has been able to produce any reliable nontrivial coverage of the subject- the Ofsted report is trivial and the "meeting minutes" application for funding that mentions Whitstone school in passing is not reliable. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know that the school does meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria, although if it is further expanded with use of the OFSTED report it probably will. But schools that don't meet them aren't to be deleted anyway, they are to be merged into an appropriate target. The OFSTED report is obviously not trivial in the sense meant by WP:SCHOOL, since the point of the proposal is to determine how much content is available to fill in an article, and the OFSTED report contains an enormous amount of relevant, reliable information. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think I agree with you- the amount of information in the OFSTED report is significant, and would probably be at home in an article overviewing the school district. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments as above, meeting WP:SCHOOL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 23:18, 9 October 2006
• Comment: I'm neutral on the issues of Schools, but I'd like to point out WP:SCHOOLS is only a proposed guideline. People don't have to follow it, and merely citing it as a reason why someone's opinion is wrong is bad form IMO -Halo 15:31, 10 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Giuliano Belluzzi

• Delete - Non-notable individual. Ipsenaut 03:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - appears on interwiki lists, but doesn't have a separate article. MER-C 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - according to the article its subject was Head of State of San Marino on multiple occassions. Thats notable. --Dave 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As Pan says, considering the population of San Marino, any man could have been a Captain Regent at some point. There exists nothing to distinguish this gentleman, and a Google query for his name returns zero results. I urge you to change your vote accordingly. Ipsenaut 17:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and start all over. According to List of Captains Regent of San Marino, 1700-1900 he was Captain Regent (=Consul, that was a sixth month office) in October 1701, in October 1774 and in August 1894, and many times in between, of course. The same thing applies to others like Federico Gozi. Why is there no disambiguation page? Because the person who started these left Wikipedia? Note that with four consuls every year, and the small population at the time, virtually any male inhabitant of San Marino living into adulthood may have stood a good chance of being Captain Regent one day. Badly sourced, notability foggily unclear until disambiguation articles are written. --Pan Gerwazy 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. IF verified that he indeed lived from 1701 to 1894, then I suppose he does deserve an article :-) Fram 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and start over. Punkmorten 17:33, 3 October 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 nomination withdrawn. Whispering^(talk/c) 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Digimon RPG

Delete non-notable fan-created RPG about Digimon. Prod challenged by the article's author, who has no other edits other than the article itself. Article contains no sources whatsoever, not even a link to a website about the game. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Article contains an image of the "logo" of this game. If the article is deleted then Image:Digimonrpglogo.gif probably should as well. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable fan game. TJ Spyke 04:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure somebody worked really hard on this game, but it's neither official nor significant. Never mind! ObtuseAngle 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided, possible hoax. Article asserts Bandai as the producer. A Google search comes up with this page [24], Google's Korean translation is crap, but the site shows the logo used in the Infobox, and clearly dislays a Bandai logo at the bottom. Desprately needs a {{user ko}} editor to help fact check. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 04:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, crap, now I'm not so sure. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ooo66 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, the game is defintely not fan made.
  • here is the game's entry on the universal video game's list. The information on there supports the article (i.e. published by Bandai, developed by Digitalic.)
  • here is the official Digitalic website. Even if you can't understand the writing, notice the link on the bottom left corner to their family site, which is the logo for the Digimon RPG
  • here is the actual digimon RPG site
• The game is completely korean, and seems to be faily popular in the korean community too. Whether it's considered 'notable' on an english wiki is another matter. There is an [z9.invisionfree.com/digimonrpgonline/index.php? english fan community] for it, where an english patch is also under development. Does this make it worth keeping?--Yaksha 07:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we are English as in the language of text we use, not in the topics we cover. I retract my delete. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So that means this article isn't nominated for deletion anymore? --Yaksha 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Technically speaking I can't close the AfD myself via retraction since two other editors also moved for a delete. However, an admin might choose to speedy keep based on the discussion so far. That being said, I might as well say speedy keep. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a discussion. Try communicating with the editors concerned, to see whether you can change their minds based upon whatever evidence you now have to present. Ask them to revisit the discussion. Uncle G 11:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Consider my vote changed to Keep. ObtuseAngle 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Yaksha's links, and a good time was had by all. QuagmireDog 16:30, 3 October 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 Merge to List of The Daily Show guests. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

List of notable guests appearing on The Daily Show

I won't contest the main list (at List of The Daily Show guests), but this list is quite non-NPOV and fairly redundant. It's just the inclusion of "notable". Why should these listed be notable and others are not? Aren't most of the guests in general notable enough to be on WP? It just doesn't present a NPOV and is somewhat OR. Giant onehead 04:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. MER-C 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. *Sparkhead 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom anything that isn't already duplicated. Agreed this list is a POV fork. 23skidoo 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fork list with no real reason to exist. What is being said here that isn't at List of The Daily Show guests? The fact that these people have Wikipedia articles? That could be demonstrated by bluelinks at List of The Daily Show guests. I just don't see the purpose here.--Isotope23 15:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge per above. Ramsquire 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge - The list is redundant. George J. Bendo 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename & Edit Merging just will crowd up the main article. As I see it's by and large a List of notable political guests on The Daily Show which I think it should be renamed to, being that it's a show of mostly political satire, the political guess are notable if not they shouldn't have articles on wikipedia, anyone missing can be added, as articles are expanded all the time, the small list of "Notable media celebrities and Notable entertainers " could be merged with the main article or just left out completely. it should be merge with List of The Daily Show guests if not already there. --Sirex98 06:15, 6 October 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 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrogrouch

Neologism/Protologism describing a type of biker. A google search brings up no reliable sources, mostly forum posts and people calling themselves (or others) retrogrouches. Daniel Olsen 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. The term is almost always applied to Grant Peterson, an extremely well-known (in bike circles) frame builder with a curmudgeonly attitude towards technology. Retrogrouch Grant gets me a couple hundred unique ghits, but many irrelevant. People who appreciate top-notch bikes will know the term, but it's not much more than an in-joke. I'm surprised that Grant doesn't have an article here; I'll try to get to that sometime... bikeable (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism at worst, dicdef at best. Agent 86 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. George J. Bendo 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No delete. Google brings up LOTS of posts, so, lots of people are using the term, and, by definition, users are reliable for dicdef's. Some urls are almost 10 years old. My personal recollection is from the 80s, but I have to dig up some old bicycling magazines to proove this. So, this is not a neologism, the page is accurate; the only debate is shold this be moved to a dictionary page.

here are two citations suggesting that retrogrouch is used outside of bike circles https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908&L=typo-l&T=0&P=28924 http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2002-January/035803.html

The first url uses "retrogrouch" in a non bicycle contex, "As a long-time retrogrouch who thinks HTML has fallen into"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Composition (language), redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tone (literary)

Delete: Just a dictionary definition (contested prod)  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  05:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki per nom, but I doubt Wiktionary will accept it. MER-C 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary already has an article on "tone". Please actually check Wiktionary first, before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• smerge to one sentence on the Composition (language) article. Thryduulf 23:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete! its useful! DOrothy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.217.126 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Sesame Street Grouch characters

Made redundant by List of Sesame Street characters. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 05:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Somewhat grouchy delete. Sorry. PJM 16:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, it's already done in considerably more detail. Throw it in the dustbin but try not to knock Oscar unconscious. QuagmireDog 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. theProject 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Siliconera

Site promotion and advertising. Jstroh 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 06:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Int333 07:47, 3 October 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 06:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What You Might Wanna Know!

Unverifiable: no Google hits for title plus drc or title plus worldly (original version). One unrelated myspace hit for title plus adams (version after removal of prod). Either hoax or completely non notable. Since there are no Google hits for DRC daytime radio either, I suppose this may well be a hoax. Fram 07:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Daytime Radio, the station, doesn't get any relevant ghits either. I wonder if it's a podcast, because then we can nuke it. MER-C 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:V and WP:HOAX. Jpe|ob 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep because the nominator has noticed that xe has grown a duplicate article at an alternative title. Duplicate articles are merged. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage or any requirement for administrator intervention. When you see duplicate articles, your first port of call should not be AFD. Uncle G 11:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

British American Football League system

Reason there is a similar page John R G 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - where? MER-C 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if there are two articles, merge them together and teach the author of this one how to spell "conferences".....Jcuk 08:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this one as redundant: The majority of the information is contained within British American Football League (which i'm assuming is the similar page referred to above). OBM | ^{blah blah blah}

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Les Aigles

non-notable local Scout group, pure vanity; all relevant content was borrowed from Fédération Nationale des Eclaireurs et Eclaireuses du Luxembourg. jergen 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - "wtih 151 active members in 2006". MER-C 08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Federation Nationale, then. ColourBurst 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC).
• I'm partially responsible for the contents of this article. I am a member of this scouts group and thought it would be a useful addition, especially as there are not many informations about Luxembourgish scout groups featured, apart from the major federations. The content was borrowed partially, as we were discussing internally about the possible content (historical evolution etc). If you think of this article as not important, please feel free to delete, we will make no further attempts to update the content. It most certainly was not thought to be vanity, I have to excuse myself and the rest of us if this has caused you trouble. Charles 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as CSD G11. WinHunter ^(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Southeastern Xtreme Wrestling

non-notable, advert Yandman 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete this entry. I spend many hours typing in this entry and I may have more to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SXW (talk • contribs)
• Guess what SXW stands for? Also there's persistant use of the first person, so this is spam. Speedy delete. Tagged as such. MER-C 09:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion as spam. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 10:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. PJM 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, endorse Speedy Deletion under CSD G11 as spam.-- danntm ^T _C 14:39, 3 October 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 nomination withdrawn, notability established per provided sources, unanimous keep of the improved article. trialsanderrors 07:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Marvin Kwitko

Article on a supposedly eminent Canadia eye surgeon. Apart from the poor orthography I have a hard time verifying the claims in the article. The claim that he's in the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is not verified by the member list. His supposed textbook is not listed at amazon.com and listed as "no sales rank" at amazon.ca (and doesn't strike me as a textbook). Knighted by the Queen? Unverified. Order of Canada? unverified. Marvin Kwitko Foundation? Zero Google hits. Google Scholar, Google books? Scraps. JSTOR, ScienceDirect? Zero. Newsbank? Four or five articles. Google hits? 132 (68 unique). ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently writing this article and take it very seriously. Marvin Kwitko was a great leader in my feild of study; ophthalmology. I have recently read his book "eyes" in my classes, which is a leading book on eye surgeries. Following this, I had the opportunity of meeting his daughter and found out a lot about his exploits. He was married to a steinberg for a period of time, the family that owned a pretty big chain of supermarkets. He was also the first ophthalmologist to bring lazer eye surgery to canada. He was knighted by the queen herself for his advancements in medical science. He's very well-known in montreal for his work.

Although his page is not completed yet, it simply needs a little more time.

How can I buy more time to complete the article and prove its relevancy to wikipedia as a whole, but mostly within the ophthalmology sector? --Beuh pudding 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you find Authorative and reliable sources for all the claims you make in the article and post them for other editors to confirm. This deletion debate last at least five days, that should give you enough time. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so i corrected all the grammar, wrote the full biography and filled out all his accomplishments and books. I'm working on the references to prove what i wrote, and they should be up by tomorrow. Look it over again now, and go right ahead and google everything in there cause not a word of it is made up or fictitious. Thank you. --Beuh pudding 08:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that a lot of the its just some moron writing about his pet fish, but this is a serious article about a man who did great things and helped a lot of people. The books he wrote helped a lot of people learn how to treat eyes and surgeries he did saved a lot of peoples eye sight. I hope that you all take this article seriously, and once the references are up, you'll see that none of it is untrue. Thanks again. Alex Dankoff --Beuh pudding 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the first 5 minutes the page was up I just wrote a bunch of stuff real quick that was admittedly untrue. I just wanted to see what the page editor looked like. These are the things that are quoted in the first statement above. About 20 minutes later I posted my actual biography that is all 100% true and verifiable. thanks.

I'll happily withdraw my nomination if the current claims are verified using proper sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep I'm keen to see references for the long string of letters after his name, but I did check out the book "Eyes" on Google, and the a couple of the scholarships, and they are true. Mr Pudding, of you are having difficulty inserting references you might give Wikicite a go. See my user page for more info. --Dave 09:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Eyes book seems to be geared towards "young people", not medical students, but some of the other claims might be verifiable. I'm trying to add some sources. ~ trialsanderrors 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so It's referenced that he was knighted in the order of st johns. I've referenced most of his books now (I found all the other ones, im just a little tired of writing the references for tonight). Two of his scholarships are referenced. I noticed above that you pointed out how the book "eyes"is for young people. I dont really see the relevance of that since the rest of his books are all medical books. The long stream of letters is as follows: Medical Doctor, ?, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Fellow of the International College of Surgeons, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Knight of the order of ST Johns. The second one I got off of here [25]. I'd really like to thank you guys for helping me find references. I think at this point its pretty clear that Dr Marvin isnt invented or anything. Thanks again, Alex Dankoff. --Beuh pudding 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly does it take to keep it from being deleted? Now that it was nominated, is it almost certain it won't make into wikipedia? If I had posted it with all the citations and references right from the start, and it had never been elected for deletion, would it have stayed permanent? I dont know if im all that clear on the process. If you guys have any info I'd really apreciate it. Thanks, Alexander Dankoff --Beuh pudding 11:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are sufficient supporting references now to ensure the article will be kept. Dr Kwitko was clearly a remarkable man. 5 days after nomination this WP:AfD will be closed by an administrator. The consensus of discussion will be used to determine the fate of the article. By then trialsanderrors will no doubt have followed protocol and wrapped his original delete recommendation between <s> and </s> markers (as in "Delete Speedy keep") to ensure everyone knows he has changed his mind. --Dave 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up. I think the claim that Kwitko "pioneered in cataract surgery and laser eye surgery" might be a bit of a stretch. Per my essay, the claim that he was the first in a particular region (i.e. Canada) to use IOLs or perform RK is not impressive to me. However, according to PubMed, I feel Kwitko has a sufficient number of publications to meet the guidelines at WP:PROF. -AED 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently a senior professor with publications in international refreed journals, apart from his books and numberous awards, including one from India. Definitely notable. Needs cleanup though - like this line is somewhat hard to digest "Kwitko has also written well over 100 scientific articles, making him one of the world’s most prolific medical writers." World's most prolific doesn't suit here, since many more people from medicine have written much more. Try and keep the language realistic, please. All the best EyeMD 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help so far. I understand what you mean by cleaning up, and I see now that some of it is overstating him a bit. I'll be sure to change some of it around. A lot of it was originally written by his daughter and mother, who were likely to be biased in saying how "amazing" he was. I really don't want this article to be biased though, and am completely willing to change it. I really appreciate all of the help all of you have given me thus far. I think his page will be a great addition to wikipedia, specifically in the ophthalmology field. Thanks again so much. Alexander Dankoff. --Beuh pudding 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with EyeMD on this one. I'd wrap it up now since notability has been established (actually the verified K.St.J would probably be enough), but the article still reads like part obituary, part fluff piece. WP:NPOV is also a key provision for Wikipedia. But this article has come a long way since last night. Kudos. ~ trialsanderrors 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fully Cited and Referenced

All the statements in the article are now referenced and cited to peer reviewed journals. The fact that he was an important canadian ophthalmologist is cited, as well as the facts that he was the first in canada to do his repsective procedures. Every single one of the books he wrote is referenced to their buy websites on amazon. Its referenced to the Knights of the Order of St Johns that he was knighted. Two of his scholarships are referenced to their websites, the second reference may not be perfect but makes reference to someone winning his scholarship that year which is proof that it does indeed exist. I beleive the first one may be discontinued which is why I cant find it anymore, but it did exist. If it really needs a reference to be there I'll remove it. I think its obvious at this point that he was very influencial in his feild and that he helped a lot of people. I hope at this point the articles deletion nomination will be removed and it can stick. I really wanna thank everyone who helped me write this page and I think it really turned out perfectly. --Beuh pudding 05:58, 4 October 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 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Scot Ross

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Subject is a former political campaign manager and recently defeated challenger for the Democratic Party nomination for the Secretrary of State in Wisconsin. He has never won any political office and has apparenty not done anything else notable either. Will Beback 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - never held office (or even managed to stand in an actual election...), and doesn't appear to have been the subject of enough media attention to keep him per WP:BIO. --Mnemeson 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Honestly, the criteria for what is considered a "non-notable candidate" is very subjective. Scot Ross did receive significant media coverage in WI. I voted for Doug LaFollette, personally, but I think it is important that people know who their candidates are, and who the candidates for office in other states are. User: Gwjones2 9:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publishing the election platforms of all political candidates. Wikipedia tells people who the candidates in elections were via articles on the elections. See Reading East#Elections and Prince George-Omineca#Election_results. Candidates only warrant more than such a single line in an election results table if they satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies and actually have more published about them, by other people, than a single line on a ballot form. If there was "significant media coverage" of this person, you should be able to point to it. The article as it currently stands only cites autobiographical and promotional sources, or sources that don't give more information than that one-line-on-a-ballot-form. Uncle G 14:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain, with comment. I don't feel I can be objective in weighing in on a keep/delete vote, so in terms of voting, I have abstained. However, in response to Uncle G's comment above, I wanted to post this link.

http://www.rossacrosswisconsin.com/news.asp

Yes, it's from his candidacy website, but it collects together all of the articles statewide written about him and his candidacy. Again, I am refraining from voting (or commenting), but I wanted those voting and weighing in to have this information. Thanks. NickBurns 15:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. Nominator recommended merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Faculties of the University of Szeged

Page not needed. Should be merged into the University of Szeged article. Only links to this page are from that and a few articles on individual faculties (which themselves could also be merged into the main university article. Would do this myself, but someone may think each of these pages ought to exist. Emeraude 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to redirect or merge, either tag it with {{mergeto}} tags or just be bold and do it. Nominating it for deletion is a last resort. As far as I can see the main Szeged article already has the faculties listed. Closing now as a speedy redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 3 October 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 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fbxshows

Non notable website? -- Longhair\^talk 09:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 6380 ghits. Almost a speedy. MER-C 10:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- see the article. The site dissapeared in 2006 when the staff stopped paying its hosting bills. Anomo 03:12, 5 October 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 redirect. Mangojuice^talk 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex_before_16

Inactive, non-notable stub Red Dalek 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Will be expanded soon, notible as part of controversial Adult at 14 season. --Fabio 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If the programme achieves notability (or even notoriety) after it's made and shown, it can come back. Emeraude 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect To the Adult at 14 article.
• Delete Poorly written stub. Is Channel 4 the child pornography channel somewhere? Editors should not assume that everyone in the world is familiar with which channel is which on the editor's telly. Maybe they could wikilink to their porn channel 4 to disambiguate from other editors' local channel 4. Edison 18:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the UK. FrozenPurpleCube 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect. Every episode of every TV show in every country doesn't need a separate article. RickReinckens 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, there is nothing in this article not in the main article. Thryduulf 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, this deserves a small note on the series' page, not a unique article. --Matthew 01:43, 11 October 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 redirect to Mastiff. Whispering^(talk/c) 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Zorba (Mastiff)

This exact information is included in the Mastiff entry. The author has even used the same wording. Trcunning 09:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. MER-C 10:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (csd g11) by RHaworth. MER-C 13:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Asia inspection

Victor Sierra Charlie Alpha. Danny Lilithborne 10:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Tagged as such. MER-C 11:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Speedy delete per nom. Emeraude 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Found a reference, will add to article. Mangojuice^talk 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tim Kirkman

Not clearly notable. A few films that have been nominated for notable awards, but did not win. No clear indication that the awards that have been won are notable. So delete, pending an indication of notability. Regards Ben Aveling 11:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep. I've never heard of him, or his films, but that doesn't mean he's not notable! So his films didn't win 'notable' awards. How many other directors have not won awards, but have articles in Wikipedia? Nominated at Sundance for a Grand Jury prize and nominated for an Emmy impresses me. His films also have wiki articles and, while I note that Kirkman himself has contributed to all of these articles, they have been on wiki for some years. No reason to delete, unless you happen to be Jesse Helms. Emeraude 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep I'd like to see sources for the claims in the article, specifically the Emmy nomination. If that's the real deal, and if someone can show a source for the Sundance information, then this is definitely worthy. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep!I don't think this should be deleted on the grounds of "un-notable" awards etc. I think that is a matter of opinion- I am quite sure the people that have enjoyed his work find him quite notable whether he won awards or not.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, winning a school competition is not a credible assertion of notability. kingboyk 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Henry Wang

Almost a db-bio; I don't consider the assertion of notability here to meet WP:BIO. The policy-based deletion reason would be WP:NOT indiscriminate or WP:V (I'm not sure how many reliable secondary sources there would be about something like this). --ais523 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO is the elaboration of our policies that Wikipedia is not a memorial, a telephone book, or a genealogical database. Uncle G 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a very clear failure of WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Checking the creator's edit history shows he is intent on self-promotion, creating the article The Garry Catalano Writing Competion (itself prodded as a non-notable school writing contest) of which he was a winner, and adding himself as a player for China's national football team (contradicting his assertion in this article that he is unsigned). I've nothing against a little self-esteem boosting, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. ~Matticus ^T_C 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:43, 3 October 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 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

7 Ages Productions

Not notable. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete makes no claim of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zudduz (talk • contribs)
  • Nope. All those performances are claims of notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Either non-local impact or press coverage that deals specifically with the organization seem to be needed for notability under WP:ORG. Neither is documented in the article. EdJohnston 02:40, 9 October 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 redirect to Chris Rock. Whispering^(talk/c) 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Julius Rock

Nomination for speedy deletion is contested. I'm moving this to AfD instead. I suggest adding whatever is relevant to the life of Chris Rock to the article on Chris Rock, and making Julius Rock a redirect to that article. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive} 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. MER-C 12:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Thryduulf 22:58, 9 October 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 06:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Communist principles

Very badly written and needing much editing, but regardless of this it seems to be no more than a school essay and nothing like an ecyclopaedia entry. A lot of POV in there, which could be removed, but this would not solve the problem that this is not worth an article. Existing articles on Communism, Marx, Marxism etc amply cover the topic. Emeraude 12:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not NPOV, not needed, author apparently recognisies this on talk page. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for OR. If there is any researched or published difference between capital "C" and lower case regarding communism outside of this article, where is the citation? NPOV as well, but that seems a sub-problem under clear OR to me. -Markeer 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit/Comment I've found the citation he needed, it's in a section of the main article on Communism [here]. However, this still rings of OR to me since he's taking a minor linguistic differentiation and seems to be running with it. -Markeer 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant and as above. Was considering a redirect, but not sure about that. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no citations to works that actually discuss the subject. Gazpacho 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Few noble words w/o historical grounding. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 5 October 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 06:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

List of music festivals

This list is totally redundant to the category, which is already sub-categorised by festival genre. If the only job it serves is to store redlinks this is a job for project space not an article. kingboyk 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom. PJM 13:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:52, 3 October 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 06:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

List of festivals

Woefully incomplete, red link farm, and redundant to the category. kingboyk 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also too broad. MER-C 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 13:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:54, 3 October 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 06:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ACA Kid

Prod was removed by editor with no reason. Sending this as a procedural vote, am voting Neutral on this. Wildthing61476 13:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as prodder. My original reason was "Being on a sensational current affairs show doesn't make one notable". MER-C 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Quick question from original author: Does this mean the original person who posted the Prod removed it, or someone else? I'm positive I left the template there with a note that I'd see how things develop over the next few days, so I just want to make sure nothing got screwed up that will prevent an accurate evalutaion of this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremihc (talk • contribs)
  • I'm the prodder but I think an anon removed the prod tag (I didn't). Please sign your edits with ~~~~. MER-C 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It was another editor actually, not you. I've brought it here since by procedure if a prod is removed, the next step is AfD. Wildthing61476 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Will do, my apologies. Trying to learn this as I go. As I posted for short time, I'm going to see how this develops within my community and the internet as a whole. If I "jumped the gun" the entry needs to be deleted, but since it's a hot topic in society right now I felt it was deserving. Between the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, Net Neutrality, and Internet Addiction, I think the more references, resources, and discussion we can get about these sort of topics is in our best interest. Aremihc 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also going to repost my comments from the discussion page on the actual entry: Since this incident JUST happened, I am just using my intuition to tell me that this will be something well known within the gaming community, if not pop-culture in general. It is already the subject of YTMND wowcameron.ytmnd.com/ as well as a forum set up in the last few hours to find the online identity of ACA Kid. It is currently occupying nearly the ENTIRE General Board of the Official Forums, as well as several non-official WoW related sites. img134.imageshack.us/img134/5247/acact5.png As the story aired within the last 24 hours, we'll just have to see how this develops. I will continue to update the entry over the next few days to help determine if this is something worthy of Wikipedia. In the mean time I will append your template with a note concerning the possible short life of this entry. Aremihc 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is based upon what is, not what might be; and neither speculation nor idle chatter are bases for an article. If you've come to Wikipedia with the idea of reporting a breaking news story, then you've come to the wrong project. The newspaper, for news stories, is over there. This is the encyclopaedia. Events warrant encyclopaedia articles after they have been reported and subjected to fact-checked and peer-reviewed analysis. If you've come to Wikipedia in order to promote "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest", then you've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reason. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Usenet is over there. Uncle G 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Now, see, some of that's just unneccessary. I'm an avid use of Wikipedia because it has info on nearly everything. It's not always Brittanica quality, but it's a start. I appreciate the moderators that legitimatedly want to filter and ensure quality on Wikipedia. MER-C seems to be one such. He raised a concern, I addressed it by simply saying we'd use the 5 days to see if the article was deserving of Wikipedia. No insults, no snide remarks, just a professional concern, and an earnest response. Your comment on this simply managed to offend me. Sadly, at this point I'm warring with myself over whether to get into this and essentially flush the entry down the toilet, or refrain from commenting. I'll compromise. Let me re-write your comments: ••I'd suggest you first review: What Wikipedia is not and see if your original entry falls in that category. There is a news section for news stories located: here. Another possible destination for you to "discussion [...] about these sort of topics" because it is "in our best interest" might be the Usenet location: here.•• See how easy that was? Aremihc 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There were no insults in what I wrote, either, just straightforward explanations of what Wikipedia is not, and pointers to more appropriate venues if you have come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. There was nothing there to actually take offence at. That your rewrite didn't remove anything demonstrates that there was nothing to remove. Uncle G 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO, does not qualify as a meme, and WP:NOT a crystal ball.--Isotope23 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. YTMNDs or warcraft forum fads are not inherently notable, especially one as recent and minor as this. I also advise against promoting this AfD on the warcraft forums, as you did with the prod. It wont result in this article being kept. —Xezbeth 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Only time will tell" is not a phrase that should be appearing in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Individual stories on a very long running current affairs show are not inherently notable. The remainder of the article is original thought, speculating on how Sandler's TV appearance will be received by fellow World of Warcraft players. -- IslaySolomon 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just delete the damned thing, and whatever. Aremihc 21:59, 3 October 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 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ancient Apostolic Communion

• Delete Fringe group, creator of article is self styled "Patriarch", so very probably a vanity page, possibly could be transferred to userpage? NJW494 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many "Fringe groups" in Wikipedia. While I am the Patriarch of the church, I have attempted to make the article as NPOV as possible. If you are to delete this article then we must delete the ones on the Liberal Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, Independent Catholic, Reformed Catholic Church and the American Catholic Church in the United States, just to name a few. If this is to be an encyclopedia of relevant information then it must contain even the "Fringe groups" as well as the mainstream churches. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 19:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a vanity article and should at the very least be transferred to your User Page. Your "church" seems to operate out of your house and doesn't appear to be notable. NJW494 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for another opinion. Please see Talk:The Ancient Apostolic Communion for further details. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 01:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources attesting to the notability or to the factuality of the article. Not enough notability to write about the subject with a neutral point of view. Unlike other fringe groups on Wikipedia, this particular group is not particularly notable for its fringe views. Also, runs afoul of our policies on autobiographical topics. The article is actually a candidate for speedy deletion, as I don't even see a claim of notability. However, now that the article has been AfD'd, we can let this run its course. Also, I've removed the request for a third opinion - that is what this page is for. WP:30 is not there to resolve disputes over whether an article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until they pull a Heaven's Gate. Carlossuarez46 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is uncalled for. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Leaving nastygrams on my talk page will not intimidate me. Your comments on how non-notable churches and ministers deserve a place on Wikipedia demonstrates how little you understand the criteria for inclusion and what makes things notable. So if this group probably numbering no more than Heaven's Gate were to do something notable, like Heaven's Gate, it belongs; right now, it's just not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are so right! I am such a horrible person. Please forgive my intrusion into your Wikipedia. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're excused; say three Hail Marys and five Our Fathers and go and sin no more!. Carlossuarez46 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has some verifiable sources now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To be honest, I don't think that small mentions in a local newspaper are sources that would save this article from being deleted. I know lots of people who have been mentioned in local newspapers and they certainly don't have their own wikipedia article.

According to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." According to this article the Augusta Chronicle is 210 years old. It even has its own Wikipedia article which states, "The Augusta Chronicle is the major daily newspaper of Augusta, Georgia and is one of the oldest newspapers in the United States. The paper is known for its coverage of The Masters Tournament, which is played in Augusta." It is by no means a small town newspaper. And even if it was, that is not a criteria for removal of the source. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The fact remains that your sect is not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Your own information reveals your group to be extremely tiny, and possibly just a vehicle for the vanity of its founders. The sources you mention are too small and too few to be a worthwhile basis for this article and its continued existence (many people get mentioned in local newspaper articles and they certainly are not worthy of Wikipedia articles). Move it to your user page at the very least, otherwise let this article of yours die. NJW494 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Judging by the time stamps, not your final word; but don't think that your breach makes your church notable. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentJust out of interest, will you please point out any sects of a similar size to your sect that have their own Wikipedia articles? The Old Catholic groups you mentioned are much larger than the subject of this discussion. The only similar religious articles that I could think of would be those about some of the modern day pretenders to the Papacy, and those have become rather more noteworthy due to the public/media interest in such people. If you find articles pertaining to other religious groups with so few adherents and with no other reason for existing on Wikipedia then I would be quite happy to nominate them for deletion.NJW494 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't help but to show your bias. That is why people are leaving Wikipedia. Me included. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Too obscure, and if you can't cope with the wiki, the wiki can't cope with you either. Moreschi 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for adhering to the Wikipedia:Civility policy. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding Wikipedia:Civility, I'm so happy you showed such civility with me when you so kindly accused me of bias. Thanks Patriarch. NJW494 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Even though I was not talking to you. But it does not matter. I apologize for all my comments and if you wish they can be moved or achieved or pasted on billboards. Thank you all.--Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Lets be reasonable about this. What did you expect would happen when you posted this vanity article? Wikipedia isn't a place for self aggrandisement, surely you're aware of that my friend.NJW494 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is really not worth the fight. It does not matter our notability nor our size, but rather that we are a "fringe group". It seems this is an unspoken policy just like the fact that a newspaper must be bigger than the New York Times or Washington Post to be considered a verifiable source. So just delete this article. Thank you. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You really shouldn't be upset that your article is being removed, the removal of such useless vanity articles makes wikipedia a better "place". As someone who seemingly tries to engage himself in the Wikipedia community then surely you can see the logic in removing bad articles? NJW494 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't consider it a vanity article, but that is a matter of opinion. You believe it is and rallied enough support for your point of view. I just don't have any friends here that would rush to my aid. It is that simple. It is politics. But then again isn't everything? I really am sorry, I hope there are no hard feelings. I misinterpreted many of the comments as personal attacks, like the one claiming we would become a suicide cult. But obviously that was not a personal attack just as statement necessary to make sure the vote counted. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 21:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have never encountered any of the other users on this talkpage before. They're simply concerned Wikipedians who are striving to make Wikipedia better. I doubt anyone here is deliberately trying to spite you.NJW494 22:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article and discussion here evidence a group on the size of an individual house of worship (and one of the smaller ones at that), rather than a true denomination. We don't have, so far as I can tell, an article on the group from which it split, which is a informative but not dispositive sign. References aren't online and available (for free) for quick and easy testing, but the quotes from them in the article indicate passing mentions, not articles primarily about the AAC. It therefore is not notable, and does not meet our policies requiring verifiability and prohibiting original research. GRBerry 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. ENTIRE ARTICLE VIOLATES NPOV BECAUSE IT IS EXTREME MINORITY VIEW. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight Non-notable. Not encyclopedic. Per Wiki guidelines extreme minority groups, positions, etc., are not to be presented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Including extreme minority positions gives the false impression to users that the position is widely accepted and somewhat important even if the article does not give the impression that it is either the majority view or a widely held minority view. RickReinckens 08:40, 8 October 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 I have speedied this - it was nonsense! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Romantic Man Love

Article is about a little-owned "literary movement". Article also is borderline nonsense, possible attack. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 14:37, 3 October 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 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Blonde-Orange-Pink

Looks like a neologism, only 65 Google hits. jd || talk || 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a neologism. It's a frequently-used word in Dublin describing a highly visible phenomenon. [[User:pushpop] || 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NEO, especially this section. jd || talk || 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; this isn't the place for things made up under the influence of Guinness one day. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN neologism, made up in school one day, (urban) dictionary definition, original research etc... -- IslaySolomon 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per IslaySolomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:27, 7 October 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 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Downfall Road

Non-notable band. No bio on allmusic.com, and most Google hits seem to be myspace related, or containing message board posts seeking band members. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. [26]. PJM 16:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spearhead 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Yomangani^talk 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Kolb

Non-notable quarterback, fails WP:BIO, his lepidopteraphobia notwithstanding. Eusebeus 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Doesn't appear to be a serious contender for the Heisman, but it's a long season and has been receiving some votes in early polling. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Relatively well-known in college football circles. ObtuseAngle 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete - no evidence presented why he is more notable than any other college football player. The article effectively even says "we wont know how good he is until this game in the future", which is crystal ballism (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Thryduulf 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering^(talk/c) 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete as per Thryduulf. If he wins something, it can be revived. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep' - 4-year Starting quarterback for a top-level US College American Football team, is currentl "I-A active career leader in completions, passing yards, total offense and total plays" at least according to the website quoted on the article; several mentions in the NCAA record book, also joint-MVP in the Fort Worth Bowl. Passes criteria for me. - fchd 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As per Richard Rundle--Thomas.macmillan 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He may not be a Heisman contender, but he is a quality college quarterback and will probably play at the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaroonFrog (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandstorm Enterprises

Contested speedy and prod. I'm not sure if it's notable or not hence this afd.. Tawker 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sandstorm is quite notable. Look at the patents and the products. 18.85.19.45 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Improve - I found a few reviews for their products in BusinessWire and a number of network & business security sites. The article needs some heavy reworking, however, to lose its advertisement feel. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- The author and principal of the firm is certainly notable in internet security circles. As such his company seems notable as well. I'd endorse the suggestion for improvement above, though. -- Bpmullins 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Give me more direction on 'reworking' and I'll take care of it. I (James Van Bokkelen) also have some history in the Internet Jbvb 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article needs sourcing, and it needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone. It looks and feels like an advertisement right now. Google has a lot of hits for Sandstorm Enterprises, so sourcing shouldn't be an issue. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing is the primary thing that it needs to be less of an advertisement, but it should probably mention some of Sandstorms competitors and talk more about the comapny's innovations than its products. 140.247.62.201 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with option to revisit if notability is not established within one month. Badbilltucker 22:07, 5 October 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, after disregarding !votes form new users. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Velocity Living

Delete. It's an ordinary block of flats that hasn't been completed yet. ^{[Check Google hits]} shows 237 results (76 "unique") which are either notices about the construction or they just contain the phrase "velocity living" for whatever reason. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, so not worthy. jd || talk || 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This is an important development in the city of sheffield. and on completion of the rest of the project/phase will be one of the largest residential complexes in the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.28.186 (talk • contribs)
• Do Not Delete This is a major regeneration for the city of Sheffield, utilising a previously chronically under-used site. This is a great design, worthy of inclusion, and will be one of the largest residential and office complexes in the city and indeed Yorkshire with the completion of phase 2 and 3, already underconstruction. I can only add it is a small article, intended for expansion at a later date, and I will include details such as height, floors, office space, companies using, capacity, price etc, as I have time and these details emerge L.J.Skinner, talk to me 12:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thryduulf 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Following the new information, the page now reads more like an estate agents brochure and still doesnt justify to me why it needs an article more than any other new block of flats in a redevelopment area of any city in the world. My reccomendation to delete remains the same. Thryduulf 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - average apartment/office complex. Laalaaa 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Page edited to include further information. I feel that this is a vast improvement on the previous, frankly lacking, article, and now is a lot more useful and noteworthy.

Also, suggest moving to "Velocity Space" or "Velocity Development", but I can't be sure I can do it and keep it linked to AfD without messing it up! L.J.Skinner, talk to me 11:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've got no opinion on the title should the article be kept, but moving an article is best not done during an AfD debate. Even non-controversial moves normally wait until the discussion is closed, as it can get quite complicated, even for experienced users, to ensure all the links continue to go to the right place. Thryduulf 11:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • reply: That was my assumption, and hence I haven't moved it. L.J.Skinner, talk to me 11:51, 10 October 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 06:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultragon

No information can be found about the subject and there are no sources. WikiSlasher 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --WikiSlasher 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard the word, but if I did I'd look it up in a dictionary and be satisfied with the one sentence definition. Not an encyclopaedia entry. Emeraude 16:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research to me. Searching in Google finds a digital camera and a dietary supplement, but nothing about a polygon with infinite sides. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - OR, and flat out wrong. Infinity does not mean what the author is thinking it means. --PresN 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: rubbish. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• UltraBegone (Delete) per nom Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 06:20, 4 October 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 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediaism

Really this is someone's essay. I almost speedied it, but thought I'd get a consensus. The word is a neologism, getting only a few tens of google hits (several of which use to mean something different). The entire work is original research or possibly a report on someone's non-notable research. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. PJM 16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. If the page creator wanted to transfer it to a subpage in his userspace and tag it as an essay, I'd be OK with that as well. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• And a pretty poor essay as well. Delete Emeraude 16:08, 3 October 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 - no evidence provided for claims made in the article, thus fails WP:V - Yomangani^talk 10:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Billy Firehawk

A contested prod. Original rationale for deletion was "Recommending deletion. Possible attack page.". Prod removed with rationale "he deserves and article, he is an important piece of wrestling history, long live billy whatshisname". Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Not really an attack page. It needs clean-up, but it seems to be a typical professional wrestling bio page. I don;t know much about wrestling, but maybe the folks at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling can take a look at it and improve it. Really, its a weak article, but has potential. --Jayron32 03:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable wrestling promoter. If the article is weak as it stands, we shouldn't have rely on the hope that folks at some Wikiproject will fix it up. For a good article on wrestling, see the one on Ron Killings. This Billy Firehawk article is only three sentences, and the last of them is an unsupported speculation that could be defamatory (but we're not sure). Delete. EdJohnston 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • reply Well, I'm not really much of a wrestling fan, but the fact that the article is poorly written does NOT automatically make the subject not notable. It makes the article a stub that needs expansion, but for all I know, the subject MAY be notable. The subject of professional wrestling is notable, so widely-known participants thereof are by extension notable. That's why I suggested bringing it to the attention of the WikiProject. If the subject is not-notable, someone there can let us know. --Jayron32 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as apparently insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. More importantly, article provides no sources whatsoever, much less credible, third-party ones as required by WP:V. A quick Google search turned up only 145 unique GHits, almost all blogs and Wiki-mirrors. His real name appears to be William Hawkins, and, on a sad note, it looks as though he may have passed away several months ago, although I was not able to find a reliable source to confirm that. --Satori Son 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable wrestling promoter, also has notability from Lex Luger viral video. Cornerbock 12:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I actually spent some time and effort on this one, and I was unable to find any "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you have found some, please cite here or in the article and I will be the first to admit my mistake and change my opinion. Otherwise, asserted notability cannot be confirmed and the article should be deleted. Thanks, Satori Son 13:52, 12 October 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. Added to AOL: [27]. -Splash - tk 23:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

iAmaze

Previously, I deleted this as an uncontested {{prod}}, but I got a complaint about it on my talk page, so I'm listing it on AFD. I do not believe this is worth keeping. —freak(talk) 16:30, Oct. 3, 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A note on it, it has in fact been deleted before (on the 7th August not long after its initial creation), but not due to an AfD. Ben W Bell talk 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is worth its own article, but it might be worth a single sentence in the AOL article, if that (the AOL announcement is a press release and therefore cannot be used to verify this). How many companies does AOL buy up in one year, anyway? ColourBurst 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• smerge into a single sentence on the AOL or Ajax (programming) articles. Thryduulf 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge briefly into AOL. SkerHawx 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is worth a sentence at most in AOL or Ajax (programming) (or both). In any case, Delete. Vectro 03:45, 18 October 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 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Allen Ezell

Had an interview with CNN. Nothing about this person, though, from which to write an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 17:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Eusebeus 13:36, 5 October 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 06:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve Kagen

NN bio of a first-time political candidate Nehwyn 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as NN bio. Kukini 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article can be recreated IF he wins. TJ Spyke 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His non-political accomplishments make him notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening his own clinic and working as a medical teacher do not qualify for WP:BIO. Not sure about the EPA award. --Nehwyn 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Again, we don't need a bio for every candidate in existence. Unless the person does something more notable than run for office, then submissions like these are premature. --NMChico24 23:22, 5 October 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 of the debate was to Keep the article. --Konst.able 07:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A proper summary: while the concerns raised about verifiability are understandable, the article has been greatly cleaned up with a lot of unsourced material removed and sources added. And while, as pointed out, the sources are not perfect, I don't see this reason enough to override the strong support to keep the article.--Konst.able 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

List of faux pas

This is 62 kilobytes of unsourced (perhaps unverifiable? Original research?), unencyclopedic matter. It reads as a how-to-guide ("you should"... "you should not"... - even "we don't like"...) Also, the list suffers from inherent systemic bias, listing common cultural traits under one specific country. Several editors has expressed concerns over these problems on the talk page, without improvement in sight. This list underwent an AFD debate in 2005, which resulted in keep. Since this time it has been expanded, but interestingly enough not improved as to meet any of the concerns voiced in the AFD debate. It's time for this list to go. Punkmorten 17:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps sourced items can go to Faux pas? I have reorganized Chinese and Taiwanese faux pas that I consider keeping them somewhere needed.--Jusjih 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you write an article Chinese etiquette, properly referenced? `'mikka (t) 18:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So far, I know only one official-like website with different faux pas in different countries. That is from China Post, but the content is in simplified Chinese only. It is possible to start an article Chinese etiquette, but I do not yet have long information. As many Chinese and Taiwanese faux pas are derived from the Mandarin pronunciation, especially homophones, the Pinyin should provide self-reference.--Jusjih 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Wikipedia is not a book in etiquette. You may easily fill 50,000 pages with various indicriminate faux pases, old and new. Some faux pas are interesting and may warrand separate articles, and may be listed in a traditional wikipedia way of lists of articles on topic. Also, the subject is very blurry and the "inverted"/"negated" presentation ("of what's not") is a source of the folloiwng problem. Suppose an etiquette says: "Thou shalt piss only into a toilet bowl". Now what, shall we list here "thou shalt not piss in a dining room", "thou shalt not piss in an elevator", "thou shalt not piss into the pocket of thy neighbor's pants"? Any violation of an etiquette is a fauz pas. `'mikka (t) 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• do not keep this articl ehas insufficient WP:V or WP:RS, and has grown out of control.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danntm (talk • contribs) 20:38 (UTC) 03 October 2006

1. Follow Up After considering the noble efforts to save this article, I am standing by my original delete position. Despite the added references, this article still runs into WP:NOT, because Wikipedia can ill afford to become a travel guide (that's Wikitravel is over there) or a repository of all customs in the world.-- danntm ^T _C 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep remove unsourced. This deserves to be cleaned-up, not deleted. A lot of useful information is found in there, our task is to remove those claims that can not be verified or are flat out wrong.--D'Iberville 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it is almost impossible to source such things and even when sourced to otherwise reliable sources, the sources used by the reliable source are often poor. For example, a newspaper writer may write about his experiences in a single town on a one day stay and apply the apparent faux pas to the whole country. He may mistakenly think that something is a faux pas when it is not or he will think that one thing was a faux pas when it was really a different thing, especially if he does not understand the language very well, or at all. Also, the faux pas of one town may not apply to the rest of the country. This type of source will produce even less reliable information than unsourced contributions from residents of the country. In addition, there will be disagreement about what things are faux pas in different countries and no way to settle the issue in many cases, especially without original research ("I do that, or I've seen it done, all the time and nobody minds" kind of thing). Some of the things listed for the United States, where I live, are completely foreign to me and I would dispute that they exist outside of enclaves, if at all. Finally, it is written in a travel guide style and people have worked in personal and national/cultural pet peeves (I hate that term, but it works the best here), and I do not think a national/cultural pet peeve would technically be a faux pas. An example would be the talking like Steve Irwin and "throw a shrimp on the barbie" faux pas for Australia. Other examples would be ignorance of topics that do not have anything to do with behavior. -- Kjkolb 11:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I've revised my opinion since there has been a serious attempt to source most of them and the article now approaches encyclopedia standard. Peter1968 08:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Contains nonsense and indiscriminate trivia. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. a chaotic unstructured collection of things difficult to verify without proper context. Mukadderat 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion stands even respecting the job done to clean up the article. A eries of articles about national etiquettes OK, but this article not OK. Mukadderat 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverified and original research. Almost all of it is unsourced. I could also say it's an indiscriminate list of trivia, but to pile on more might be...a faux pas. Agent 86 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I can't believe this one is up for deletion actually! This article has a lot of flaws, including its existence as a "list", and would perhaps do better being split up into pieces, but I find it very useful and important. While it might be factually inaccurate (I have some reservations to the faux pas attributed to my country), there should be a place for an article like that in Wikipedia, especially now that we have more content on Pokemons than on Renaissance. Bravada, talk - 01:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this article could be source and with some tidying to alleviate OR concerns. I have already started to add a few. Far from being an indiscriminate collection, this article is the type of the things that people love about Wikipedia. The article needs clean up not deletion. Agne 08:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is needed and should be keep in accordance with WP's notability criteria ... maybe it needs more references but they will come later. Lincher 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I can see where someone would like to see more cleanup and verification, this page by itself is extremely useful. I've travelled to many countries and occasionally committed a faux pas because I didn't know the customs. Many of the things I've seen listed are correct and important for others to know. A page like this is an undeniably useful resource to anyone who travels or just wants to learn and better understand other cultures. It's even good information if you just want to be respectful to someone of a different culture since many societies today are multicultural. Lasenna — Possible single purpose account: Lasenna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep This is the sort of article that makes Wikipedia interesting. With all the changes that the article has undergone, most of the OR/V issues are no longer much of a concern in my opinion (assuming that the unverified ones are removed by the people doing the edits). --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Substantial changes have taken place to the article since it was nominated for deletion-including the additions of 87 references and the deletions of many of the crufty and unreferenced items. More can still be done for clean up (like removing the first person tone in some areas) but I think the changes demonstrate that this article has merit in Wikipedia. My hope is to eventually get everything referenced with reliable sources to discourage additions of unreferenced or unreliable sources. I am going to drop a note on the talk pages of the editors who voted delete. I feel that the majority of their concerns have been addressed. Agne 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I somewhat agree with you. But only somewhat :) The discussion is heading for no consensus anyway. Punkmorten 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I understand the arguments of the original nomination, (ie unsourced, improvements were never made since 2005), I believe that to warrant more effort; the concept behind the article I see to be a relevant and interesting one. In terms of its unverifiable material, it would be more advantageous to cut out, then remove the whole article. As Lasenna says, its useful for travelling, and even otherwise its provides an interesting insight into a specific aspect of various world cultures. I do agree that it must stick to its mandate however, and not expand beyond faux pax, and due to its nature as a potential conduit for stereotypes, be completely verifiable. As for the latter of these, it appears that much has been done in recent days anyways. In terms of the first person tonage, I will do my best to chip in because there is obviously more work to be done here. --Gregorof 06:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some people have mentioned that the list is useful for travelling. If so, then the country with the largest number of tourists from outside, the US, should also have a section for the benefit of those visitors. Please bring that section back! Otherwise more US waiters than necessary will suffer from not getting any tips! RelHistBuff 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Punkmorten 13:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, you're right. My comment, if the article survives, should really be on the article's talk page. RelHistBuff 14:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Follow-up. Since leaving my comment above, the article has been revised and I've been invited to re-read the article. I still have to say "delete". The key problem is that it is still an indiscriminate list of trivia (although a great deal still remains unsourced or unverified). As a list, it is of indeterminate length (and is already far too large). This is not an article; it's a collection of loosely connected facts put together. Purhaps the problem is that it's far too easy to make lists rather than write articles. I would have no problem with "Etiquette of France", "Etiquette of Japan", etc. as articles, with properly formed sentences and paragraphs. In a properly written article format, care could be taken to clarify some of the alleged errors of etiquette (i.e. that a certain social rule is of a certain region or group or demographic of the country; the meaning and origin behind the social convention, etc.). In its present form, this is not encyclopedic and is just to crufy. Agent 86 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see your point there, but if this is to be done then I strongly suggest at least keeping this page as a table of contents for quick references that link to the MANY etiquette pages that would have to ensue. Besides that, things like local/national customs are very hard to document but that's why something like Wikipedia should exist - because the citizens would know. They're locally understood, like colloquialisms. How many documented references are there to things like what it means in France to rub the tip of your chin? (On a side note in my defense, I created this account to contribute to the "sound" page, not just comment here.) Lasenna

• Followup: To me the rewrite had shown a reason why I still think such list is not maitainable on WP and should be deleted. Locating the Czech Republic and Slovakia in Eastern Europe is one of the gravest faux-paux a foreigner could make there. Only placing it into the Balkans could be worse (so the Serbia link looks pretty funny).

The content "Being late for an evening party is acceptable, but never for lunch. It is considered to be rude" is quite new for me but one learns something new every day. The traditional faux-paux documented in the old "how to behave well" books has been mostly swept away by influence of the Americanized TV culture and collecting of the new ones (like the eastern-europeaness-phobia) does not fit very well into current model of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Under Spain, it says "Giving money (for the petrol) to someone who gives you a ride home." Does that mean one should, or should not give money? The section for United States says not leaving a tip is bad, but how much? In some places, less than 10% is considered an insult. (A foreign born waiter in Boston cussed at me in Chinese when I left a $2 bill as a tip for a $15.00 meal ... guess he thought it was fake money.) It's poorly written, it needs more citations, it's unencyclopedic ... and it's not going to go away. So just content yourself by adding {{fact}} tags and correcting bad grammar ... or remember this article and add a citation when you stumble across one Some Place Else. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: it is better than before, but as I said above, otherwise reliable sources use unreliable sources when it comes to faux pas. An example of what I would consider a reliable source for faux pas is a sociologist who has studied the culture in question extensively. A well done scientific survey of faux pas would also be acceptable. However, it is unlikely that suitable sources could be found for all of the countries listed and most sources would probably only give a couple of faux pas each. -- Kjkolb 05:10, 11 October 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 not delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hostiles

Essays are inappropriate in an encyclopedia - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to be covered in The Others (Lost). Punkmorten 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Others (Lost). It has no context, but is not short enough for an A1 speedy. ColourBurst 18:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect: the little information which is not yet covered by The Others (Lost) could be included there. --Bisco 20:53, 3 October 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. - Bobet 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maria Wenglinsky

nn game show contestant, google results are a max 660 results, about 75 unique Giant onehead 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'd say the comment from Alex Trebek should be a sufficient standard of notability for a Jeopardy! contestant. Wyatt Riot 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment isn't even cited, that's a pretty stupid reason to vote that way. Giant onehead 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And if the coment was made during the small-talk part of the show, a pretty pointless comment, too.

• Delete. One big WP:V failure. --Aaron 01:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another contestant, with an attempt to prop obscure the lack of notability by padding with the Ken Jennings ref. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Trebek calling her "the female Ken Jennings" is cool and all, but I don't know if it's enough for her to have her own article. Is there any way to merge it into another article? Maybe Ken Jennings? - Lex 18:46, 4 October 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. - Bobet 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Julian Rodriguez

NN biography of a minor actor who dabbles in art. I can't tell that he meets WP:BIO: after a google search I came up with several more important Julian Rodriguez's, including a bit player on CSI, a mexican boxer, an Argentinian composer, and the grandfather of a criminal [28]. This one seems to have an official website, but that's all I could find. The article on him is glaringly POV, and unsourced, probably unsourceable. Contested prod. delete. Mangojuice^talk 17:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:00, 3 October 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 06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Avnish's Large Telescope

Seems to be a science project which is not yet finished. Not verified or supported with references. Very laudable, but we should wait until it is finished at least.DJ Clayworth 18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity at best, crystal balling and the like. Even if true it's not notable. Ben W Bell talk 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, ever. SchmuckyTheCat 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable (and completely nn of course).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Michael Kinyon 02:34, 4 October 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 06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Missions

I can't even figure out what this page is supposedly on. As a result I cannot make a decision on whether it should be re-written or deleted. So I put it to the rest of the community, should it stay (and be worked on) or should it go? Ben W Bell talk 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Huh?? Wildthing61476 18:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no context whatsoever...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{db-nocontext}} stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:53, 4 October 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 Speedily deleted by Fang Aili (G7) - Yomangani^talk 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Monobol

Nominated for deletion per WP:NFT, no indication that this has expanded outside of the university. Hawaiian717 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Pure NFT. -- RHaworth 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Yea. I guess this breaks the rules. Monobol is a good game though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timecarter (talk • contribs) 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution in the Czech Republic

Porn advertising spam thinly disguised by the irrelevant point that CZ is a popular tourist destination Sam Clark 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Rgds, - Trident13 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - in light of revision. Rgds, - Trident13 08:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is an encyclopaedia article to be had on this subject. This isn't it, though. Nor is it even a decent stub. If someone turns it into a decent stub based upon the aforementioned, keep. Otherwise let the redlink in the navigation template stand. Uncle G 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, hard for me to pass up an opportunity like that, especially with Uncle G doing so much of the homework for me... um, I mean... heh. Lemme print up a few of those links for some light reading, and see if I can at least kit-bash something together that can pass AfD before this gets closed. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• As Uncle G notes above, it is possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic. This Google News Archive shows plenty of reliable sources to base such an article on. [29]. Indeed, Prostitution in the People's Republic of China is a featured article. However, this article is not even a decent stub and seems to be an advertisement for the business mentioned. Would support keeping if improved, otherwise delete. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Article has been overhauled Thanks the the gauntlet dropped by Uncle G, I've pieced together enough information to start an (in my humble opinion) decent article on the topic. Odd, how I went from knowing nothing on this subject to at least a Start-class article in four hours. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (if I'm allowed to vote, as nominator). Nice job. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • May we take that as a withdrawn nomination? --Roninbk _{t c e #} 14:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • sure, if that's the easiest way to go: the article obviously doesn't meet criteria for deletion now. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At least in the current state it is more-less valid. The "Rozkos bez rizika" organisation is tiny and not influential. The failure of legalisation so far is due to technicalities, it is not topic of political discissions in the Czech Rep and the groups opposing it have no political power or media presence. Doesn't mention child prostitution in border areas. Doesn't mention that most of the trade is controlled by organized crime. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I never claimed this was a featured article yet. Yes, R-R is a small group, but since it seems to be the only group doing positive things in the area, it merits inclusion. It would not meet notability outside the article though, and that's why I haven't written a full article on them. As to the legislation, you raise a good point, and I can definitely include that fact in the article. But just because something isn't a current events issue, doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic. Child prostitution is definitely something I will be adding more information on in my next go at this article. The organized crime aspect is a bit more difficult to verifiably write about, since the nature of organized crime makes it difficult to quantify objectively. I actually wrestled with that point, trying to come up with a verifiable NPOV take on it, before deciding to leave it out in this edit. But thank you for the critique. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 03:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I just added in information on child prostitution, human trafficking, (thanks to a public domain State Dept. report,) and more info on the current state of legalization. Hopefully, this is more complete --Roninbk _{t c e #} 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• It should be noted that the original author of the article has posted to the Talk page, endorsing the current revision of the article, and against deletion. --Roninbk _{t c e #} 07:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added more info and will take a look later. This AfD should be closed now. Pavel Vozenilek 13:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (again) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-03 18:43Z

why delete this, if someone thinks this is relevant why not let it be submitted!!!!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.103.108 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Honky twonk

Prodded as WP:NFT, which was contested. Another user tagged it as {{nonsense}}, which it isn't. If an admin wants to speedy this under WP:IAR (or creatively interpreting one of the ever-changing CSD), fine by me. -- Merope ^Talk 18:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. The sooner the better. -- Hawaiian717 18:38, 3 October 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.