Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< November 2 November 4 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Dakota 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Doncaster Cricket Club

edit

Well, if Wiki adminers have determined precedent for like sporting clubs, any retort I can offer appears to be a waste of time. However, a couple for your consideration...

Links to the area (Doncaster or East Doncaster) discuss schools, community groups & sporting clubs based throughout the area. Is it not logical for these clubs to then have a wiki presence??

The club has a significant history in the area, which has been documented extensively, and is currently being prepared for release in book format.

The club effects hundreds of individuals & families on a weekly basis.

I don't see the point in ignoring sporting associations that play a prominent part in a local community, and limiting a wiki presence to those that reach a specific "grade". It's easy to state that a club is "Not notable", but by whose reckoning does this apply??

Other than following wiki guideliness that have already been established, I don't think the arguments noted for deletion so far, are at all contructive.

Kind regards, Heater

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huemer

edit

Associate professor; the article makes strong claims of notability which I'm unable to confirm. An ISI citation search puts his most-cited paper at 15 citations. Everything else is in the single digits. ~ trialsanderrors 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete however there are a ton of these almost but not quite notable in the category Objectivism scholars in wikipedia. this guy might be one of the more notable ones, but does not meat WP:PROF as best as i can tell. --Buridan 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Trialsanderrors 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Networks

edit

Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Löschen - At first I saw this as spam (hence my marking it as such.) Looking over it now, I no longer see it as blatant advertising but I still don't see how it's a notable page. Since this is the first wiki article I've voted on, I asked myself if there's any possible situation where this page would be a resource for me, and I don't see how (at its current state) the article can. -WarthogDemon 00:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standards for notability of companies are WP:CORP, not personal utility to you. Shotwell asserts below that this company is covered in multiple non-trivial published works, which would, if those works do more than simply mention the company, satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly spam to me. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. A LexisNexis search over the last two years brings up articles from the Boston Globe, Associated Press, The Miami Herald, The New York Sun, the Telegraph Herald, and Chicago Sun Times. These articles deal with either the novel business plan or the large amount of startup money from Goldman Sachs & Co. and Hearst Corp. The most recent article was from March 20, 2006. The rest of the LexisNexis results appear to be duplicated press releases. shotwell 03:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite these articles, so that editors can see how in-depth the coverage of this company is in them, and thus whether the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are just a few
Mary Wisniewski. Will you tolerate ads for free 411 dialing?: New companies put heat on $1-plus fees big players charge, The Chicago Sun-Times, March 20, 2006.
Robert Weisman. Free 411 service has a nice ring, but Jingle's comes with a catch, Boston Globe, December 7, 2005.
Bruce Meyerson. Goldman, Hearst Lead Jingle Investors, Associated Press Online, October 22, 2006.
Carolyn Shapiro. You could pay for directory assistance or you could let advertisers, The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, VA.), October 9, 2005.
Deborah Kolben. New Yorkers Giving Jingle Networks a Jingle for Some Free 411, The New York Sun, January 23, 2006.
There are some more, but they are all essentially the same. Some of those stories above were copied by multiple papers. It is important to note that these articles are only about 200-500 words each. I would personally count them as trivial, but I suppose I'm not completely sure. This company does have a novel business plan and did receive a little money from important investors, but that is their only claim to notability whatsoever. Their stock was listed as a hot buy some time ago, but there is nothing else concerning this company other than the investment and business plan. shotwell 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar 200-500 words, though small, isn't "trivial" to me since the whole of the article concerns the company in question. I do have to ask whether the five articles contain substantial similarities in content; if that's the case, then it should pass. ColourBurst 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are all about the large amount of investment money or the novel business idea, and yes, their content is pretty similar. The sources given below by J did not all show up in the LexisNexis search, but the articles I presented have highly similar content. I guess that these all constitute multiple non-trivial sources? shotwell 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Ads/press releases in papers are not the same as notability. Arbusto 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. Unfortunately, users have different standards of "notability" on Wikipedia. I personally feel that an article about a business that provides a unique service is more notable than the List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses. Also, there are articles in important news sources about the company. Including this one from an AP Business Writer shown on the CBS news site. Perhaps this passes the notability test for companies as defined on Wikipedia. -J 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one non-trivial published work. We need more for WP:CORP to be properly satisfied. Please cite more. Uncle G 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the list you mentioned is up for deletion as well, which is why talking about being "more notable" than another article is not a sound plan (which I think is a synonym for "more useful" in your case, even though notability doesn't actually talk about usefulness). The article satisfies, but we need more than one. ColourBurst 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of multiple on-trivial independent coverage, which makes neutrality impossible to verify. Guy 14:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Jingle Networks press page lists many articles from non-trivial news sources including the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, NY Times, Boston Globe, and The Washington Post. The NY Times article from March 9, 2006 is especially interesting in that it lists some competitors of Jingle Networks such as inFreeDA who operates 800-411-METRO and easy411.com who operates 1-877-Easy411. The easy411 service is not free, but does not have any advertisements. -J 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I didn't read the press articles, but it seems this company has a certain notability to me. -- lucasbfr talk 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The WP:CORP notability criterion that relates to this article is: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself." A google search on "Jingle Networks" yields 148,000 pages. A google news search yields 164 news articles (some not necessarily unique). Virtually every major newspaper in the country has at least one article about Jingle Networks. It would be difficult to reason that these sources are not independent. The authors are different as well as the editors and media itself. I doubt that neutrality is impossible to verify in this case unless there is some mass conspiracy of journalists. I claim that it is difficult to dispute that there are multiple independent sources reporting on the company. The question then becomes, are these articles "non-trivial?" Clearly, people have differing views on what is considered trivial. I would argue that the wikipedia criteria for notability defines triviality in a particular way. One guideline is that "media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company" should be excluded from granting notability to a subject because they are trivial. Also, "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" should be excluded. An in-depth NY Times article does not fall under the domain of triviality according to the two exclusion clauses. Individual users may feel that Jingle Networks performs a trivial service to society or that the business is too small (and in that sense trivial) to warrant a wikipedia article; however, those notions of triviality are not in the spirit of the wikipedia notability criteria. The wikipedia notion of triviality is related to whether the published work itself is trivial in that it is a duplicate of an already existing article, an advertisement for the company, or an article published in a business directory. In that sense the article would really be trivial. The intent of the notability requirement is to prevent individuals from creating articles about their own small proprietorships or corporations. Once a company becomes important enough that it is mentioned in every major newspaper (and sometimes more than once), and the articles present different information from one another, the company has become notable enough to have a wikipedia article. I raise this issue because I believe that we should adhere to the notability and triviality criteria as defined by wikipedia rather than by using personal notions of these terms. -J 23:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (edit conflict) Multiple non-trivial independent publications about the company (see above) demonstrate notability. The article does need attention to stop reading like an ad, the lead in particular, but this isn't grounds for deletion alone. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs attention, but meets WP:CORP due to articles. JChap2007 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it appears to meet WP:CORP. shotwell 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You might want to compare with Jingle Networks and 1-800-free411: the content is almost the same. I am for keeping the former and deleting the latter. Nicolas1981 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Hetze

edit

Claim to notability is was the first man in all South America who held in 1890 the Sabbath of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and kept the Sabbath day holy as the church teaches. I don't know if that is notable enough or even verifiable; searches forReinhardt or Reynaldo yield mostly WP mirrors. ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


whay dont you go to the church history in south america and check it for yourselves insteat of automaticly delete what you guess... you fools.!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy, a brief Google indicates that poethical is associated with Earwood, as if it were ever in doubt. Guy 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Earwood

edit

An article on a self-published nn poet. "Timothy Earwood" results in fewer than 30 unique ghits. Likely runs against WP:VAIN: ten of first editor Poethical's 15 Wikipedia contributions have concerned Timothy Earwood. Four of the remaining five contributions have been to Peter Urban and Goju-Ryu, two interestes identified in the article. Victoriagirl 00:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to a WP:COI or WP:SPA the subject fails WP:BIO and is not notable. Cbrown1023 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Alex (Talk) 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Pfligler

edit

NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Saginaw Spirit players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability (although being drafted isn't an instant factor of notability either, I just want to bundle those of similar ilk, others can check the list later):

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in South Africa

edit

tagged db-empty but does not really apply to list articles. South Africa is rather a large country and has more than a few schools... Guy 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That part has been removed from the article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has only a few hours of life. Perhaps it should've been prodded instead, giving more time to its creator to add content before having everybody judging his work. Anyway I believe that a list of schools in South Africa would pretty much look like an endless directory, thus not conforming to WP:NOT.--Húsönd 04:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like List of schools? FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's pretty much an example of the worthlessness these lists may generate.--Húsönd 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 and A7. Guy 10:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival (with bubbles)

edit

I have no idea what event this is describing, but it appears to be some local school event and surely is not notable. Calliopejen 00:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete!!! [Duplicate vote removed]I would like to begin my comment by requesting a 30 day period during which the article may be re-written, as suggested by Cbrown1023. This article was created as a skeleton to be fleshed out by the greater Festival community. It has not yet exited for four hours and yet there are already calls for its deletion. Such calls appear to be contrary to the community spirit of the Wikipedia. If the reason for this suggestion is that the Wikipedia community is concerned about respectability in the greater community, I appreciate this concern. However I think that allowing enough time for a communal creation of an article is well within the spirit of the project. If, after 30 days, enough members of the Festival community have not deemed it appropriate or worthwhile to commit enough time to Wikipedia to flesh out the entry enough to address the criticisms below, then I agree it should be deleted.

Beyond this request, I will address the specific reasons for recommending deletion. Cbrown1023’s request for a total-rewrite in which the author can explain the subject better is well received. The idea was for one participant to provide the skeleton of the article such that various other participants could more readily add to the substance of the article and clarify it. However, I respect the need to put a limit on such efforts, given the prevalence of lazy communities that start projects on the Wikipedia and are not committed to maintaining them. This is why I recommend the 30 day moratorium on the discussion about whether or not the article should be deleted. If after 30 days the article is not fleshed out, then I too will recommend deletion. With regard to Masamage’s request to send the article to WP:BJAODN, this, again, might seem appropriate to those who do not, for obvious reasons, understand the article, but again I urge a 30 day period during which the article may be fleshed out by the entire Festival community. This article was created in order that those who participated would have an easier time adding content. Although the wiki format is easy to use, if there is an article already created then it is easier to edit. OfficeGirl suggests what may seem like the most appropriate critique of the article with the suggestion that it violates WP:NFT. I was concerned about this particular guideline myself while creating the article and this is why I created the history sub-heading. I do not think that Festival is a violation of these guidelines, and I know several other Festival participants who have read the guidelines themselves and still agree. Furthermore, because I did not want to waste the time of the Wikipedia community, I requested assurance of those Festival participants in the creation of the article prior to their participation in the creation of this article. I have been assured by several participants that, if the article itself were created, they would be happy to add content in order to clarify it. For this reason I request a 30 day period during which Festival participants are allowed to contribute to the article prior to its consideration for deletion. There were several complaints about the lack of sources. I feel very redundant at this point in my request, but I think it best to allow a 30 period in order to list the sources. This is, perhaps, the most tedious task, although one of the more important, or any wikipedian and at times takes more than six hours to perform if it is do be done correctly. Having just read the the wikipedia guidline on verifiability I can assure the Wikipedia editors, whose commitment to the integrity of this project is evident by the number who have turned out to pass judgment on this single article, that two legitimate sources have published articles about Festival and one is in the works, and that if the 30 day wait period is suggested that these publications will be linked to the website. We will verify it, although we do appreciatability Metropolitan90’s link to the page with the verifiability criteria. The fact that Mikeblas cannot find the soundtrack on Allmusic or Amazon seems entirely irrelevant, and the suggestion that this is “Something made up at break one day” is both insulting and unsupported. I take great offense that the conclusions jumped to by this particular Wikipedia-editor. I will assume for the time being that they have been reached by the lack of respect for the wikipedia project that Mikeblas has encountered in the past and a general embitterment to those whose actions undermine the integrity of the project. Consequently I will not make further comment on this ill founded suggestion to delete the article. • I cannot understand Arbusto’s request to delete (without bubbles) unless it is just a suggestion in an overall vote. If so, the vote is respected. If ‘(without bubbles)’ is supposed to provide some reason for this vote, I am left in a state this perplexing by another’s reasoning since I stopped teaching introductory logic courses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festwoman (talk • contribs)

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

The result was speedy delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Masters

edit

Non notable fansite for The Sims. The prod was contested a while back but this one could almost be speedied under A7. Note that the article has been built entirely by anonymous IPs and VampireX13 (talk · contribs). Perhaps not unrelated is the fact that one of the main moderators of the website is a user called Vampire. In any case, the content is mostly unverifiable and most clearly of no encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Capezzone

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Twinkle of an Eye

edit

Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. "In the Twinkle of an Eye" "Linda Sterling" produces 11 unique Google hits. The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 356,183. -Elmer Clark 05:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience curricula

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Bellemore

edit

NN hockey player, fails sportspeople guidelines set in WP:BIO, precedent set with discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jovica Zelenbaba Tony fanta 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also former/current Plymouth Whalers players that do not meet WP:BIO and have not been drafted by the NHL or show any notability:

Excerpt from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 8#CHL alumni categories
Quote from ccwaters

Clarification: the guideline at WP:BIO states Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles. So for hockey players, they are wiki notable if they have played professionally. Of course there are always exceptions like hot prospects (Jordan Staal, Phil Kessel, etc)... ccwaters 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With the OHL being considered a professional league, it would mean that all players could be up. Don't get me wrong, I don't really consider there to be entirely bright hockey futures for all of them, but I can promise that at least 4 will be playing in higher leagues in the next 3 years, at least one of them next year. 35.11.236.45 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Update: upon further research into the matter, I would make a suggestion as to players to save, from this list, as long other OHL teams are given similar chances to get their prospects "wikiworthy". I would suggest leaving Steve Ward, Andrew Fournier, Vern Cooper, and A.J. Jenks. Among players in the list above, there may be fringe NHL draft picks, but the four I have mentioned will move on. 35.11.236.45 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Waldman

edit

An article on a self-published non-notable writer in clear violation with WP:COI guidelines. Original editor Mitchwaldman has contributed to this article exclusively. Subject fails WP:BIO Victoriagirl 02:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miramonte Department of Choral Studies

edit

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, is without context, and violates WP:NPOV. "Miramonte Department of Choral Studies" scores precisely 12 unique Ghits, and "Heritage International Choral Festival" scores 3 unique Ghits. It refers to, and could be a part of, Miramonte High School, but gets no mention whatsoever in latter article, where this article may be suitably be merged in part, if any editor judges content worthy of keeping. Ohconfucius 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norelle Van Herk

edit

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that relaity show contestants are inherently notable. After losing this reality show, this contestant has done nothing more notable than failing to win on the show. Mikeblas 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Land Far Away

edit

This is a non-notable community and fails WP:WEB. It is apparently the most well-known community for the Neverwinter Nights game, but this is far from being notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently has an incredibly low Alexa ranking (and has for many years) and very few relevant Google hits. Prod was removed by User:Avraham, saying the community has "hundreds of members" and some screennames of members were used in later games, though this at best is trivia that should be listed on the related game pages.--- RockMFR 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catie Anderson

edit

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who asserted that "reality contestants are inherently notable". After losing on this game show, this contestant went on to have a couple of bit parts on a soap opera, appearing in only two epsiodes. She is more notable than an extra in a movie. Mikeblas 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all as obvious hoaxes per WP:SNOW and the several pairs of eyes, below. NawlinWiki 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 FIFA "D" World Cup

edit

Hoax, there was no 2005 FIFA World Cup, info taken from 2002 World Cup, user that create this article talk page shows he has created several other hoaxes. Coasttocoast 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for same reason:

Yeah, I do recall the Vatican and its actual football team! :-) Anyway the modus operandi here is quite similar, England is once again unbeatable and if this hoax isn't deleted soon enough then I can foresee Portugal losing miserably against Mali. --Húsönd 05:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's really sad about all of this is that I've done the same kind of thing with other countries and other sports. Offline, of course, but I've done it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Hernández

edit

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff, who did so because "reality contestants are inherently notable". This losing contestant has done nothing notable after the show. Has just less than 1000 hits on Google. [4] Mikeblas 03:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Taylor

edit

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who assert that realtiy show contestants are inherently notable. After losing on the show, this contestant has done some modelling, but nothing that sets her apart from others. About 1600 hits on Google. [5]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Maxwell

edit

The article is not written very well, but I would like it to be improved on, rather than deleted. Jordan Maxwell's work is very important to the 'research community' (aka conspiracy theorists), and he is cited and quoted by many other writers and lecturers, including Michael Tsarion, David Ike and others. To delete his entry would be to start a trend of removing entries for anyone who dares to question the status quo. Just because the complainant hasn't heard of him, doesn't mean that he is not notable.

Unnotable conspriacy theorist with three books "published" from a PO Box in San Diego, California.[6] Fails notability. Arbusto 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete _him_ then that's a good precedent to "nominate and destroy" most of those christian preachers, bible colleges and other such organizations that have cropped up on WP as of late; few of these pass the same litmus test. There is too much of Maxwell's work in circulation for him to be dismissed like that. What's more, and most telling is that Arbustoo chose to forget to mention the many documentaries for television Mr. Maxwell has worked on and at times appeared therein in person as well as the many events Mr. Maxwell has been a featured speaker at many venues and has been invited as a guest to many radio shows such as Art Bell / George Noory's Coast to Coast etc. etc.

Many are available on |http://video.google.com&q=jordan+maxwell :

... ...

Just looking at this website at [[7]] it's therefore not just "three books" "published by a PO Box".

I can imagine his work does not sit well with (christian) religionists and other such related organizations and cults, however as I stated in the beginning, as far as notability is concerned, once you delve into subjects such as secret societies and the inner workings of organized religion then there is no way past Jordan Maxwell. Reader 13:02, 3 November 2006(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.230.65 (talk • contribs)

The main issue is whether he meets WP:BIO. If you can show that he meets that guideline you have a much better chance of the article getting kept. The above does not help in that regardJoshuaZ 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has NOT been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
  2. has ONE published work that can be easily found. Hardly notable, Wikipedia is not a library.
  3. The only possible field that this person could be widely recognized as contributing to is whackaloonery, but even then I find little evidence of that (aside from his personal website, which is worth reading for sheer entertainment value. Maybe move it to BJAODN?)
  4. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. FAILED.
  5. Under alternative tests, expandability is very low.

I think Guy hit it on the head by calling him a self-professed and self-published "expert". --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(2) is wrong: proof: [8]
(3) an insult does not qualify as a reason to delete his article
(4) but relevance is: [9]
--John.constantine 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Black

edit

prod was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing that set her apart from others in her field. About 700 hits on Google [10]. Mikeblas 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Deighton

edit

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who commented that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. Less than 600 hits on Google [11]. Mikeblas 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Open University

edit

Unnotable unaccredited "university." I get 2,300 yahoo hits including wikipedia and spam. Should be redirected to the New York Institute of Technology per the more famous program of the accredited school. According to the NY IT article, "the college launched American Open University of NYIT in November 1984." This Virgina unaccredited "school" has nothing to do with the NY accredited program. Arbusto 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this "university" is recognised by other universities, not accredited by them. Accreditation is a formal process with a specific meaning, and the article clearly states that this "university" is wholly unaccredited.


  • Delete as not notable. I hesitated when I read the above, but after looking into it, only two universities have an agreement with AOU; one in Sudan, one in Malaysia. AuburnPilotTalk 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now. If the authors can support genuine notability, I could consider a keep. Even though its not accredited, I suppose in the current environment, a school that caters to Muslims could have some notability attached. Montco 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: See my response above about accreditation; few Google hits and no claim to notability within the article all point do deletion. --Nehwyn 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Marginal qualification for an article: more Google hits than the average diploma mill. Has students, faculty, and curriculum, has been around for several years, requires a course of study over several years to get a degree which is claimed to be recognized by 2 foreign universites. Graduates could improve their knowledge of the religion for their own self improvement or for employment in a religious enterprise without accreditation. Edison 20:36, 27 October 2006

(UTC)

Please ensure those claims pass WP:V. Arbusto 08:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extensive news coverage in the Washington Post and other sources concerning this school's ties to Saudi Arabia and funding from the Islamic Assembly of North America [12]. The school's founder was deported in 2004 after being linked to extremism. This is exactly the sort of article where you have to look way beyond "google hits". Obviously needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. --JJay 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point. The articles (the three post articles) you cited is in direct contradiction with how the article currently presents itself. Thus, this should be deleted for WP:V issues.
Perhaps if the person named in the articles you mentioned is notable enough for his own wikipedia article, currently he is not, this article could be merged with him. Yet, clearly this minor news event didn't spark enough interest on the people mentioned, and doesn't warrant a separate article on the school. This isnt wikinews. Arbusto 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:V. As I stated with my first comment, the article needs expansion from someone who knows the subject. There are clearly a lot of sources available for that expansion. Hence, WP:V can be easily satisfied. Finally, your comment about wikinews is not relevant to this discussion. A school of higher learning that has been newsworthy enough to garner attention from major sources such as the Washington Post more than qualifies for an article here. --JJay 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very similiar argument you made at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Council of Private Colleges and Universities, which you were the only one to vote keep. If anything ever came of these three 2004 mentions it should be included. However, all you have is three sources that MENTION the "school", but don't devote any space to the school itself. Arbusto 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Murphy

edit

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [14]. Mikeblas 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to America's Next Top Model.  Glen  01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Richardson

edit

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 600 hits on Google [15]. Mikeblas 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Epley

edit

prod tag was removed by User:Badlydrawnjeff who wrote that "reality contestants are inherently notable". This contestant lost on the show, then went on to do nothing to set herself apart from her peers. About 1100 hits on Google [17]. Mikeblas 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing In The Rain

edit

Non-notable song with no claims of notability. I have tried repeatedly to redirect it to the album page, but the article's creator insists on unredirecting, therefore it's time to get the thing deleted altogether. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous addresses

edit

Prodded and Prod lifted by creator. I fail to see the point of this list. It is always likely to be incomplete. In my view a category structure would do a better job and be much easier to maintain. Delete. BlueValour 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, tell me how this is different from List of famous streets or List of the addresses of fictional characters? There are many addresses well known by their address and that's what this list is for. The nominator here apparently didn't read the article nor the talk page because he claims this list is "potentially unlimited" which is almost patently false. This is not a list of famous people's addresses and is no more unlimited than list of famous streets. Cburnett 05:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not indiscriminate so IMO it gets past WP:NOT and BlueValour seems to concede that the information could be converted into a category. So I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Am I missing something? --Mereda 09:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I see the point of this list -- there are articles with addresses as titles. If the list is maintained as such (and it states its criteria at the top) I think it should be kept. Dina 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided at this point, but one thing that troubles me is that the criteria here seems rather arbitrary. What constitutes a "famous address"? How is this quantified? Why isn't this a list of famous people's addresses? As it stands I see no reason why Oprah's address couldn't be added here and the text "but not just a list of addresses of famous people or things." removed as this seems a rather arbitrary decision to exclude that information by the article creator. Also, where is the sourcing suggesting these are famous addresses? Is this just an example of "I know it is famous so it should be in this list?"--Isotope23 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the talk page? You seem to have completely missed the point. It is not a list of famous people's address. Would you recognize oprah's address as her address? Would the average person know? Doubtful. How many [americans] recognize "1600 pennsylvania avenue" as the white house? The talk page explains this and gives two litmus tests for this and I explained it above. The criteria is not arbitrary as you believe it to be.
I welcome any input (perhaps this could have been done before AFDing it) on how to make this more clear: the addresses here are recognizable when they stand alone. I think 10 downing street, 221B Baker Street, 1600 pennsylvania ave, and 30 rockefeller plaza are excellent examples that demonstrate this. Would you know oprah's address from jay leno's from tom clancy's from leonard nemoy's?
As for "As it stands I see no reason why Oprah's address couldn't be added here". People move and people change addresses. Wikipedia is not a phone book. When was the last time the white house moved? Or the PM of the UK? Did Sherlock Holmes ever move? Cburnett 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the talk page and I commented there as well. Your point about celebrity addresses is well taken. The problem I still see though is that the addresses you've cited as examples are not sourced as famous, specifically it is not verified in the article that these addresses are famous or well known. I think it is an assumption on your part (albeit perhaps a correct one) that most Americans would recognize "1600 pennsylvania avenue", but what of wider notability? How many people in the world would recognize that as the White House? Does the fact that the White House have an article qualify it as a notable address? What about WP:LOCAL locations that might have significance to the populace of a city and be referred to with their address but are not perhaps generally known by the larger public? I still don't think your litmus test for inclusion is well enough defined.--Isotope23 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue exists as a dab page (and the name of a movie) and 30 Rockefeller Plaza is a redirect while both 10 Downing Street and 221B Baker Street are actual articles. I'm not a heavy AFD/IFD/etc. participant but "notability" seems to be thrown around a lot in such discussions so I think the existance of an article would be sufficient to say the address is notable. A redirect, to me, says that the address is well known enough to trouble someone to create said redirect (please don't go creating a bunch of redirects to dilute my point :).
I initially set the bar to "famous" to make it a more exclusive list but I, like you, recognized the trouble in labelling them as "famous". If lowering the bar to notability presumed by the existance of a WP article is required then so be it. On looking around 40 Wall Street should probably be added being that it claimed the world's tallest building (albiet for ~1 month). I'm more than willing to "lower the bar" and rename to list of notable addresses and discuss how to make this article work but I still think it's doable. Cburnett 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who cares to chime in, I've started it off at Talk:List of famous addresses#Notability. Cburnett 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Middle School

edit

Contested prod. Non notable middle school. Absolutely nothing sets this one apart from thousands of other middle schools Resolute 04:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete There is nothing notable about this school. It has no well known alumni, nor is it particularly old. It has no succesful sports teams or clubs that have performed at a notable level. The school has recieved no notable awards. JoshuaZ 07:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep The blue ribbon awards are sufficient claim to notability. JoshuaZ 02:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 08:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain from school debates, but I cleaned up the more glaring POV and unsourced problems and stubbed it.--Isotope23 16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JoshuaZ. Not like it matters... -- Kicking222 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 23:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hillsborough, California per WP:LOCAL. The town article is pretty short and does mention the school in passing so it makes sense to merge the information in this article there. JYolkowski // talk 00:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possible merge with Hillsborough, California per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:46, 4 November 2006
    • Kommentar WP:SCHOOLS seems like it isn't going to become a guideline anytime soon. Multiple editors over the last few days have tried to put a rejection template on it. JoshuaZ 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar Several school deletionists, JoshuaZ notably among them, have tried to tag WP:SCHOOLS as rejected, when this is simply NOT the case. The fact that WP:SCHOOLS has not reached consensus is part of an effort from those who refuse to cooperate to develop objective standards. The fact that the deletionists refuse to offer an alternative leaves WP:SCHOOLS as the only viable guideline. It's time that folks come to the table to work on a mutually-acceptable standard, rather than putting up with the claim that WP:SCHOOLS is a rejected standard. Alansohn
        • Comment Many "deletionists" have made specific comments about what they find unacceptable in the current proposal. This has been extensively discussed on the talk page. The end result was that none of them occured. If you want I'll make yet another proposal which will be the same as the current one but missing certain items that I already brought up on the talk page. I doubt it will get any consensus either. JoshuaZ 23:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kommentar Since I'm getting a bit annoyed at the inaccurate claims that "deletionists" don't ever make proposals, I've added a proposal at User:JoshuaZ/Schoolproposal. See the WP:SCHOOLS's talk page for more details. JoshuaZ 23:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Personally, I don't think using a non-accepted proposal as a guideline is necessarily the best idea... beyond that, calling out the "deletionists" is a bit misleading as there is just as much (and possibly more) opposition to ever working on an accepted guideline by "inclusionists" as well. WP:AGF, but what possible incentive is there for school inclusionists to ever pony up to the table and discuss WP:SCHOOLS when virtually every single WP:V school that is over the "homeschool" threshhold is kept? If I were an inclusionist and I was seeing even Pre-schools kept on a no consensus, I'm not sure I'd be eager to sit down and discuss guidelines...--Isotope23 14:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge article does not meet the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Deletion of the article, as advocated by nom and JoshuaZ, when it can be the subject of a merge is pure destructive delionist vandalism. Alansohn 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Strong Keep By searching under "William H. Crocker Middle School" (nor just "Crocker Middle School"), I was able to confirm that the school has been honered by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the highest award granted to any school in the nation by the United States Department of Education. For all those who have constitently attempted to trivialize this award, Crocker has been recognized not once, not twice, not three times, but on four separate occasions,: in 1982-83, 1988-89, 1994-96 and again during the 2004-05 school year. As far as I know there are only three other schools nationwide that won the award four times from 1982-2002, and I don't see any winners after 2002 who had won three times before. This school is one of about five in the nation to be so recognized. Alansohn 00:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Alansohn's research. Turns out this is one of a very small number of schools that is notable. I'll go vandalize and destroy some other article now.... Resolute 01:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Crew

edit

Unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. Two previous attempt by User:Fan-1967 to speedy it were blocked by suspected sock puppets, Planetispluto and ADE5715 - two first-time editors with no other edits to their name. The band has apparently one self-released album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews). They and are scheduled to play their first live gig in their home town at the Thanksgiving break 2006 per their website. 442 unique Ghits for "Stage crew" + celtic, all but about 5 return links for the generic usage of stage crew. Ohconfucius 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albophobia

edit

Dictionary definition; recreation of previously deleted article; non-notable term (139 ghits, one of which is my user page where I list pages that I have deleted.) Prod removed. Brianyoumans 05:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Forums

edit

Fails WP:WEB. Relatively small Internet forum/website, no assertion of notability outside of its own community. --- RockMFR 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board

edit

Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sorry, but I'm not seeing the press coverage that was claimed but never shown. Normally a closer doesn't search, but normally people provide evidence rather than just vague claims of it. On a News search, I get one result and it's a simple mention that isn't very informative. On a regular google search, everything seems to be various random webpages either of credential check sites or other schools / practitioners. Gillian McKeith cites at least 2 articles from newspapers... this article cites nothing, none of the "news coverage" of McKeith mentions this group, let alone gives useful information on it. If anyone wants to present a reliable source on this topic, I'll undelete. W.marsh 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Drugless Practitioners

edit

Unnotable accreditation mill with no recognition or connection to any respected academic group. Arbusto 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 08:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can source its being an accreditation mill. Again, appears to be ignored by the wider community, so that's likely to be impossible. Guy 09:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This group does not seem to be primarily an accreditation mill; it also certifies practitioners, and claims to function as a referral service, etc. It may be scam-like, but it appears markedly more notable than the entry above; for instance, it gets more than 39K Google hits, 713 unique - most of them schools and practitioners mentioning their certification. --Brianyoumans 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many press mentions per comments from Brianyoumans. Was in the news as part of the Gillian McKeith education scandal. Obviously important to document these groups given the number of schools who cite them as accreditors. Finally, should be kept per the list guidelines, which mandate articles for list components and this is included in our List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. --JJay 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) You listed NO sources for that claim. Perhaps if it is so important it should be included to prove notablity? 2) Just because its on a list does not mean an automatic keep (as you have been told before.) 3) 713 unique google hits is not very many. 4) What are some of these "schools" its connected too? Arbusto 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what claim you are objecting to. Check the coverage on McKeith. This was major news in the UK. Otherwise, besides the list guidelines, I think we should be documenting all unrecognized accreditors, for the simple reason that people constantly claim bogus degrees from these groups. Merely listing them does not provide enough information for our readers. --JJay 23:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Check the coverage on McKeith." As for now you haven't supplied anything to prove notability for this group. Does it even still exist as a group or is it just a internet front? WP:CORP states we need several non-trival sources. Arbusto 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — They do seem to be a real organisation, offering accreditation services, though the article desperately needs cleanup to include sources and statements of notability. Should these not be provided, it's a non-notable organisation Martinp23 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. "Little known fact, the lead singer of Scenegrind Pop-Thrash band "Shovel" was the first man to deny nine eleven actually happened. Oddly enough "Shovel" broke up before 1985." Ha ha ha. NawlinWiki 19:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scenegrind pop-thrash

edit

Non-notable or made up musical style. Unsourced, article title gets no google hits outside Wikipedia[18]. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenverse

edit

Endorsed prod removed. No verification nor assertion of notability/significance. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 06:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation vs. Evolution

edit

POV fork of Creation-evolution controversy, at best would make sense to be a redirect. JoshuaZ 06:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense/obvious hoax. "Several I-131 bombs have been sucessfully tested at the defense contractor NeuroToxin's test pits. At least one has been badly damaged. It is believed that NeuroToxin is covering up these tests to sell the technology to rogue countries such as the DPRK." Give me a freakin' break. NawlinWiki 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine bomb

edit

Hoax. I-131 is a product from a nuclear fission. Its fusion would be a reverse reaction requiring additional energy, not producing it. No ghits on such a novel weapon Alex Bakharev 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7. "As of November 3, 2006, the movement hadn't done anything." Sounds like a failure to assert notability to me. NawlinWiki 19:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Vegetarianism

edit
  • Delete Unverifiable. If it cannot be verified it cannot exist. God article must also be deleted based on this logic.

Not notable movement Alex Bakharev 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape random events

edit

Nominated for deletion for a third time. This article seems much more like part of a game guide than an encyclopedia article. The notability of the article isnt asserted in any way. There are no third parties references. I'd propose it be deleted MidgleyDJ 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's way too much cruft on here about Runescape as it stands. This isn't a games review site. All that's needed, in order to fulfill the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide a reader ignorant of the subject enough information to understand what the game is and a general context for how it works, no more. Even the main article could do with some severe pruning, and all the remaining adjuncts expunging. Cain Mosni 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Caradja

edit

Lack of notability, lack of relevancy, dubious claim to Dracula lineage (or, in case, one shared with thousands of other people) Dahn 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I just watched a Discovery documentary about Dracula and she's featured in it as a "descendant of Dracula." While you claim "dubious claim to Dracula lineage," you haven't provided any sources refuting her claim. That being said, I trust the Discovery channel as a source a lot more than some Wikipedian. Just to prove that I'm not making this up and back up my claim, here's a snapshot: [19] If she indeed is the descendant of Dracula, then she's absolutely notable. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:51, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Coment - 1. Is every descendant of Ţepeş' notable for being his descendant? 2. The claim of direct lineage is highly unlikely, as anyone vaguely familiar with Romanian history knows (ie: no direct lineage was necessary to become prince, all boyar familes were related to the prince, and something called the Phanariotes came about at some point - Brianna is a descendant, more or less direct, of the Caragea family, who were not "descendants of Dracula" more than hundreds of other families); even the sources you mention indicate that she is an [indirect] descendant of the 27th generation! Caradja has never made that claim inside Romania, arguably because she knows it is refutable for the said reasons. 3. And what else has she done, pray tell? A Google glance over Romanian journals says that she has: married an American, paid reporters to photograph her (!), married (re-married with?) a man who was supposed to be the son-in-law of Michael I of Romania. Dahn 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you at least provide your "Google" sources? You're only asserting things here without actually providing sources for your claims. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:10, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
[20], [21], [22]. All tabloids. Dahn 08:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tabloids are extremely reliable. If tabloids write something, it must be true. Seriously, I take the word of Discovery any day over tabloids. As for the Caragea family, it seems they have history with Wallachia and that makes it more probable that she's a descendant of Dracula, and there's an article about Catherine Caradja too (could be family). Either way, to me, she seems notable whether or not she actually is a descendant of Dracula. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:20, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Let me explain som things. I was using tabloids precisely because they are the only Romanian sources on Brianna Cardja you will bump into on the entire internet, and with this kind of topics (in fact, there are two sites or so, with the same news, the odd English-language chat, and then that's it!). If you did not see the point about the Caradjas being a Phanariote family and how that relates to their descendants and their kinship with Dracula, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on issues having to do with Romanian hisory. Dahn 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. You are ASSUMING that she's 100% from the Caragea family because of her surname. You haven't done serious research on her family lineage, YOU DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT HER FAMILY LINEAGE IS OR ISN'T. A surname is a surname. It doesn't prove anything. You can have an Arab surname, but that doesn't make you an Arab. You're basing her entire lineage on her surname. And don't tell me to not comment on things. EliasAlucard|Talk 09:48, 18 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Let me make it even more clear. Aside from the fact that it is very unlikely to be named Caradja and not be a Caradja in Romania, especially when you also say you're a princess, I will say that she'd better be a Caradja at the very least. Because, you see, Vlad Ţepeş' last direct male descendant, Petru cel Tânăr, died without heirs in 1568. Dahn 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fuck didn't you mention this from the beginning? You could've saved me lots of time. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:48, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I believe I have told you several times already that Caradja (with or without the name) cannot be a direct descendant. Moreover, I have also mentioned that succession rules in yesteryear Wallachia were absurd (one of all male children, legitimate and illegimate alike, could inherit a title), and direct lineage was a non sequitur (in general, all such claims are dubious). Dahn 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what her surname is. Surnames change throughout the years. You can't expect a family lineage to have the same surname for 600 years. So a surname isn't really that important. But if his last male descendant died without heirs, that's another thing (I'd like to have a source for this if possible). EliasAlucard|Talk 22:53, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
1) "Caradja"/"Caragea" is not "Johnson", you know? It's more like "there might have been more than one families named House of Hannover in England". I'd wager that the name was not held by any family other than descendants of the original Carageas, who were Greek and came to Romania in the 1700s (300 years after Dracula died). This would imply that, since a princely claim is involved, Caradja is, at best, a descendant of those people. 2) Turns out I was wrong - I had forgotten that Petru and Alexandru II were brothers. Which leads us to Alexandru Coconul (the Child-Prince), who left no inheritors after his 1627 rule (Mihnea III was, possibly, his brother - he died without inheritors after getting whoopass from the Ottomans in 1659) - see here. With Matei Basarab, princes were no longer nominated after any real hereditary criteria, and all boyar families claimed to descend from the legendary rulers of the 1300s (which, if anything, would make them collateral).
Since it is highly unlikely that non-Caradjas could bear both the name Caradja and the "title" of prince (I should warn you that nobody was exactly a prince or princess after the 1870s), Dracula "blood" could only have come to them through a collateral branch; since the male line was extinguished before the 1630s (while parallel branches from Dracula's various brothers and uncles continued to exist) the very probability is ridiculous; since clear rules of succession were never really the case in medieval Wallachia, and women did not have the right to inherit, all such "genealogies" are merely shiny beads for the gullible. Dahn 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but please tell me, if she's not a descendant of Dracula, then why is she claiming to be a descendant of Dracula and how is it that the Discovery channel presents it as a fact? They're putting their credibility at stake by doing so, and I doubt they would want to screw up their credibility for a documentary about Dracula. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:49, 03 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
"Why is she claiming to be a descendent of Dracula?" Why do people claim to be descendents of anyone famous? It makes people think of you differently. "Why does the Discovery Channel present it as fact?" Presumably because they were hoodwinked as well - not every documentary maker is able to check every single fact thoroughly (every time I see documentaries about areas I'm interested in, I spot mistakes). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And so it was decided that Brianna Caradja is not a descendant of Dracula by the infallible Wikipedia community. Now, it has become a fact. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:43, 04 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
No, she may be a descendent of Dracula (if she is, she's still non-notable because she's 27 generations removed from someone notable). What I'm saying is that there are perfectly sensible reasons why she might claim to be one if she wasn't, and equally sensible reasons why a documentary might say that she was even if she wasn't. You asked two questions and were given two answers. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Alucard, you will watch your language, or else. Biruitorul 22:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shut the fuck up fat boy. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:43, 04 Nov, 2006 (UTC)
I think you've said more than enough on this AfD. Tone down your language, or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hait

edit

This page makes some very doubtful claims about its subjects achievements. The article claims subject is responsible for significant scientific advances, with no verification - it seems a lot like a hoax. --Swpb 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50) at 17:30, 3 November 2006 --Swpb 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact to judge by the description on Image:John hait.jpg, the article was written by his son - but it is still vam and spanity. -- RHaworth 08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was made by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50) at 17:30, 3 November 2006 --Swpb 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE!!! The proof's in the pudding. Check out his patents based off his theories. He invented and patented the world's fastest transistor, which has been demonstrated in the lab to switch in a single wavelength of blue light in 1.2 femtoseconds. 100,000 times faster than electronic transistors. CoolScience 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Funny, I can't find any publication verifying such a claim in Google Scholar. [24]. In fact, there don't seem to be any publications by him regarding transistors. eaolson 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the "transistor" is just interference between two beams of light. This is something simple dressed up to try and make it look cool and novel. This guy has been hanging around the fringes of science for years.Dtneilson 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just unblocked the article creator, User:Einsteincode, who had been blocked for repeatedly reposting a very spammy article on Mr. Hait's book, "The Einstein Code". (He promised not to recreate the article on the book.) I suspect (from the use of exclamation points above, if nothing else) that Einsteincode, CoolScience, and 24.117.205.50 are all the same person, namely, Mr. Hait's son. NawlinWiki 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passive Annual Heat Storage

edit

Pure advert created by the inventor of this process - see John Hait who also has this AfD discussion. -- RHaworth 07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was posted at 17:47, 3 November 2006 by User:24.117.205.50 (User talk:24.117.205.50). --Swpb 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pgk. Whispering 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxpayer's holiday

edit

Unknown and unsigned band with no sign of passing WP:MUSIC. The band has apparently no album, (no sign on Amazon, and no sign of reviews); exactly 5 unique Ghits for "Taxpayer's holiday" + nebraska Ohconfucius 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kramer

edit

This article is blatantly self-publicity and seems to being continually altered and updated, quite possibly by the subject themselves. I fail to see how a very minor presenter of a gaming quiz programme primarily on non-terrestrial television is a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This undoubtable falls short of theWP:VAIN criteria.

Any edits and changes which cast doubt on the credance of the entry are immediately reverted with juvenile spin. Wiki is not a CV page for desperate wannabee starlets. This is a serious encyclopedia project and should be treated as such.

Forgive me if I have done this incorrectly. I am relatively new to Wiki, but have become passionate about what it stands for, and find this to be beneath the standards it should rightly quest for.

James — James Leftovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • I have amended two sections to remove offending items and tidy the entire entry. As an ITV1 presenter she needs to be in Wikipedia for Wikipedia to serve it's purpose. — 81.158.132.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - both users above have only edited this page and the article in question. This debate was relisted due to a mistake on my part. MER-C 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of numerous presenters/hosts for various shows on various channels down the dial. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it falls foul of WP:SAYNOTOMINORQUIZSHOWHOSTS. Vizjim 11:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I profoundly disagree that we need this twaddle article in order for Wikipedia to fulfil its purpose. When we still have titanic figures such as Giovanni Punto with no articles (until I created one, anyway) I think we can safely leave the daytime quiz show hosts for later. Guy 12:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I originally submitted this - and yes I've only posted here, I had posted before but without logging in - however I needed to do so in order to suggest the deletion. Can someone help me - it seems to have gone from the article - does this mean the deletion isn't happening. Sorry to be confused I'm quite new, I just feel this is important. I also note that someone has now taken out the fact that this presenter works for a channel who's repuatation has been severely questioned ethically. It really does have no place on wikie!
  • Delete — Not notable - as JzG implied, we don't need an article on every tv presenter (ever to appear on TV // ever).... Martinp23 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the closing admin may wish to note that the AfD notice was absent from the article for 18 hours - should consensus need to be formed (which I'd doubt...) at the end of the current time, I feel that the AfD should be relisted, at the admin's discretion Martinp23 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - whether or not Ms Kramer is important or not to classical historians or whoever, it must be noted a person who regularly appears on a terrestrial TV channel for 6 hours a week is going to be a part of TV history for good or bad. For them to be not noted in Wikipedia shows a snobbery, an elitism and a lacking. Wikipedia is a virtual encyclopedia, if it were printed you'd need to edit, but not on a web site. I should check if the Cillit Bang character 'Barry Scott' or Sugar Puffs 'Honey Monster' are here too. They all make part of TV's chequered History. I have looked at other "to delete" pages & some I've wondered why. Some clearly are the "twaddle" as noted above.
  • Strong keep. Appears to confer notability via being a TV presenter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as my rant on TRIVIA shows (who reads this page anyway?) send this Wiki to oblivion & for all the time wasted on it by thou & thee, put it into something more worthwhile. Wikipedia is a great source of solid info, not annoying rubbish like this entry has become.
  • Strong Keep - TV presenter on major television network is notable. If the article appears like self publicity, that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable; it means the article needs to be changed, not deleted. --Oakshade 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I think this person simply isn't worthy of a place in wiki, a non-entity on minor TV station in the UK. Perhaps we should refer them to IMDB where its suitable.
    • ITV1 is a major TV station in the UK. --Oakshade 22:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But she isn't a presenter on it. Moreover, do read the guidelines - "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers; A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following; An independent biography; Name recognition; Commercial endorsements". See WP:BIO. Vizjim 00:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also see "just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." I think she meets what you posted, but even if she comes close, she certainly meets this part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. She ONLY appears on the 'Make Your Play' show which is on ITV for a longer duration than it is on ITV PLAY. Check the start times, you'll see the ITV version starts up to an hour earlier than on ITV PLAY. Therefore in this case, it's more an ITV programme, simulcast on both ITV and segments on ITV PLAY. For this to be debated so strongly, we are drawn to it because we like Alex Kramer (or don't!). Admittedly she is currently little-known outside of TV Quiz circles, where she is very popular (check out fan sites ie http://shoppingtvbabes.co.uk/), but why should (example) a 16th century artist with no public profile of any sort, be "more worthy" than this entry just as it is more highbrow that a Quiz show. Wikipedia should be without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.255.91 (talk • contribs)
    • Dear me, are we now quoting shoppingtvbabes as a source for an encyclopedia, that's the best reason for a delete I've ever seen. What next she should stay because a picture of her appeared in dogsonheat weekly (not that I'm saying it has, but you get my point!)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Glen  11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Controversy of Zion

edit

A non-critical advertisement for a book promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. If the subject is really worth a WP article, it should be rewritten from scratch. Also this is probably a copyvio. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular the Amazon.com page on the book says that
In this dispassionate yet opinionated history, which sweeps from Theodore Herzl's Zionist dream to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995, Wheatcroft condemns the 1975 United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism as gravely malicious, a reflection of the Arab states' malignancy. While praising Israel as "a unique island of constitutional government in the Levant," he echoes the observation of U.S. journalist I.F. Stone that Zionism involved a psychological act of denial along with a physical act of displacement of Palestine's Arab population.
This article is clearly not that. In addition to a completely different POV from the way the book is described, the most obvious problem is that the article sweeps back much earlier than that, tracing things back to Talmudic times etc., something the book is reported not to do. It would be reasonable to infer that only the title, not the content, is taken from the book, that the use of the book as a source may be misleading and a misrepresentation of the article's source and reliability/credibility, and that this article appears to be, instead, completely unsourced personal polemic. See generally WP:CB. Delete. --Shirahadasha 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI edit conflicted. There's apparently two books, one by Wheatcroft (the one with the amazon entry), the other, first published in 1956 by Reed. Dina 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's difficult to go through the normal process with an article that summarizes the Holocaust as "In ratio to their numbers they didn’t suffer any more or any less than other people, but this was an example of the phenomenon, that everything must focus on Jews." but I shall try. It most likely violates WP:COPYVIO and either way, the book itself is not notable enough for this detailed a summary, so the article violates WP:OR. The statements in the article are not presented as arguments from the book, but as fact, which violates WP:V. To say it violates WP:NPOV is almost unneccessary for an article that puts the word anti-semitism in quotes every time it uses it. Furthermore, there is apparently a different book called The Controversy of Zion amazon entry, which according to the reviews on the page appears to be a scholarly, even-handed account of the history of Zionism. (and therefore shouldn't even have to sit next to this book on a library shelf.) Anyone read that book? Let's replace this article with an article about that one! Failing that, let's send this article into the dark pit of deletion. Dina 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some forgotten page on another anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, something that even a 3-year-old would laugh at. --Wareq 07:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Dina. The article seems like it has a bad case of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. IZAK 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Humus and Dina. Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Article name seems a bit nonstandard, suggest reviewing WP:NAME. W.marsh 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John "Kat" Brooks

edit

Random guy who was injured during a shooting, with no other claim to fame. The incident itself is well covered at Dimebag Darrell. Dtcdthingy 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (it was close to merge but a single merge target hasn't been identified). Yomanganitalk 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bunker

edit

Some guy whose only reason for being here is that he hates Scientology and has a website which also has an unnecessary Wikipedia article. Crabapplecove 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Montco, while I'd personally rather have an article about this guy as one more little poke at the scientology asses, he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. If someone can comb through the google hits on the guy to see if they can get him to meet WP:BIO I'd be more than happy to change this to keep. In any case, his website and he should be in the same article. JoshuaZ 03:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep or barring that merge due to the regional Emmy mentioned below. JoshuaZ 07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar. I went sifting through the google hits on this guy and found that we won a 2006 Emmy for something called "Border Special". I think that would qualify him under WP:BIO, yeah? --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Interesting. Good catch on that one. The Emmy was given by the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Does that count as THE 'Emmy' or is this some low budget local Emmy? I don't know. 2006 Winners List --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 October 2006.
    • Answer. The Emmy he won is technically an Emmy, although it's a regional Emmy which "are less glamorous than the Prime Time Emmys and are sometimes technical". I'm torn as to whether this qualifies him for notability. The regional Emmys don't have their own page here; they're just a single paragraph in the Emmy article. My instinct isn't for a keep vote, but I can't back that up through policy. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that winning a regional Emmy should qualify a person under WP:BIO; note that he was only competing against people in San Diego, Las Vegas, and some mid-size California cities (not Los Angeles or San Francisco). Löschen. --Metropolitan90 07:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Winning an Emmy in the district where over 8 million people live is VERY notable. (By the way, most people don't consider San Francisco in the "Pacific Southwest.") --Oakshade 06:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've seen some of his videos and he has a reason to go against scientology since they did things like picket his house and harrass him in public areas, tried to get him arrested for no reason. He has done a lot to bring awareness of scientology and is definitely notable. I'd say keep it or merge it with a page of critics or something.Turboflame 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and pro-Scientology circles, for different reasons. The circles altogether have a large population. --Oakshade 06:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSK #1, nomination withdrawn and no other deletion opinions present. (Merge is a variant on keep, not on delete.) GRBerry 03:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu University High School

edit

High school. No reliable outside sources listed, and none found by a media search, so apparently non-noteworthy. Article consists of the name, location, and founding date (1997) of the school, and it apparently cannot be expanded beyond perhaps demographic information; that means it's a directory entry. Prod disputed on the grounds that it's a school. Shimeru 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "No reliable outside sources listed, and none found by a media search, so apparently non-noteworthy". Wow, that's a pretty big conclusion to draw. It's in Nepal - I suspect that Nepal is not the world's number one country for internet access. That doesn't mean it's non-notable. A Google search confirms its existence and that's all we need for a stub. But keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 11:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's on the small side, so it just meets my personal H.S. notability cireria. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Kathmandu University since the school is a part of the university and is not very notable by itself. JoshuaZ 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is owned by the university, not part of it in the sense that students at the school are students of the university. If this was a High School owned by a prominant university in the west, it would be kept. Kadmandu University is the most prominant university in Nepal. It should be kept, expanded and not merged. --Bduke 23:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn On reflection, perhaps it's unreasonable to expect a stub to be expanded in three months. Since I'm assured it's noteworthy, I'm willing to allow some time for that expansion to happen. I'll renominate in two or three months if it doesn't. I don't believe it will be, because of the lack of sources, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Shimeru 00:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp as well as WP:BIAS concerns. Current sources are sufficient given the context. Yamaguchi先生 04:26, 4 November 2006
  • Keep The fact that we have a near perfect track record setting a precedent for retention of high school articles, combined with the school's affiliation as part of Kathmandu U., convinces me that it is worthy of retention. Alansohn 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Fukuoka Softbank Hawks. Guy 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoftBank Hawks

edit

Already exists in more detail under Fukuoka Softbank Hawks Neoyamaneko 10:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Factory

edit

Non notable public house Quentin X 10:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above WikiGull 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helmi Technologies

edit

Article was speedily deleted as a non-notable company article, then as a recreation of deleted material. The original author believes that the article is notable enough for inclusion, so I am putting this up on Afd. Tangotango 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Initial comment from author I feel that the article meets the notability criterias. The company has been around since 2004, there has been several printed and non printed articles in independetn and well established, respected news sources, magazines etc. about the company including some full page articles during the last few years (both due pressreleases and due personal interviews of the company officials) both in US and Finland. Additionally Helmi as a company is referede by several independent analysts, including Rober Francis Group, 451 Group among others, in their analysts reports. Obiously most of the information, in terms of source, in the article is from the company itself, but atleast the article tries to be objective there. Jrisku 10:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide references for the published material in indepdendent, respected publications. This will clearly resolve the notability question in favour of the article. Add the references to the article rather than here. Rich257 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the report from The 451 Group, it requires user ID, but is still there, I didn't find online version of the report from Rober Francis Group. Jrisku 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland there has been several printed articles about Helmi Technologies, for instance one of the most respected economic magazines of finland "Talouselämä" had an interview of three entepreneurs from Oulu, Helmi had coverage of over one full color page. "Talouselämä" is such news paper, that frequently intervies for instance CEO's of companies like Nokia. There has also been several other printed articles, not related to press releases, for instance in news paper called "Kaleva" (published in Oulu, Finland, about 200 000 readers). I don't know all the US and English language sources, but I know that there has been articles also in English printed press. Helmi has also been several times, among press and other sources, refered as one of the most promising startups in Oulu, Finland (which is one of the most important software hubs in Finland). I would also say, that since helmi is mentioned in several US analyst reports (definately an independent source), it also makes the case rather strong. Personally, I feel that informative and objective content about some company shouldn't constitute article to be deleted. In that way only big companies end up in to wikipedia, which is shame. Additionally I would like to make a note that there are allready few editors who has edited the article and outsiders from Helmi's stand point. Please also note that the link to the 451 group "protected" content is a full report only focused on Helmi, it goes trough in detailled manner Helmi's product and it's strenghts and weaknesses. Helmi doesn't have any client relationship to the 451 group. I added few references to the article page. Jrisku 18:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jrisku appears to be the CEO of the company based on his user page, while that isnt a problem it should be noted in relation to this AfD. A quick google search returns 253,000 pages thats a reasonible quantity of hits and lends itself towards notibility. From within wikipedia the article has no links to it from other articles which I would like to know/see how it can contribute to the overall project by supporting other articles. I would also like to hear Jrisku opinion of the article in relation to WP:NOT especially the section on soapbox. Gnangarra 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above note is correct, just thought, that for credibility shake (so that there will be no "hidden agendas" discussion"), I should place my background on user page as well so that everybody know that I'm part of the source (original page was entered by some one else, propably by some one of our US employees). I feel that there could be links from other articles to this one, and I'm quite sure that there will bee soon enough. The thing though is that article is so new, that there hasn't been too much time for links to appear. We're putting significant resources in to use of Open Source community. Obiously, Helmi is a small company compared to IBM and ohter large contributors, but compared the overall resources of Helmi it's very significant, there are 6-8 full time employees involved in to Open Source development all the time (and it's going to grow significantly).Jrisku 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What comes to WP:NOT section on soapbox, I feel that current article tries to be objective. There is facts like locations, employees, history etc. about the company, objective information about state of the product as well as references to some independent sources (there has been hundreds of mentionings about the company in press). The primary reason for the article is not advertizing, but provide company information in relation to open source community. In case you feel that it should be changed some way in regards to quidelines descriped in WP:NOT, the article should be changed such a way. Jrisku 11:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As said, I'm part of the source and obiously parts of the content / wording is the same as on the web site. The content is provided as a starting point. If it's not objective, please give advice how to change the article and it will be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jrisku (talk • contribs)
I have edited the lead and history section, though the same information is provided its presented differently now. please revisit the article and offer any suggestion/comments I'll endeavour to include. Gnangarra 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Project Management with Scrum

edit

This is a book review for a Microsoft Press book. There being no Cliff's Notes for Microsoft books, the contents of the article is pretty much guaranteed to be original research, and in any case there is not much to be said which is not already on the publisher's website. Guy 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per above, wikipedia is not a book-review site, clearly WP:OR. Makes no assertation of notability, and smells slightly of copyvio, or something being written for WP:SPAM purposes. (Note - I can't find evidence of copyvio, it's just my opinion). Martinp23 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the other scrum pages — (esp. Scrum (management) page). There is material here that can be usefully retained, especially the summaries of roles descriptions. Arguably these are lacking in the other pages describing scrum and scrum processes. Schwaber is one of the authorities on scrum, so there are plenty of other sources that can be used to verify the content and accuracy (see the two other scrum pages Scrum (development) and Scrum (management) for other links. The book mentioned has, itself, a long list of references inside.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield-King

edit

A small company, $5m turnover, a couple of hundred Googles only [27], no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, no sources independent of the subject. Guy 15:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Component-based paradigm

edit

A one-paragraph stub on what appears to be a neologism; not much evidence of this definition being used outside of the cited source. Around 500 ghits excluding Wikipedia. Guy 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toyota Way

edit

Publisher's blurb for a management book. Guy 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. It's just a content listing, and does not even try to assert notabilty.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames Chris Berman mentions

edit

I would say that this is the perfect example of listcruft. Is there an encyclopaedic topic nicknames mentioned by Chris Berman? Doesn't look like it. A list of terms of an arbitrary type uttered by an arbitrarily selected presenter. And guess how many of them are cited? What was that? None at all, you guessed? Well done, bang on the money. Guy 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Independence Party

edit
  • Löschen - not notable. One of the key tests for notability - perhaps the key test - is set out here: User:Uncle G/On notability. This article is about a "political party" - but the only sources offered for the article are (1) entries on the Electorial Commission website evidencing that it is in fact registered (2) the homepage of the party (2) a report of an election result where the party's only candidate stood and got only 1.4% of the vote and (3) one solitary passing mention in a BBC news article from years ago, where the candidate is mentioned but the party itself isn't. There just isn't justification for an article here. --SandyDancer 11:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel it should not be deleted. It may be a small party and you may not agree with it, but that is no reason to delete it form Wikipedia. The England First Party are a party just as small of the EIP, the English Democrats have as many councillors as the English Independence Party (0). `BBC news article from years ago` this is telling of the history of the party. It's a small and fairly young party so you cannot expect that the party will have been advertised as much as Labour or the British National Party, the English Democrats and [[England First Party] haven't been advertised much will you delete them?. Nor can you expect as many elections to be fought by such a small party, the funds simply arn't there. If your only reason to delete this is because of a lack of referances you could delete the England First Party article with only 3 referances and the English Democrats with 0 referances !R johnson 11:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The core of your argument appears to be an admission that this party isn't notable at the moment but should be or might be one day. So you do nothing to assert the notabiliy of this page (which I note you created and which you have been the only real contributor to...)
      • As far as I can see this party doesn't have any elected representatives, and its sole participation has been its founder running in one parliamentary election (losing his deposit) and in one council election. Correct me if I am wrong. --SandyDancer 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your argument for deleteing the article is because the party has been unsuccessful in getting representatives into councils etc? May I note that the English Democrats have no representatives of any form in councils etc. The England First Party doesn't have many more members than the EIP. I did not create the page only edited it. All the reason you have given me to delete this article could be used to delete alot of other articles. 84.66.69.76 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment You are wrong I am afraid. The English Democrats have two members who are elected councillors, as do the England First Party. The English Democrats, certainly, have received a certain amount of publicity and many people have heard of them. Not sure about the English First Party - I've personally never heard of them.
          • If you think other articles should be deleted feel free to propose them - but that isn't an argument for keeping this one. --SandyDancer 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, he didn't create it that I can tell, also note his recent activities on the article have largely consisted of repeatedly removing mentions of its electoral failures, which still has yet to be explained despite many many requests; combined with adding unverifiable material. Given the almost total lack of secondary source material about the party, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. If it gets a single councillor my position may change. Comparisons to English Democrats are specious : that party, for better or worse, has had far more press coverage and for that matter candidacies. Morwen - Talk 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am English and have never heard of this party. Neither the party nor its founder score significantly on the Google test. Having gone to the trouble fo putting their accounts in External Links, the figures confirm that the party is vanishingly insignificant with their year's total income of around £2,000. The party has no elected representatives, at any level, and if that ever changes tere will probably be some millinery consumption going on. In short: a one man band, and the one man does not appear to be notable as a result (unlike, say, Bill Boaks, whose quixotic parliamentary campaigns got him a good deal of notice). Guy 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small party they may be but so are a lot of the other parties covered on Wikipedia. Plus the article doesn't mention that they stood in the Ipswich by-election, 2001, meaning that in their current form they have fought two elections and fave been active for five years. If this one goes a lot of others will follow and Wikipedia will lose valuable content on minor parties as a result. Keresaspa 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • note the reason it doesn't have that is that one of their supporters kept removing it, apparently because the party is embarrassed by the result. Morwen - Talk 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • there are few political parties quite as insignificant as this that have pages on Wikipedia, so I doubt we'd be in much danger of losing lots of valued info. This was one fails jutst about any notability criteria you throw at it --SandyDancer 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not embarrassed. The man who stood in the election was not an EIP member, but somebody who conned the party. R johnson 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • RJohnson, can you please let the rest of us know your role in this party? It seems to me you are using Wikipedia to create the impression that a virtually non-existent political party is in fact active and notable, which it clearly isn't.

          Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't. --SandyDancer 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whether the content is valuable is beside the point. Whether the content is verifiable is, however. One of the points raised in the nomination is that there are no sources other than the party's own web site for anything except the election result, which should of course be mentioned in the result table for the election, and already is. To justify having more than just a single line in a results table, there needs to be source material from independent sources that is itself more than just a single line in a list of election results. There isn't such material. Coverage such as this is just 1 line in an election results table.

      Moreover, this article's description of this political party makes for good reading, indicating as it does that nobody knows anything about this party apart from rumours and what is on its web site, and they don't trust that:

      "Not much is known about this party, although sources have told us that they stand for a white England. We have also been informed that this party does not agree with Immigration or a multi-cultural society, so it seems this party could be more on the lines of an English BNP. This information however could be incorrect, and we cannot verify this as there is no E-mail address on the web site etc. Anyway, to judge for yourself, visit the link."

      The size of the party, which you are also trying to make the focus of the discussion, is also beside the point. To warrant an encyclopaedia article, we need more material than just 1 single web site published by the party itself, which is all that is available here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for simply re-hashing a political party's own propaganda. But without any independent sources whatsoever, that is the only thing that an article on this party can ever be.

      The 1 line in the election results table is all that can be found outside of Wikipedia, and is all that should be found inside Wikipedia. Uncle G 14:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

`RJohnson, can you please let the rest of us know your role in this party? It seems to me you are using Wikipedia to create the impression that a virtually non-existent political party is in fact active and notable, which it clearly isn't.

Wikipedia should be about things that are already notable - it should be used as a tool to promote things that aren't.`

  • I'm not a member of the party if that was what you ment. It is not non-existent it is active, the EFP has never been in the paper are you going to delete there article after this? The Englanf First Party and English Democrats both have few if no referances so I find deleteing this article for that reason is poor. The UEP description is very old it was written when the party didn't have a website and you could only call Christopher Nickerson to find out anything, i have email the admin of UEP to update the description and nothing is ever done. I honestly don't see the reason why you want it deleted. It is similar to the BNP but a little less racist, politicians find the EIP less extreme to talk with. Wikipedia plays host to alot of small "pointless" parties.
  • `One of the points raised in the nomination is that there are no sources other than the party's own web site`
  • Have you been on the EFP article? Did you notice there are only three referances. Can we refraine from editing the article until this is resolves. I've been criticises for such actions but your just as bad. R johnson 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Nominate that for deletion too then.
Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this kind of thing - if something isn't notable enough to have been written about by third parties, it isn't notable enough to be on here. This isn't a directory. --SandyDancer 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you going to delete all articles about small parties? I'd suggest your next target be Cymru Annibynnol a small Welsh party whos Electoral Commission statement of accounts stopped in 2003 leading me to believe it is defunct. But no your not i'd wager, because it's not about small parties or articles is it? It's about the English Independence Party, you either don't like the party or the article. I don't think it's worth getting into such a rant about such a small party. R johnson 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I won't be drawn into a slanging match about this. If you have any argument why this page is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article - and if you think verifiable content can be written - bearing in mind that it has never been mentioned once by third party source - please do present it. If not just accept the inevitable. I am not in favour of deleting notable minor political parties, even extremely small or unsuccessful ones. This one just isn't notable. --SandyDancer 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you really suggesting the Cymru Annibynnol are a notable party? I'm not trying to draw you into a slanging match. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson (talk • contribs) .
I expressed no opinion on that party and I am not interested in discussing it. If you have no arguments as to why this article should not be deleted, you are wasting your time posting. --SandyDancer 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen - As per Morwen. I was interested in them because of their rather unusual view on English secession, but I guess if this was notable enough to get onto Wikipedia, it would also be notable enough to have more than one website mentioning it. Pfainuk 20:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite this party contesting in the general elections, it doesn't assert much notability. With the sources given, it has a vague mention in the BBC articles and other sources come from its website. The party has not enough coverage by the media and it has very few obscure candidates. Even the founder himself is non-notable and there's no need for an article here on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we put this above the article like on the Serbia article?
{{:tl:unreferenced}} All the reasons you've given me to delete this article can be used to delete half of Wikipedia.
  • Lack of referances.
You could delete half of the articles of Wikipedia for a lack of referances.
  • Not notable.
You could easily delete 50% of articles about British political parties that have articles of Wikipedia. At least the EIP has a history. Until you provide a reason i'm unconvinced. I do not make it my business to accuse people but I believe you purely want to delete this article as a {{POV}} not a nuetral stance. R johnson 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the paranoia. Please especially stop with the "I don't like to accuse people" stuff, when your very first response to this deletion debate was to accuse User:SandyDancer of wanting to delete the party because supposedly User:SandyDancer disagrees with the party (of which you provided no evidence).
The fact is there are NO independent sources about this party - and you keep removing bits you don't like or find embarrasing - repeatedly over and over abusing the minor edit feature and refusing to supply a reason. If anyone is using the article to POV push it is you.
The policies of the party in question have nothing to do with it. Other political party articles may not have references right now, but they are generally sourceable - the sources actually exist, and only remain to be added. This article has no good sources. Because there ARE NO GOOD SOURCES. You seem to have been adding information based on email with Nickerson, which is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE, as I have told you on your talk page. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice he has removed the reference to the bad election result yet again[29]. However I am not inclined to revert because either way, this article needs to be deleted for all the reasons above. A proper article is impossible because there are no third party sources. --SandyDancer 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that we now have a consensus to delete and that since the 5 days has expired someone should be along soon to do so. Morwen - Talk 10:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable party, by and large, and as Morwen points out, there are no reliable sources that are good. There has been no headlines or publications relating to them that indicate general notability, and as such, this is an argument for deletion. Third-party sources, both as primary sources and secondary sources which assert notability are needed if this was to be kept. --SunStar Net 11:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product (project management)

edit

In project management, a product is functionally uindistinguishable from a product, whatever Eli Goldratt might say. Guy 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Durand

edit

Bottom half is pretty much a copy from IMDB [30], and if he's most famous for a bit part in an unsuccessful TV show, then he fails WP:BIO. SteveLamacq43 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Techlogix

edit

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —Scott5114↗ 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think it meets WP:CORP. Hello32020 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CORP first point say The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.. There are many for this company.
  1. A PC-world article on Jezba.
  2. A research paper on its product Maestro Evaluation of Advanced Automotive Electrical System Architectures Using MAESTrO
  3. Another research paper on Maestro MAESTrO - A Software Tool for the Design and Evaluation of advanced Automotive Electrical Power Systems
  4. Another Newspaper article TECHLOGIX: BUILDING THE e-FUTURE
  5. and another article Developers Unite Behind FlashPoint's Digita to Bridge Digital Imaging into Business Workflow
Hence may vote is ...
Keep: based on above. --- ابراهيم 11:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the above, the reasonable conclusion seems to be to keep because those who suggest deletion do not specify why this article does not meet WP:CORP. Hence, I also vote to keep. --- User:wenhsiu November 2, 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads as advertorial, replete with peacock terms, evidence of emetign WP:CORP is lacking, article is largely uncited and coverage cited looks like press releases. Could be fixed, but not without a good deal of work. Guy 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is not written in a good way then we improve it instead of deleting it. We delete an article when its subject is not at all encyclopaedic. I have given list of some publications that are not published by the company itself and I can find many more. That is sufficient to qualify for WP:CORP standards. --- ابراهيم 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD criterion G10 (attack). I am not sure I can find a version which does not egregiously violate WP:LIVING, but feel free to put one up if you can find it. Guy 12:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Hoogewerf

edit

This article has been edited many times since it was first created, but has never risen above what appears to malicious attacks on it subject. I have had difficulty in establishing whether Hoogewerf is a notable journalist. Two of the links in the article are to Chinese website which I can't read. Perhaps others will be able to attest to his notability, but so far this article hasn't. Emeraude 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/merge into new Hurun Report article The Hurun Report is an encyclopedically notable "rich list" for China e.g.[31][32][33][. No article currently exists for the Hurun Report, though one should. However, I'm not sure about this founder - and in any case, the current article is an attack article on a living person, and so is liable to a speedy delete. There does seem to have been a breakup between Forbes and Hurun Report at some point but this article is potentially libellous. Btw, the Hurun Report has an English version website [34]. Bwithh 22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Rios

edit

nn physician for wrestling promotion. A search for ("Ferdinand Rios" wwe) gets around 800 gits, but most of those are just repostings of stories where he explains the injuries (like "According to WWE physician Dr. Ferdinand Rios, Kennedy required more than 20 stitches to close the wound."). Has appeared briefly on camera a few times, but appears to fail WP:BIO Tony fanta 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He isn't really a character, but he does appear on tv for brief periods on occasion if there is a medical issue that weaves into the storylines. I think the magazine analogy that you use is total crap as well. Tony fanta 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's a character. He appears on the show when it's appropriate. Fits my definition of wrestling character. That he's not on all the time means he is a minor character, which isn't surprising since he's not a wrestler, let alone a big name one. But is he any different from any of the other minor entries on World_Wrestling Entertainment roster ? I can't see how. Oh, and calling another editor's reasoning "total crap" is inappropriate as well. You can disagree without being uncivil. FrozenPurpleCube 14:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm right, and you're wrong, deal with it. They just have him on screen once in awhile if someones injury plays into a storyline, like stiching them up or giving a shot, for instance. On that roster page, I know for sure that 2 of the writers, Chris Dejoseph and Brian Gerwirtz have had their pages deleted, and they are probably more notable than this person. Being employed by the WWE does not garner instant notability. Tony fanta 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right and you're wrong? That's not a convincing argument. Sorry. You might wish to leave such outbursts out of your replies. And while certainly being employed by the WWE doesn't garner notability, being on-screen in front of millions of people is another matter. It's be one thing if he was only on once, but the article itself indicates he's been on several times. That's more than enough notability for me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, please remember WP:CIVIL. As FrozenPurpleCube said, you can disagree while remaining civil. - JNighthawk 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability of the subject matter is only one of the criteria that we must consider. This is a terrible, unsourced, POV disaster. I want sources, sources, sources, and I want them to tell me: (1) is this a real man's name or is this a fictional character protrayed on the wrestling "circus"? (2) Is the man who is playing the part a real doctor? Where was he educated and where did he work before coming to the wonderful and convincingly authentic world of professional wrestling? (3)Who is this man's agent or representative and what other acting roles does he play? (4) a brief synopsis of this character's role in the soap opera drama that is acted out on the stage of the wrestling shows. Without this basic information all we have is POV fansite nonsense. If it's not an encyclopedic article, then it belongs someplace else, not Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 23:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, all of those points are useful information, and should be included in the article. However, lacking sources on them, all we could do is say we don't know. This doesn't mean nobody knows, as it is quite possible that the community of professional wrestling afficiandos (of which there are many) may well have a great deal of knowledge on him, from reliable sources. At the least, I'd expect somebody with at least some established authority to say "No, that sort of thing doesn't exist at all" before I'd agree with deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DXRAW 13:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of appearances equal to that you may find on a fansite is not for Wikipedia. The fact that he also goes under a different name puts into account OfficeGirl's point whether he is in fact a character or not. BertieBasset 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per OfficeGirl's arguments - JNighthawk 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article has been expanded After searching WWE.com for the name Ferdinand Rios, I added all three of the results into the article. I also found two more thanks to Google. These articles quote Dr. Rios as a member of the WWE's medical staff. Whether or not any of the rest of the article is salveagable is still up for debate, but I would contend that the article could stay under WP:V --RoninBKETC 01:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep krocker316
  • Note: Dr. Rios has been refered to as the "Team Doctor" on WWE Television, on their website, and in their magagzines, he was seen peforming minor surgery on camera.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue III

edit
Shenmue III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was already deleted on February: [35] and the situation has not improved since then. There have been no concrete evidence that the development of this game has begun. Mika1h 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue Dojo is a fansite hosted by Gamespy. Gamespy editors got nothing do with the site. As for the Kikizo article, as pointed above, is old and obsolete. --Mika1h 08:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article no longer exists. Housekeeping. -bobby 16:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Hawaii: FAL says Aloha

edit

I found this whilst reviewing Special:Contributions/I is leo. It appears to be another hoax from this editor. It cites no sources. AllMusic Guide turns up no album with this title and no artist named "FAL". The title garners the magic one Google Web hit: this very article. Uncle G 12:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Aarella

edit

Tagged for sources and verification since October 14. No sources/references provided. The only place where I could find her name is an ezine: SAWF. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per rewrite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Pariente

edit
Laurent Pariente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:AUTO, creator was Laurent Pariente (talk · contribs). Contested prod. MER-C 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Löschen (see below) SPAM. Word-for-word from the artist's website. This is clearly not intended to be an encyclopedia article. OfficeGirl 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar. I trimmed some text a few minutes ago. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply- I appreciate your desire to be an inclusionist, but I'm not sure this article is salvageable at this time. It needs to be torn to the ground completely and maybe someone can build a new one. Is anyone prepared to actually look at the third-party sources listed on the artist's website and draw information from them directly? Artists from the visual arts field tend to be horrible writers when it comes to factual pieces. This is a prime example. Notability is not the only criteria. Someone has to be prepared to do real research and write a good, encyclopedic article. If no one is ready, willing and able then we MUST delete and put this artist's name on the list of articles that are wanted but not created. Trimming the text won't be enough to keep this piece of copyright infringement. According to Wikipedia's very own Brad Patrick in shoot on sight, "draconic" measures are necessary to remove excessive vanity articles that threaten WP's credibility. This is one such article. OfficeGirl 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar. I did some further work on the bibliography to eliminate any remaining copyright infringement, discarding most of the material from the original article, and adding citations that I was able to verify myself. At this point, the article is more of a stub, but being a stub is not reason in itself for deletion. Laurent Pariente seems quite notable, based on all the evidence, and after all the pruning that has taken place, there's not much remaining of the original article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I want to reply to Officegirl and MichaelCurtis: First Guitemie Maldonado and i wrote the presentation in my article. To my knowledge I don't see why this article is not encyclopedic. It's a very good introduction about my work which as all visual work is not easy to describe. Second there are a good deal of visual artists in the entire history who have been both tremendous visual artist and exceptional writers. I have myself written numerous articles on my work as well on other artists. Being a visual artist doesn't make me illiterate. Third, again if you consider the work worthwile as Truthbringer seemed to have understoond, you should give it a chance instead of trimming it like a bonzaï (I'm currently working in Japan), and be happy to have one more interesting creator becoming part of Wikipedia. Thanks.

keep Hello, I'm Laurent Pariente and I only put the information I had in hands right now. If you go to my website you would see I have done a lot of personal and creative work so far and all the information I put on Wikipedia is just mine and will grow with time. Deleting my article won't help growing the article. Thanks for your understanding.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising

edit
Special moments of Hungary's 1956 uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osman El-Rayis

edit
Osman El-Rayis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable bio Tamer Maged 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle

edit
Reyner, Lord of Burgh Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only source offered for this article is a book which the editor concerned (User:Burkem) says is unpublished; it is therefore not WP:V verifiable. Many (if not all) of this user's edits rely on genealogical material from discredited sources, and the user has now been blocked. This nomination follows the removal by Burkem of an earlier PROD; see the discussion at User talk:Burkem#Undoing_the_damage, where a major cleanup is underway. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Seeton

edit
Jeff Seeton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nothing more than an advertorial for a candidate in an upcoming municipal election. Does not meet the minimum standards in WP:BIO. Candidates for local office are not notable, and Mr. Seeton does not appear to be notable enough for other reasons to merit an encyclopedia entry. Skeezix1000 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If for nothing more than originial respearc and POV. If some sources were cited, I would have to retract my delete nom though. Chris Kreider 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's claim to notability is largely based on Seeton's political career. It even goes so far as to state (in reference to the 2000 Ottawa Bay Ward City Council elections) "He had an extremely strong showing for a first time candidate but lost that election to Cullen." Reading this, I was led to believe that the dark horse really challanged the incumbent and lost in a norrow victory, which could have helped the claim for notability. However, after reading up on the mentioned election, I learned that Seeton placed 4th in the race with a mere 550 votes (3.67%) whereas the winner held 7191 votes (48.02%) and the runner up got 6262 (41.82%). This strikes me as a misleading statement in an article about a candidate who already seems non-notable. -bobby 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn local political candidate. I realize truth in politics is a rare thing, but 550 votes is not a "strong showing". Delete this political ad with extreme prejudice. Resolute 17:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that any deletion should be without prejudice to the recreation of the article should Mr. Seeton do something that meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The current article (even if it met WP:BIO) is unsourced and violates WP:NPOV. Skeezix1000 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • changes have been made to this article and is looking better to me, it provides resources and dropped the line about "a strong showing" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.28.125 (talk • contribs) .
The article is still full of POV ("well known in political circles for his forward thinking", "Seeton is campaigning on bringing new ideas to Kanata North", "He will garner allot of support from those who are concerned with the environment, transit, as well as their bottom line", etc.), not to mention unsourced statements. BTW, Mr. Seeton's own web site likely does not constitute the verifiable, reliable source that is required (see WP:V). I'm not sure how www.wikipedia.org, or the intro page of the City's own website, constitute sources for any of the statements in this article. Finally, the criteria in WP:BIO has not been addressed. Skeezix1000 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete if anyone needs content from this article for a merge, let me know. W.marsh 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BUECU

edit
BUECU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete - clearly nn, vanity. This is an article for a minor group that used to be a society at BUGS but got chucked out for severe breach of the constitution. This event itself is noteworthy, but is discussed in depth on the BUGS page, so the group doesn't justify its own page. LeeWhittaker 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article makes assertion of non-notabiliuty by cliaming it is 1 of hundereds of such organizations. Chris Kreider 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into the main BUGS article. I've had to fight off two waves of vandals over this article originating from the IP's correlating to that university, so this article will be a smoking wreck if not deleted anyway. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep - Valid point about the fact that vandalism - however, if they're IP's correlating to the uni, I suspect they were the same vandal (the vandalised discussion page seemed to imply the same thing) and that said person will grow up and get bored of trolling fairly soon. My only hesitation is that there's a feeling at BUECU (I'm associated with them - my job involves supporting evangelical theology students at Brum uni, and to a lesser extent BUECU as part of that), including among the exec, that legal action may be necessary in order to return to the guild (and possibly retain the funds - the guild have promised to return it on certain criteria, basically fulfilled, but they stalled and I don't know if they have yet). Legal advice has indicated that BUECU is 99% likely to win and thus the guild will - a number of high-ranking Christian lawyers are eager for BUECU to do this, in fact, in order to set a precedent throughout the country, which would be a particularly notable event, and not easily able to be fitted into the existing BUGS article, unless it was significant. This may easily happen in the next few months, and would possibly be rather notable. I don't know if it's easily possible to resurrect old articles, but that might be something worth bearing in mind in the deletion process. But as it stands, I think the fact that the event is discussed on the BUGS page is a good point.TheologyJohn 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with UCCF - Seems very vandal prone, by someone who obviously isn't a fan of the group but that in itself is not reason to delete. I think BUECU would be able to get the funds, which they should be getting, but they won't be able to get back in as they made virtually no effort to comply with the BUGS constitution, whether for the right or wrong reasons being a long debate. The BUGS constitution making it clear that all processes must be democratic and that societies can't discriminate, and all other societies have got back in line. I don't feel two sentences about a group of which there are hundreds similar nationwide merits a whole article, hence I've suggested deletion or incorporation into UCCF. The only part relevant to BUGS is already there, under controversy, I don't think a disaffiliated group needs mentioning over the 160+ current societies James Bowes 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change from my previous ambiguous feeling - James, I'm aware that the guild are acting entirely in accordance with their constitution (which does allow them to make exceptions, e.g. Niteline, I understand), the legal question is about more than whether that's the case - the guild constitution goes against government guidelines etc, and the lawyers verdict is that we're 99% likely to win an order to the guild to force us back in (presumably by ammending the constitution). I disagree with some of your comments about the rights and wrongs about BUECU's relationship with the guild, but I think that's a whole other debate, and if it's worth having is better carried out in person rather than in this particular context! (The fence between our gardens alright for you!;) ) I have no idea whether or not the funds have yet been returned, but I know the guild stalled for a long time. So basically no strong feelings about whether or not the article should exist, but wanting to raise the particular point and counteract your counter-point. :)TheologyJohn 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disturbing comment - nominator has no other history aside from nominating this article. Registered yesterday?It's very difficult to assume good faith when the first act of an editor is to nominate something for deletion. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disturbing comment justified - the IP of the poster is very close to that of the previous vandal of the site. That said, while it's helpful that the motives of the proposor of the deletion are thus highly dubious, I do think it's a legitimate question as to whether BUECU has sufficient significance by wikipedia criteria to have it's own article. (Not that I have any particular answer.) Although it is questionable as to whether it's likely to encourage vandalism and trolling by actually bowing to their requests. TheologyJohn 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the BUGS article Normal practice is to merge student groups to the relevant university or school, unless there is overwhelming evidence of notability. We have two independent published sources about the controversy, but none about the group. So notability isn't overwhelmingly established. If BUGS is the right place to take it for a UK group, fine by me. And it is already there, checking the Wikilink from the article. I remember a similar incident at Tufts University in the States a few years back that got plenty of media coverage, but don't think that group would notable either. GRBerry 03:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Empowerment

edit
Teen Empowerment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was {{prod}}'d as nn-org, but the talk page indicates it survived an AFD. Let's see what the flagpole says now. UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses

edit
List of people predominantly seen wearing sunglasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list, of which two entries are cited (and one more is probably unambiguous given that Roy Orbison's biographers tell the story of the sunglasses). But really, is the topic of people who are ususally seen wearing shades encyclopaedic? If so, is it encyclopaedic enough to support a list? Anyway, what constitutes sunglasses? Any tinted spectacles? If so tha Galaghers are in, but so are half the people who achieved fame in the 70s. In the end I think this is too random a subject. Guy 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Glen 12:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky (Spongebob Squarepants character)

edit
Rocky (Spongebob Squarepants character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Critical analysis of a running gag from a single Spongebob episode. Useless even as a redirect. Delete. JayMars 15:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bourdela.com

edit

Article was nominated for speedy deletion for a lack of context, but that doesn't apply. The notability of this site is asserted, but not (yet?) referenced. It is pov, promotional, but too soft for spam. Basically, none of the speedy tags apply for this article, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further information: the site has a global Alexa ranking of 17,020 and a Greek Alexa ranking of 73. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not created to promote the website. I do not have a reason to create a english-language article to promote a greek website. Please do not delete this article. My intentions are to provide a entry about this website to Wikipedia for informational purposes.

The text of the article will be soon updated with more info about paid-sex and information on whore-houses from the ancient times of Greece. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as it is now - The above poster pretty much states my reasons for deletion. Why would somebody browsing english Wikipedia need info about a Greek website? If the above poster manages to provide significant content and sources to remove the seeming commercial tone I'll reconsider. -bobby 15:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should I add this in the Greek wikipedia?
Also, the website has also international visitors (people who are looking for information in Greece). Also, I have seen tons of other english-language articles, about greek websites/celebrities/people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments, using four ~'s, like so: ~~~~. Thank you, Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, testing Sectoras 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I think based on the top-100 that this article would surely be relevant to the Greek language Wikipedia. Could you cite some of these other sites you mention so I can do some comparisons? Your Alexa rank in the top 20K is certainly not something to be taken lightly, so if you can provide me with a good argument as to why this article should stay, I'll gladly support you. -bobby 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should keep the article in order to provide informantion and link source as a guide to paid sex services and, of course, as a complete walkthrough to greek adult life style and market. (Kostas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectoras (talk • contribs)

As above stated from Kostas, this website provides a general walk-through to the visitors coming to Greece. We have seen tons of people visiting the website to find information about Greece. It Wikipedia's purpose is to have useful information, then i think this article is directly related.

Other than that, i will be soon updating this article and provide *complete* information about one of the world's earliers profession (prostitutes), and how that influenced ancient Greece and their people. bourdela.com is the ONLY website related to that. You mentioned some other websites, but i did not understand, please explain. Thanx. Sectoras 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I must say that engaging in sock puppetry does not lend creedence to your argument. All it tells me is that your article is not strong enough to garner support from anyone other than its creator. Please do not attempt to misrepresent yourself in the future. Thanks. -bobby 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. This comment WAS made by another person, who did not know how to post a comment in here and did post his comment on the bourdela.com article, i just did a copy/paste to include his commment in this history. Sectoras 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serious - there is an edit history so it's clear who posted what -and you have signed you replies on this page in four different ways. You are not being honest.

Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:15:43 - you add the word comments signed (Kostas) Revision as of 2006-11-03T12:21:52 - you add (copy-paste)

I have since amended them to clarify your posts 

--ArmadilloFromHell 16:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps I did not assume good faith Sectoras and for that I apologize. It just seemed a bit suspicious to me since you made the edits at two seperate times and neglected to mention why Kostas did not post his or her own reply. That matter aside, Kosta's comment states that the article should be kept as a link/guide to sex in Greece. I will remind him/her and you that Wikipedia is not a directory and also that advertising on Wikipedia is grounds for speedy deletion. Please state your justifications with these guidleines in mind. -bobby 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly since the target site is not of much use unless you speak Greek, unless you just want to peruse the images there, and Wiki is not a directory of titillating pictures. On top of that it's probably spam. --ArmadilloFromHell 20:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Christian Socialist Party

edit
British Christian Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As User:SmokeyTheFatCat notes on his userpage. "I have even thought of founding a British Christian Socialist Party". He then creates, a few months later, this article, which asks people to join it. Wikipedia is not a recruiting tool. If I need continue, then I shall note that the only two google hits for the name of the party are his userpage and a reference to an apparently unrelated historic political party in 1837. Furthermore, the party has not (yet) been registered with the Electoral Commission. If this party gets off the ground and we can find secondary sources about it, great, we can have an article about it. But no sources exist at all at present. Morwen - Talk 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interference.com

edit
Interference.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:WEB. No awards, no well-known distributer, and I'm not able to find any stories about this site from independent reliable sources, let alone multiple. The author seems to be asserting its notability on the basis of the number of registered users, which is not a valid criterion. Kafziel Talk 15:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assertion of notability is only valid for avoiding speedy deletion, not AfD. AfD requires proof of notability. Even if they can prove it's the biggest, superlatives aren't part of the criteria for notability of websites; someone might have the only fan club for some incredibly obscure actor, but the site doesn't get its own article just because it's the biggest. Kafziel Talk 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rivera

edit
Robert Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested WP:PROD. Original PROD reason: "(1) subject of article is non-notable; (2) article is very POV; (3) article seems to basically be a rewrite of the website listed at the bottom and does not otherwise cite any sources". Someone appears to have meant to add this to AfD but didn't complete the process. No opinion. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del Mukadderat 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep To quote WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated". Dunno what the precedent for this type of bio article is, though. EVula 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (G10, see below) Per EVula, subject possibly meets notability requirement by being the subject of a notable court case. The article, however, fails to cite reputable sources or maintain neutral POV. This site [36] has a completely different telling of the story, but none of the disputed facts are presented neutrally. More importantly, the article accuses a law officer of perjury, coercing witnesses and fabricating evidence, which may be considered libelous if not cited and/or proven in court. I say speedy this b/c of the attack/libel issue. Caknuck 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Disputed murder convictions is a well accepted topic. Robert Rivera was very newsworthy when his case was active. The Delaware County Daily Times (circulation 160,000+) featured him on the front page many times and lists over 70 articles about him. The site is backed up by trial transcripts and police reports recorded by government officials. The items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports. No conviction can be disputed unless there is some contention that the prosecution's case is false. Prosecution witnesses cannot sue for libel because someone contests their testimony. There is no libel issue here.
  • Users are free to contest specifics and rewrite sections they think are unsupported. Something could be wrong, but no one has found any specifics. This article violates the POV of some users who want to censor by deleting any mention that government prosecutors are capable of error. Wikipedia does contain many articles on individuals who were legitimately convicted. I am not aware that they are contested on POV grounds because they fail to cite that prosecutors sometimes make mistakes. Wikipedia should contain accurate facts, not just puff pieces of a world viewed through rose-colored glasses. --Danras 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Danras, I don't believe that Wikipedia is any more biased than the rest of society when it comes to highly controversial cases. It's not that we want to censor opposing viewpoints, it's just that those viewpoints need to be independently documented. The only reference you currently offer is the robertrivera1.com website, which for the most part only presents one POV. If you can add in other references, such as press coverage and opposition writings, this article has a better chance of surviving. Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal's article for an example of the kind of article you want to write. Even though the Abu-Jamal article still has neutrality problems, it is much more well-documented than the current Rivera article. --RoninBKETC 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the "items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports", then cite them. Official court documents are legitimate sources. But if the court permitted certain evidence and testimony that is in dispute, then the reason and source of the dispute needs to be referenced. Also, language like "fabricated circumstantial evidence", "snitch story" and "fabricated confession" without substantiation shows "opinion and bias" and thusly violates WP:POV, and potentially WP:LIBEL. If you can cite legitimate sources that show the prosecution acted in bad faith, then do so and I'll withdraw my objection. But as it stands, this article cannot survive as is when [37] and [38] (both equally spurious sources) tell completely different versions of the events, but the WP article only chonicles one side. Caknuck 08:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the WP:BIO "newsworthy events" clause. --Oakshade 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a common or garden murder case, and therefore notable. Yes, it's POV, but POV can be changed. That is no reason to delete the article. -- Necrothesp 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for clean up. Agne 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Ranch

edit
Adams Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This artice was speedy deleted under CSD A7. At DRV, the deleting admin consented to a listing at AfD to resolve the question. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails notability guidelines for a company. It has 6 google news hits, but it is not the subject of any of the articles. I could also find no evidence that its stock (if it has stock) prices are used to calculate any major market index. On top of all of these, the article still does not assert a claim to notability, which means it is still eligible for speedy deletion per article 7. In the interest of respecting the DRV, I won't tag it as such. -bobby 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not assert notability of ranch. I am sure there are hundreds of ranches run by families. Chris Kreider 16:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Weak Keep per all above, and by the lack of sources, could well be OR per TT's additions, though I feel that it needs an unambiguous statement of notability in the article text. Martinp23 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I discourage this because I think it will only result in the insertion of useless boilerplate notability assertions into articles, and severely damage our ability to be concise. Unfocused 00:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realise the problem, though WP:NN does say that an article must assert its notability - it's really not something I like, because people could well start typing "this is notable because.....". Ah well... Martinp23 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N is a guideline, not policy, in part because of the point I was just making. Regarding this article, if you lived in the area, found out about "Adams Ranch" and wanted to know more, where would you go? Why not here? We aren't running out of paper, bandwidth, or database space, and quite frankly, a ranch that spans several counties and has been in operation for so many years is becoming more notable every day, given that they're all being assimilated into megafarms. Unfocused 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reason it can't be recreated if reliable sources can be provided. Yomanganitalk 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Portland (Lost)

edit

Article is for a rumored future episode of Lost (TV series). It contains no referenced information, only unsubstantiated rumors. Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Milo H Minderbinder 16:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly websites saying this, but are they reliable sources? One seems to be a fansite with no documentation on where the got the info, and the other is a blog that doesn't even say the title came from the Ausiello Report (which is a rumor column, not a reliable source either). This title certainly is rumored, but I don't see how it can be seen as encyclopediac fact, especially when rumors from these kinds of sites is often wrong. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add references - This information is pretty well known to be fact by all reliable and available sources. There are 1000s of wikipedia articles with outright lies in them, most of this information can be substantiated on external links. Crystal Ball? This article was created after various sources suggested this content. There will be an Olympics in London in 2012, should we not post an article on that either? Testerer 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's the point: If it's "pretty well known to be fact" then it should be simple to verify -- yet there are no "reliable and available sources" for this rumoured episode title. Wikipedia does not publish articles on rumours or speculation. --LeflymanTalk 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If "this information can be substantiated on external links", just provide those links. And the question isn't whether there will be an episode 307 of Lost, but whether this title (and other facts) are verifiable. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: The article doesn't have good enough citation but equally rumoured episode titles this year have actually been 100% accurate, so this will probably be the 3x07 title. However, yes in terms of policy IMO it isn't a good enough source --Nickb123 3rd 10:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was MERGE into Manhunt, as no objections to this were offered. Herostratus 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jonsson

edit
Jon Jonsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability Otto4711 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating these related articles also for failing notability.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barouh Berkovits

edit
Barouh Berkovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Creating deletion discussion page for Barouh Berkovits because there are a lot of people involved in the development of pacemakers and ICDs (Many of whom are more notable than Barouh Berkovits), and they should be mentioned in the history sections of those articles. Ksheka 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep/Close The biography linked to from the article seems to establish sufficient notability for me (patented the direct current defibrillator, invented the demand pacemaker, holds thirty-six patents in cardiac pacing techniques). Your objection to this article seems to have nothing to do with the merits of this article, but that other people should have articles. Then make those articles; AfD isn't the place to complain about missing content in other articles. EVula 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This guy has saved thousands, perhaps millions of lives. Article could use expanding, but let's end this AfD soon. --Oakshade 05:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of South Florida

edit
Music of South Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Creator of article keeps restoring unsourced and off-topic information, but when you remove the cruft, this non-notable article is nothing but a one-sentence stub. "Music of South Florida" hasn't been demonstrated to deserve an article all its own, and the creator seems intent on making this a vanity article that promotes persons, styles, slang, etc. which do not fall under the topic. wikipediatrix 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Captaintruth below!. The article can be greatly expanded, give it a stub tag and give the article some time to grow. Actually, I'm not the creator of this article - but I am seeing if I can source this article properly. I've asked for some time to do so, but Wikipediatrix seems to be a bit impatient. When this article was created, I along with several other editors, assisted a new editor in some technical aspects of creating this particular article. I think there may be some value to this one, and I'm trying to explore the background of this particular music scene. I think this article may be something that can be sourced and expanded like the article on Southern rap, which has sections on "spirituality" "typical features" and things besides just the music. I think it's an interesting article on a regional social style and should be given a chance. Perhaps it needs a change of title? "South Florida Donk Donk" perhaps?  :) Dreadstar ☥ 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the small amount of investigation I’ve been able to pursue over the past few days while I recover from surgery, it looks like South Florida, specifically Miami, is a major, innovative and unique hotspot for music from the State of Florida. I think I understand what User talk:Patience561 was trying to say and I don’t think Music of Florida quite does the southern region of Florida justice. I believe there may be sufficient material for “Music of South Florida” to have its own article. With the heavy influence of Cuban and Latino music added to the innovative and unique Rap style of the area, further mixing in southern rock, and a country heritage that brings a unique blend of sounds out of the southern Florida region, it looks like a “Music of South Florida” article could be rich with interesting and unique information.
But I can’t do it in five (or less) days, so I must concede the deletion of the article. I just ask that it not be a “permanent” delete so that the article can be re-created if I or others eventually expand and source it.
With this in mind, I’ve moved the “Donk” related material (or “cruft” as Wikipediatrix so eloquently calls it!) to Donk (automobile) and connected the bits of the South Florida music scene between Southern rap and Donk, so the resultant one-liner-content article “Music of South Florida” can now be deleted without my further objection – unless Bobby or Junebug52 have found anything of value to add – I’d be happy to join them in expanding the article! Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that Captaintruth has begun expanding and sourcing the article, I think we should take the suggested course of action, keep the article, give it a stub tag and allow it time to grow. South Florida is an amazingly rich and unique musical environment. Give it time! Dreadstar ☥ 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment - I understand your desire to clean up and save this article. From the history, it looks as if you have been fighting this battle largely on your own since the other main editor stopped tending the page in July. Maybe a change of title would help the article more than a tone of work. The AfD will be open for several days (at least 5 in most cases) which should give you a bit of time to work on it. The AfD nomination will also bring quite a bit of support from Wikipedia Inclusionists who will help you clean up the article. I'll do some poking around on my own to see what support I can give you. In the mean time, I'll hold off judgement by changing my proposed delete to an undecided. -bobby 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no significance. I agree with -bobby assessment. Junebug52 12:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I changed my vote to keep the article now that I see it is starting to shape up and has more significant material. I further agree that it should keep going in the direction it is going but I also feel other editors should get involved so this does not turn into a one man show. There are certainly other editors who know about the music of the area and the people who make it happen. Keep up the good work! Junebug52 8:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Kommentar - Dreadstar I have to say that I am on the fence with this one. I think it would help if you did change the title and also research to see if there are other significant artist that can be added to support the claims. I will reserve my deletion until a later time to see if the article can be modified to fit wiki standards. If you need help, I will be glad to see what I can do seeing that I was actually raised in Fort Lauderdale. Junebug52 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Thank you so much Junebug52! I could really use your help in sourcing this! Can we discuss the article on it's talk page? I'm looking for sources, but my time is limited. I'm recovering from major surgery and don't really have the stamina to sit in front of the computer too long just yet. Bad timing....:) What should the title be changed to? How do do I do that? Create a new article and move the contents of this one, or ask an admin to change it? Suggestions on a new title are welcome! Looks like the "Donk Donk" content is easily sourcable...what are your thoughts on a title based on Donk..:) Many thanks to you and Bobby both for your offers of help! It's great to see the helpful nature of Wikipedia editors! Dreadstar ☥ 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and apply stub tag. South Florida has made outsized musical contributions (Jimmy Buffett, the Miami Bass sound, hub for latin music to provide a few examples). Thus, there is plenty of good content with which to populate this page. Let's not delete this page, tag it as a stub, and let it achieve its potential. Captaintruth 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's a no-brainer (at least to me) that since Miami is in South Florida, most of the info about Florida music in general would logically be here. The question is, is there a reason to differentiate this from the non-existent article Music of North Florida? For example, even though most of the notable music scene of Illinois is in Chicago, we don't place it in an article called Music of North Illinois. wikipediatrix 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMHO, it's simple, because South Florida is such an incredibly robust music scene, so completely different than the rest of Florida that it truly is a no-brainer that it should have it's own article - a concept well covered under WP:SS - because there is no doubt that the information on the South Florida music scene would dominate "Music of Florida". As far as I can see, this in no way requires the creation of a “Music of North Florida” to “differentiate” the two. "Music of Florida" itself should also be expanded to include older and broader music history of the state. There's nothing in Illinois to compare to it. Please let us enthusiastically expand both Music of South Florida and Music of Florida. You can revisit them a month or two from now and see if they deserve life or extinction. What's the rush? Dreadstar ☥ 18:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki. W.marsh 16:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snoof

edit
Snoof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dictionary definition. Not sure how to transwiki this to Wiktionary, which might accept it. EVula 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm also including Snoofing in this AfD, as it too is a dictionary definition page. EVula 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Snoofing is not just a word it is an encyclopedia article and should remain as it is a robust new concept, that give a supporting verb (doing word) to new events, that have only become available and are doable due to changes in a capitalist society since Adam Smith, Fordism, Taylorism, Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc. and wireless technology (WiFi). Snoofing is a process, outcome and product of changing and evolving capitalism and technology based society, which is global. This single word sums up a culture of change and is common to all cultures and societies, which move in a capitalist and technological state of progress.

Luddites would do no “Snoofing” as they would not use WiFi or aspire to capitalist and technological change as a snoof. (Snoof (Selfish New Object Orientated Flirtation) (Noun) to analyse resources and be questioning with the objective of critical evaluation and / or personal gain (Noun) one who snoofs For example Consultants’ may use Snoofing techniques to find out information which may be used against Luddite thinking for critical evaluation and gain of the Consultant. Therefore, this is a concept and not a mere dictionary word.

This Snoofing concept is commonly regarded as a correct reflection of a changing society, which has been summed up in a single word. Therefore the concept of Snoofing has a rightful life outside of a dictionary as it is a growing culture, of greed, envy and critical review, which has been defined in a word for a changing society. The Snoofing concept is defined in the Urban Dictionary. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoofing

Rather than mark for deletion Snoofing should be expanded and deeper embedded in other concepts of Economics and Technology that reflect our changing societies.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per my comments below, clearly passes WP:Bio. -bobby 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Pierce Bush

edit
Barbara Pierce Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete non notable individual who doesn't meet WP:BIO or notablity guidelines WP:NN. Article does not provide evidence of notability other than that she is a sitting president's daughter. That, however does not make her encyclopedic or even make her merit her own article Strothra 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This appears to be part of a content dispute regarding the whether or not to include her public intoxication within the article. This is not the way to resolve the issue at hand. --Mhking 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of a content dispute, rather I was reading the article and said, "Wait, this doesn't meet notability guidelines." Although I do also have a content dispute with the article, this was not an attempt to solve that. Please see WP:AGF. Thanks. I don't think that there's been considerable discussion over whether or not being the child of a president automatically creates encyclopedic notability. It's an important topic to be discussed. I'm not co-nominating the articles, only this one in order to see where this discussion goes first. Regarding the content issue, I have already sought an WP:3O. --Strothra 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sought WP:3O, then immediately submitted the article for deletion; while I'm trying to assume good faith, that double-sided action implies otherwise. If you mean well, then I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. --Mhking 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it, I'm just saying that it's not to "resolve" a content dispute. The realization that it doesn't meet bio standards came after I sought 3O - ie realizing that people seem to automatically assume encyclopedic notability simply by being the child of a president. If it were a monarchial society where the children had governing roles then I would say ok they're notable. I think that it merits a discussion, as I've said. I didn't rescind my 3O figuring that I might as well get a comment regarding the content dispute. That should actually point to the fact that see the AfD and the 3O as two separate issues. --Strothra 17:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say that she's been in the media enough to warrant inclusion based on "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" (WP:BIO); the article specifically states Barbara's extensive involvement in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, which just barely scrapes by as a newsworthy event... EVula 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If one of the Bush daughters is nominated then what about the other one? Their articles are very similar and it appears to me that their claim to notability is also extremely similar. I can't speak for others but I wouldn't see any problem with nominating them both at the same time and dealing with them in one AfD. I am not, of course, making any suggestion that they should be nominated or deleted. It just strikes me as odd that one of these article is nominated and not the other. --ElKevbo 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per WP:Bio:
Criteria for Notability (must satisfy one):
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage.5 Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.
Bush satisfies all three of these. Here are sources to multiple published works of which she is the subject: 1, 2, 3, and 4. More are all over the place. I would also classify a president's adult daughter as a major political figure for the same reason the first lady is a major political figure. She satisfies the third criterion for her participation in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns (pretty newsworthy events). I'm going to close the AfD now. -bobby 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J money beats

edit
J money beats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could have probably been speedied, but I'm being generous and reading the claim of having a "discography" as an assertion of notability and bringing it here. No signs of meeting WP:MUSIC, no sources, no label, only link is a myspace page. ergot 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I didn't delete the page, but it's gone now so I'm closing the discussion. -bobby 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B&N writers

edit
B&N writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Wikipedia is not a blog...or social networking site." Nor is it a place to complain about net drama from them, or advertise for another one. mordicai. 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhas Mitra

edit
Abhas Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person is not notable EMS | Talk 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - I'm not sure where the notability issue arises. Mitra created an entirely novel theory for explaining the objects we commonly call black holes. He has published numerous items on the subject (see the MECO page for most of them) and has been featured in several articles. He should definitely have his own page. -bobby 19:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The question is whether he meets WP:PROF. Robert seems to be claiming that he meets it MECO and criterion 5. I haev not however seen any evidence that MECO is a signficiant or well-known concept in the field. While he has papers published in respectabe journals, most of the articles about him (such as this one) make clear that he has gotten little or no attention from the mainstream astrophysics community. This position would be subject to change if someone can convince me otherwise or so that he meets another criterion of WP:PROF. JoshuaZ 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to Löschen given that what's below is apparently the best argument for keeping. JoshuaZ 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar - I would argue that it is a significant concept in the field of astrophysics because it proposes an alternative to black holes. This is significant just as alternative theories for the big bang are significant. Until someone can come out and prove one way or another that one theory is absolutely correct, any plausible hypothesis (which MECO certainly is) deserves to be debated. Combine this rationale with the numerous articles published on the subject (found on the MECO page, some of which review Mitra's work) and we are left with a clear candidate for crit 5 of WP:Prof. -bobby 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar Absolutely not. The standard for whether something is significant in a field is whether people in the field have found it significant. The above claim is particularly hard to swallow given the standard of having to "prove one way or another that one theory is absolutely correct" since this never happens in science by definition. We need evidence astrophysicists find the idea notable, not that you or some random individual or even a few astrophysicists find it "plausible" Furthermore, I fail to see "numerous" articles about the subject. JoshuaZ 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - A few astrophysicists finding it plausible constitute "multiple independent" sources and hence satisfies the notability crit. As such, "people in the field" have found it significant satisfying your criterion. As long as plausible alternatives to describing so called black holes exist, and until we eliminate them as possible theories, they are notable and worthy of inclusion so that researchers and anybody else who is curious can get a sense for all theories proposed and not just the most popular one (quick note so I don't get pegged for this: I'm not suggesting that alternate theories presented on wikipedia should be taken as fact; I'm just saying it's a good place to get a general sense about a field before doing some solid research within a good library). I don't understand your comment about absolute certainty "never happens in science by definition". I have never seen a definition of science which does not allow for certainty. I am certain, for example, that the moon revolves around the earth, and the earth around the sun. This was not always widely believed, and at one point this theory would have been considered absurd. As we expand the limits of the known, things that once seemed like pipe dreams become very plausible, and can (in time) become certainties. I'm not sure quite where I'm going with this, but I'm also not sure what your objection to MECO is. I am admittedly not into astrophysics (math is my comfort zone) and perhaps you are better versed in this issue than I. However, from what I've read, Mitra's theory is notable enough to warrent its own wikipedia page, which seems to indicate that Mitra deserves one as well (not an acid test, but I've already cited a crit which I believe is met and maybe this line of reasoning works better for you). -bobby 21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I have my reservations about the notability of this person, but this may be a concept that catches on, and I think I would err on the side of keep. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar If it catches on we can have an article about it then. That's the rule for everything whether they are scientific theories or bands or politicians or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. JoshuaZ 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Useless Comment - Why is somebody who quotes Douglass Adams (the furry creatures bit) so averse to a page for someone who presents an alternate theory for one of space's greatest mysteries? Just curious, no need to respond. -bobby 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not averse to his ideas. They sound fascinating and I've added some of his papers to my list of physics papers to read when I have time. The issue is whether he has yet become notable enough to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Unfortunately he hasn't. JoshuaZ 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — A quick google search reveals that many sources feel this work to be an important new concept (point 5) and (b), along with Mitra's previous concept - that of MECOs. I'm going to mention this in the article, and add a source. As we have an article on MECOs, it seems only right that we have an article on the person who decided they existed. Should the sicentist himself fail the notability test, but the concept pass, then I'd suggest merge and redirect to Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. Martinp23 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, really weak keepDelete. The fact that the article asserts black holes can not have magnetic fields makes me EXTREMELY suspicious about reliability. However, he appears to just barely meet WP:BIO. I'm going to at least clean up the scientific errors in this now. -Amarkov babble 00:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more research, and I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. I've heard of the theory, but never connected to him. I would have gone with weak delete, except for the aforementioned "black holes can't have magnetic fields" assertion. Before anyone complains, I don't think it should be deleted because I believe that is wrong (which it IS), the fact that the assertion is made just casts doubt on the rest. -Amarkov babble 00:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that black holes can have magnetic fields. They are known to retain both the angular momentum and the electrical charge of the object that created the black hole. Any rotating electrically chrged object will have a magnetic field. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we follow the principle of The standard for whether something is significant in a field is whether people in the field have found it significant for all AFDs. Is this an official policy. I follow this. I never comment on areas where I know little. But I find many people (including few Indians) who does not even have an iota of knowledge about India or India related fields, say delete without even reading the full debate or caring to look for references  Doctor Bruno  01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His field is not "India". His field is science. If notability were claimed based on something like being an Indian figure, your comment would have some merit. But notability is claimed based on a scientific theory. Thus, it is SCIENTISTS who must find him significant. -Amarkov babble 02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not for this AFD alone. It for everything. For example see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India.  Doctor Bruno  05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, there is a problem. To meet notability standards, anyone should be able to find information on a person, not just certain people. To say delete for non-notability without trying to find references is bad, but specialists shouldn't be the only ones who can find some information. -Amarkov babble 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar - The issue is the notability of Dr. Mitra, not the notablity of the MECO theory. First of all, the MECO theory is not extraordinary, but instead is one of many theories that seek to explain how general relativity really does not permit black holes to exist. I personally have reason to believe that all such theories are mistaken, but will not contest the MECO as an encyclopedic subject due to the attention that it has garnered. My issue instead is one of whether Dr. Mitra is automatically becomes encyclopedic because he has contributed to the MECO concept. I really fail to see that. Instead I see an article about a relatively minor scientist that is very unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Even now it says little more than that Dr. Mitra is a contributor to the MECO concept, somcething that can already be inferred from the MECO article. Please recall that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The controversy due to the MECO theory has earned him enough notability in the mainstream Indian media (rediff, Times of India and elsewhere too. -- Lost(talk) 06:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kommentar: I see no notability in those links. The first link is to the same article as the second link, and the third link is to a magazine article that is mostly a cut-and-paste job from that same article. So in the end there is only one article that you are referencing. To make matters worse, this business of "challenging Hawking" is a standard "crackpot" tactic. Also, Hawking radiation has nothing to do with Mitra's MECO concept. So the article being linked to speaks more of a fringe scientist trying to make himself look good than a notable scientist talking about his work. --EMS | Talk 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kommentar- Well my point is that the largest Indian newspaper and website have found the scientist notable enough to write an article about him. Even if it is the same article, it features in both the sites making him notable outside of the scientific community. -- Lost(talk) 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Being noted does not make you notable. That article fails to give Mitra a standing beyond being one of the main contributors to the MECO, and while notable the MECO remains a fairly obscure theory. --EMS | Talk 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Changing to Weak Keep. EMS arguments hold weight, but I'm not convinced to vote delete, per User:Martinp23's argument. utcursch | talk 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Seems to be highly notable. Nileena joseph 05:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagle 101. —Cryptic 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNYX

edit

Page is unreferenced, doesn't give notability, reads like an ad. If there's material for a valid article then it's not in this page. ben 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GigPig

edit
GigPig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lack of verifiable links for this and seems hardly notable. The only really notable link is the actual article. Seems a vanity article. Spartaz 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sorry - what does COI mean? --Spartaz 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Businessbib

edit

Blatant product promotion. Author rmvd my prod tag. Two sentences in NYT could be devoted to any kind of oddball product. Remember Sea Monkey ads? This is similar, but far more expensive. Also see Photoshopped picture in history of this "article." Ling.Nut 12:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for offending the rules of Wikipedia, but I have nothing to do with the company that creates the product and do not intend on advertising it.Head-doctor 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days (Wings)

edit
10,000 Days (Wings) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article is about a song that is not notable (not even a single) off of Tool's record 10,000 Days. It was clearly made in an effort to subvert the page 10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2), which is the actual title of the song, and which currently redirects to the album's main page. I tried to send the article through the proposed deletion process, but the prod tag was removed by an anonymous user with no justification whatsoever. King Bee 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Car Forums

edit
Beyond Car Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't seem to be covered by any independent reliable sources. Looks like it fails WP:V/WP:RS. Article editors have failed to provide any useful sourcing despite a couple editors requests. Wickethewok 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:A1. --MCB 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany bridge

edit

This article is an orphan, as well as having no content and being unotable NauticaShades 20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosforth High School

edit
Gosforth High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Yanksox 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Seems to me to be non-notable. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's just agree to keep all high schools in England, because it seems they all have had notable alums which is generally acceptable as grounds for inclusion. In this case, a quick search told me that footballers Alan Shearer and Michael Chopra attended the school. No doubt more to follow. We just need to add references to the page. -bobby 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All high schools in England? What's to say we don't apply that to every nation? And can you please shorten your sig per WP:SIG. Yanksox 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Yanksox on your ludicrously long signature. I'm also against you that notable alums is a "generally acceptable" means of inclusion. Nothing about the school debate is generally accepted. I'm generally against keeping all schools (I'm much more against lower-level schools than high schools, though), but I'm especially against the idiotic "notable alumni" clause. Almost every school that ever existed has some notable alumni, because pretty much every notable person of the past two centuries at least went to elementary and middle school, so chances are that one person of note went to any given school. Moreover, people generally don't choose where they go to school, so saying that a school is notable simply because one person with a WP article was forced to go there for three or four years is- in my opinion- stupid. -- Kicking222 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do think we should have an article for all high school's that have been around for longer than 50 years (and/or) have notable alums. The article on this particular school needs to be expanded, but that's no reason to delete it. School's are often notable if they've been around for a while, and I do think that it is interesting to see where various famous people spent their later childhood. If you feel differently, join the debate at the proposed notability guidelines for schools. As to the sig, sorry about that. I'm a 4th of July American Baby so I've always loved patriotic colors. It should take up less room not. Regards, -bobby 22:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Nothing particularly notable about this school. No notable alumni. No athletes of clubs performing at a national level. No other claims that assert notability. JoshuaZ 22:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per presence of notable alumni that I failed to notice. JoshuaZ 02:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC) changing back to delete per GRBerry's argument below. Unless the article can be sourced, notability of alumns isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Ok, back to keep since the items about the alumni are verifiable so it can stay as a stub with that for now. JoshuaZ 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (re change back to delete) Doesn't this conflict with User:JoshuaZ/Schoolproposal element number 5 - "The school has multiple notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or some other inclusion guideline)." ??!?!? While I think an argument could be made that an elementary school has no discernible role in shaping a student who years down the road happened to turn out notable, the notables listed at Gosforth all had critical formative experiences at the school -- athletic or musical -- that shaped their future success and Wikipedia notability. In this case, your own criteria couldn't be more relevant. Alansohn 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

***Comment Yes I know, by my personal notability criteria can't overide WP:V. In the words of Jimbo "WP:V is non-negotiable" If we can't get enough to verify anything then we can't do much. JoshuaZ 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I changed my mind again.JoshuaZ 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allodoxaphobia

edit

del nonnotable coinage of yet another phobias, circulating in the web in various pohobia lists without a single reputable reference, with notable exception of unscrupulous psychiatric websites that will heal you from any phobia (including Russophobia and prostitutephobia), and they keep inventing names to increase number of website hits. See -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikkanarxi 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sturt Mall

edit
Sturt Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malls aren't automatically notable, and the article doesn't seem to assert this one's notability. Also, less than 2000 ghits. It has been prodded and deprodded. Picaroon9288 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - arguments that he fails WP:BIO haven't been countered. Yomanganitalk 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd

edit

disputed PROD for NN-youtube 'celebrity' delete DesertSky85451 21:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete Under WP:BIO, William merits inclusion based on the criterion: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". William is both an editor and an author of his own work. William's work has received hundreds of thousands of views by an international audience and has been independently commented upon and rated by that international audience. William's work may not feature in national galleries or on television, but this does not mean one can discriminate against the value of William's work, for on the basis of popularity alone, William's work is a notable achievement (and continues to become ever more notable). Moreover, if other YouTube celebrities are admissible into this encyclopedia, then so too should William be (you only have to look at William's subscription levels on YouTube as proof of his place amongst other YouTube celebrity peers). YouTube is an artistic phenomenon of our time that allows artists and others a vehicle to connect with the world, and in the case of some, YouTube delivers fame and notoriety, which cannot be dismissed as insignificant. --DavidRWilson 23:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) — DavidRWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    • Are you kidding? Views and comments on Youtube do not count as "independent reviews"; that passage refers to actual written reviews. The other "Youtube celebrities" with articles at least have something resembling sourcing to back them up, though even those articles aren't without their controversy either. But without any chance of being verifiable, there's no way this article can stay here. WarpstarRider 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no value in being overly rigid about what constitutes notable. If it's something people are interested in knowing more about, it's worth having an article about. Why should the fact that his fame comes through YouTube make a difference? JudahH 00:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, there has been no demonstration that this guy has any sort of "fame" outside of Youtube. WarpstarRider 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suppose he doesn't. Why does that matter? If enough people see him on YouTube, and want to see a page on him, there should be a page for them to see. (Unless what you're worried about is verifiability, but what's written here is basically verifiable.)JudahH 03:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he has no "fame" outside of Youtube, then there's no reason to have an article about him, no matter how many people watch his videos. The idea that "people on Youtube want to have an article about him" doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia standards. WarpstarRider 03:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand what you mean, "People on YouTube". The point is that people want to have an article on him; how is it possibly relevant whether they know him from YouTube or anywhere else? Where do the "Wikipedia standards" say anything about YouTube? 50,000 people watching his videos is 50,000 people. If you had decided that 50,000 was not enough exposure to be famous, I would understand your position, if disagree with it. But when you say that 50,000 is not enough because those are "people on YouTube", I don't understand your logic. JudahH 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Views on Youtube do not equal notability. There have been numerous battles already involving the notability of other supposed "Youtube celebrities", and I generally support deletion of all of them, but some of those at least have some semblance of coverage in outside sources. This has nothing besides "people watching his videos want to write an article on him", which is completely irrelevant. Without outside sources, there can't even be a dispute; this should be deleted. WarpstarRider 05:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I came on Wikipedia today to see an article about William Sledd, and I got one. I was really surprised to see it was up for deletion. Some may see what he does as being useless and not notable.But before you delete this article, take into account how many people he makes happy. Whenever I'm sad or need really good fashion advice I look to William, he always seems to make my day. If that isn't notable, then I don't know what is.--Tezzy149 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) -User's tenth edit.[reply]
    • Then you may need to read some of the policies and guidelines, like WP:V and WP:N. There have been lot of battles over "Youtube celebrity" articles; the others that have been fought over at least had some kind of sources to back up the article. This one doesn't have anything that even attempts to back up the claims to this guy's supposed notability. It has to go. WarpstarRider 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to go. The "guy's supposed notability" is evidenced from the number of comments and subscribers he has. If his youtube stats aren't enough, then look at the comments themselves.--Arislan 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not the Youtube directory. Notability isn't based on how many subscribers someone has there, or number of views of their videos, or anything like that that is only tied to the Youtube community. There has to be claim to some semblence of notability to the outside world, or there isn't even a valid argument for keeping this around. WarpstarRider 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In what way is the "YouTube community" not part of the "outside world"? They don't live on the same planet or something? This distinction you're trying to make doesn't make sense. JudahH 19:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • In general, in order for something to be notable it needs to be noticed by someone outside the community. For examples of how this works, you may want to see WP:BIO oder WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • "A large fan base" is one of the criteria listed in WP:BIO. As for the person's "community", you're using a very broad definition of the word. I don't see how the so-labeled "community" of people who watch YouTube differs from the "communities" of people who watch CBS, or read the New York Times. JudahH 23:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's listed under the section for "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." Youtube videos aren't covered under any of those. WarpstarRider 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's a very dogmatic way to read what is, after all, a guideline. The whole point of guidelines is that it's impossible to cover every single contingency—they're simply guides to policy. A YouTube personality with a large fanbase is completely analogous to an actor with a fanbase (IMHO, of course). A fanbase is a fanbase. JudahH 00:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's not "dogmatic", that's what the guideline actually says. You can't compare actors who are known by millions around the world through movies, television, news coverage, etc. to Random Youtube Guy who no one else knows about and hasn't been covered by any outside sources. WarpstarRider 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sure that's what it says; when that sentence was written, I doubt YouTube celebrities were even envisioned. My point stands: a guideline is meant as a general outline of policy, to be applied to specific cases through judgment. To say, "This is what is written—anything else is proscribed", is to be very dogmatic. That said, in your last comment, you did mention a solid distinction between actors and YouTube celebrities: millions versus tens of thousands. In my view 50,000 (viewers, smaller fanbase of course) is sufficient to be called notable, but that's an area of opinion where you're free to disagree, obviously. What I don't understand is the knee-jerk branding of "YouTube celebrities" as by definition non-notable. JudahH 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Once again, the key is having significant recognition from outside sources, not a high hit count on Youtube. From WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WarpstarRider 10:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I hate to bring lonelygirl15 into this, but her reason for having a Wikipedia page is because she is a fake YouTuber. If a fake YouTuber gets a Wikipedia page, then why shouldn't a real one? They both used the same medium to become famous, it just so happens William Sledd is actually William Sledd. If it comes to this article being deleted, all I ask is that there is a possibility for this page to be recreated in the future. He has talent, maybe he'll have his own talk show. It's also very possible he won't get famous outside of YouTube, but you never know.--Tezzy149 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • That's a vast oversimplification. Lonelygirl15's "fakeness" generated a lot of attention from outside sources, Sledd has not. If he does do something significant in the future, then there can be an article then. WarpstarRider 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The Chicago Sun-Times is a reliable third party source ... --DavidRWilson 22:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Unfortunately, he's only used as a list item in an article about Youtube in general; there isn't any actual information given. WarpstarRider 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • William may not be the focus of this article, but that is not the point. The point is, that a reliable third party source has testified to William's popularity on YouTube. This is independent verification of his YouTube celebrity. If the test of inclusion on this encyclopedia in William's case is popularity plus independent verification of that popularty, which combined constitutes "notable", then William has met that test. There is no need for this article to write extensively on William, all that is required is verification. --DavidRWilson 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • This is entirely wrong. The article you posted simply includes his name in a rather large list of high-rated users, at the end of a story that covers YouTube in general and doesn't mention him at all. This is not verification of any supposed "celebrity"; it's a trivial mention, and can't be used as a source. Go back and read the policies and guidelines again. WarpstarRider 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve. The article so far only covers trivia. The article needs to be lenthaned to cover the whole saga. This person is the fasest rising subscribed member on YouTube and came into the top twenty in just over a month. He has now found his way into the top ten. 82.39.9.197 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete / speedy delete. Another youtube biography of a nonentity with no assertion of notability. Proto::type 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A nonentity? Being viewed by tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people differs him by absolutely nothing to, an independent film actor, a stage actor, or for example, this poet, Steven Herrick. So, please tell me what the difference is? W33nie 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Youtube is not a reason for a person's popularity. StonedChipmunk 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem now is that this article will temp be deleted only to be reposted as soon as some media outlets document his rise to fame. I therefore suggest to prolong the deletion discussion. Your thoughts please. Chavatshimshon 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't anything "documenting his rise to fame" now, then there can't be an article now. WarpstarRider 01:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now hold on a minute. I've been following the thread closely here. I'm the guy that started of this trend by creating the renetto article. As I understand from what you have written above, the veracity of his notability is disputed since there is a lack of third party (media) coverage, of his fame. What is not in question is his fame, there is certainly no need for documentation of that point. On the other hand, he is rising to fame on only on YouTube and similar vlogging sites, which arguably is not a comparison to an independent media body yet. But yet again, the fact has it that he is in class of his own, in that he is the fastest rising subscribed member since Geriatric1927 whose article here is well written and received a high visitor count. So he is famous now, but we are trying to establish how and why. Dont confuse your own points as put above by yourself in discrediting his notability. Yes we are waiting for sources outside of YouTube to write it up so we can attach them as sources at the end of this article, but no, there is no need to delete him speedily just because we cant wait a few days or a week. The bottom line is, YouTube is unique phenomenon in that it is a media body in itself, that Google have now bought that out is making this hard to see, since its going to be a monopoly, but if there would be a few popular vlogging sites, it would be more clear to us how their users are both independently and by being featured (as in media bodies) becoming notable. Chavatshimshon 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His "fame" is exactly what is in question; a high hit count can not solely determine fame or notability, as this is not the Youtube directory. You clearly need to get more acquainted with WP policies; once again, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Without any reliable sources to verify this guy's supposed notability or any of the information in this article at this moment, there can not be an article about him at this moment. That is not in question by anyone who knows the policies. WarpstarRider 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His fame according to standards for a wikipedia article is being questioned, not his fame as a celeb. He has accumulated 1000 new subscriptions in less than one week. People are coming here, reading the article, leaving and wikipedia lives on. Quite clearly this is not a cheap add and the article is a service. Agreed that there must be a source to link to the article with in the week. Until then what we have here is a bunch of new wiki editors, a new generation, bringing YouTube with them, and they are most welcome. I'm one of them. The guidelines on Internet memes will slowly evolve with our influx. Chavatshimshon 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policies are not going to be changed because of people who want to write worthless articles on non-notable subjects. If your arguments have no basis in policy, then you have no real argument for keeping this article here. WarpstarRider 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're misinterpreting the word "third-party", WarpstarRider. Third-party sources are sources other than the editor himself. In this context, YouTube.com itself is surely a third-party source: the issue is verifiability, and statements which can be verified from youtube.com are verifiable. The statements in this article fall into that category. Some of them (i.e. information about hit count on a specific date) may no longer be verifiable; but when written were verifiable; those are debatable, but I think that if something is included legitimately, it should be valid, even if the source is no longer available. JudahH 20:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the thousandth time, no, YouTube stats do not count. The big box at the top of WP:V clarifies what that passage means: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." YouTube stats are not reliable, published sources. An entire article can not be included simply on the basis of a hit count; there have to be reliable sources verifying any claims of notability and any other information in the article. Until that exists, there can not be an article. WarpstarRider 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define what is meant by "reliable, third-party sources"? And please quote your authority. In addition, any precedent or examples? --DavidRWilson 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS. JoshuaZ 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, YouTube is a primary source. WP:RS talks about information from blogs on YouTube—that's not at all the same as the statistics that YouTube itself publishes about the views, subscribers, etc. of its videos. It's ridiculous to think that YouTube, the primary source for this information, is unreliable about it, but if a newspaper would republish the same information, it would become reliable. JudahH 05:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. See WP:V again where it specifically says that reliable, third-party, published sources are absolutely required for an article's existence. Anything can be a primary source about itself; the very idea of verifiability is that there must be outside sources backing them up. The existence of enough such sources is what establishes a subject as notable. Now stop waving around the guy's YouTube stats, because that's not what we're looking for here. WarpstarRider 06:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Giving this article the benefit of the doubt... but if references can't be found by a third afd... it really needs to go (the first afd was so long ago it's not really relevent) W.marsh 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Golden Forum

edit
Hong Kong Golden Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:WEB/WP:V. Probably should have been deleted the first time it was nominated here. No sources given in the article and only 12 google hits. Wickethewok 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So there's systemic bias against websites? I'm gonna have to go and disagree there. Anyways, is there a specific policy to follow if the information can't be verified by an English speaker and no speaker of the subject's language steps forward? Wickethewok 06:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability. Note that the existence of other articles that meet the speedy deletion does not excuse the existence of this one. Gwernol 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Speed of Thought Players (SOTP)

edit
The Speed of Thought Players (SOTP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since the article gives no claims of notability it should go under {{db-bio}}, but let's discuss it. There are 10's of thousands of similar troupes in the world, this one gives no hints why it is notable. Wikipedia is not a free forum to advertise your company. Googling the troupe gives no special hints at notability. IMO delete. feydey 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do not delete While it is a valid point that there are 10's of thousands of similar troupes in the world, SOTP is not the only one that has its own Wiki page. It is a matter of opinion on how "important" the troupe is to deserve a Wiki page. Also, the majority of this page is not advertising. It gives a brief background of the group, the style of games they play, and who are the members. I can understand the "current events" being considered advertising, but the rest of the article is an objective description of the group. If one is going to propose the deletion of this article, then they should be prepared find every other small group with a Wiki page and contest them as well. They are out there. -Rhanley(Talk·Desk·Review Me!)
  • Speedy delete per {{nn-club}} or {{db-spam}}. Sandstein 08:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam and/or by db-club. No asserted notability. -- Kicking222 15:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova national rugby league team

edit
Moldova national rugby league team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong delete - rugby league is no longer played in Moldova and hasn't been for some time. I also feel that there is little justification for minor nations at a sport to have their own page James Bowes 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, it's the national team of a country in a notable sport, which seems like a reasonable basis for an article in an of itself. Further this site implies that there is at least some rugby league activity going on in Moldova at present. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is several years out of date, likely from when rugby league was played in Moldova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
For "several years out of date", read "2003", with the site itself being copyright last year. I'm not saying that things mightn't have changed drastically in 12 months, but calling it "several years out of date" is false. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sub-section of rugby league fans seem convinced that rugby league is more widespread than it is, I don't think the article's very accurate. I'll try find sources later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's [43] contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. A national team is notable, even if it no longer exists. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |

contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually an entirely accurate assertion that rugby league is not played in Canada. Someone used a rugby union competition that had league in its name to show that there was rugby league there, think of it as using the NFL Europe to prove the existence of Canadian football in Germany if you're not aware of what rugby league is.James Bowes 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a note that rugby league is no longer played in Moldova. The consensus is that this should remain for history purposes. My comment about Canada was correct, but some people are ignorant of the difference between rugby union and rugby league.
There's no proof that it isn't played in Moldova. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no proof it is either. It is known on rugby league sites that the game's no longer played there. I suggest keeping the article for history, but I've heard strong evidence that the game's been dead there years. In the last few years all European nations have been active, but nothing from Moldova who are not registered with the RLEF (www.rlef.eu) or anything.James Bowes 11:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site I've cited above talks about games which were scheduled for 2003, which would suggest that if it's died then the death occurred sometime in the last 3 years. Anything's possible in Eastern Europe, but it surely would've been reported somewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those games never went ahead, despite being planned. I believe they were to be based on Moldovans playing and living in Russia. Like I said check the www.rlef.eu page, if a country plays any internationals or has a single club they get mentioned there. Now I know Wikipedia better, I know that a national team, current or active deserves a page, but I know for a fact that there is not a single rugby league club in Moldova, and that the national side has not played since 1995. I suggest we conclude this as keep and then discuss on the talk page what to include in the article?James Bowes 14:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link shows people discussing Moldova no longer playing rugby league:http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=142393&highlight=moldova Not sure whether it's a valid source but it's more valid than the above article. It shows that there are Moldovans playing in Russia, but suggests there is no activity in the country itself. James Bowes 14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The people at that forum may have more evidence than we can find, but without it all we have is a group of people saying that the game isn't played in that country, which is largely what we have here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the www.rlef.eu.com site doesn't mention them would suggest that it's unlikely that there's any rugby league in Moldova, due to the fact that that site lists countries where even a few schools play. However, the article does seem to suggest that the national team's inactive and has no mention of domestic rugby league.James Bowes 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium buddy

edit
Stadium buddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

seems to be an advertisement. I could not locate any independant references for it. Justinmeister 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spam. hateless 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen. I know Rick Reilly mentioned it in a column, but that doesn't make it notable, nor does its ~600 Google hits. SliceNYC 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've been using this as a generic term throughout Canada for a decade, as have my pilot friends and my wheelchair-riding friends. I do not believe this to be a brand name. Google will return an additional 500 or so hits if searching for the "external male catheter" technical name, or the other slang term "texas condom". Russ0035 02:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To clarify, the Stadium Buddy is the complete apparatus, including the tubing and collection bag; not just the Texas Condom. The PZL_PW-5 that I fly has a tube under the seat cusion that lets me use just the Texas Condom and not the complete Stadium Buddy. Russ0035 04:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And in the interests of full disclosure, I made the edits to this page on 2 Nov. I've signed up for a wikipedia account because, while I was comfortable making edits anonymously, I am not comfortable with defending them anonymously. I have never heard of a Stadium Buddy for sale, they're something I've assembled after buying the components in medical stores. (Interestingly, Texas Condoms are sized in colours instead of "S/M/L/XL" so that you don't have to ask for a Small one at the counter. I'm a size Blue.) Really old pilots told me what store to go to and what to ask for in parts, but they always called it a Stadium Buddy. Cheers, Russ0035 05:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russ0035. It seems like a good-faith article (stub) and contains no links to places the thing can be bought, nor does it seem to be an actual trademark or brand-name. --Arvedui 02:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russ0035. I agree that it looks like a good-faith stub and it appears to be pretty common among small aircraft flyers. Agne 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league in Canada

edit

Speedy delete. This is a hoax article. RL is not played in Canada. GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're quite wrong, according to this. Have you actually checked up on all of these nominations? - Randwicked 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You should stop by Canada one afternoon. Of bloody course we play rugby here.

Denni ☯ 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Work in progress pages, plenty of information available.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rugby league in Canada

edit
Rugby league in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

*keep - I refer the nominator to this site, which clearly demonstrates that rugby league is still played in Canada. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for historical value at the very least. The site I referred to above (and which was used in the previous AfD) is in fact about rugby union, a mistake which was made due to my browser being unable to load the entire page first off. That said, the nominator and I are both unable to find any evidence later than 2003 dealing with the sport in Canada - things can change drastically in 3 years, but at the very least we know it was played that recently. Importantly, there is no reliable evidence that the game is not played still
Comment - If you read the source you'd realise it was a rugby union competition and thus irrelevent to this rugby league article.James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it's not at me, maybe at people who think a rugby union competition is a rugby league one.James Bowes 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar You get one "vote" to delete, not two or more. There's no sources indicating a dearth of rugby league. Additionally, remember WP:NPA and cease calling people "ignorant". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I shouldn't name call but using a rugby union site as evidence for rugby league in a country is clearly wrong. The only site I can find for rugby league in Canada is this one:http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/. Despite being an active site there is no mention of seasons post 2003, and the guestbook has loads of people asking about rugby league in Canada, but no replies suggesting there is. It's quite clear that the sport is dead in the country but I'll try find better sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)
I'm impressed you can get anything at all out of that site. I've tried it a couple of times and the best result I got was a series of links with broken pictures (which were thankfully still clickable). Sort of a feeling-your-way-in-the-dark thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you move your cursor over the boxes to the left there are still open links, but that site, with no matches played since 2003 is the only page concerning rugby league (as opposed to the rugby union played in the Canada Rugby Super League) suggests that the sport is at best dormant in Canada.James Bowes 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; even if something is defunct, it still has historical value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not just a directory of "things that are current in 2006". Bearcat 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article needs work but no need to delete it. Also I'm pretty sure Canada had two competitions at one point, either a East/West split or a split because of Superleague. Need to do some more research but that should be included in the article. Mattlore 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were Ontario and Manitoba 9-a-side leagues up til 2003 as evidenced by this site http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/ (you need to run the cursor over the left hand boxes for the link). However, all evidence suggests that rugby league in Canada has been dormant since 2003 (at least on an organised level, who knows if there have been ad hoc matches). I think the article needs heavy improvement as to describe rugby league as an emerging sport there is both inaccurate and a non-NPOV as there's no evidence it will ever emerge there. Not sure of the split but I would assume all rugby league in Canada was allied to Super League, as it was in most countries, with the ARL largely being localised.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Casey

edit

Was originally speedy-tagged, but author protested. However, he did not give a reason for his protest. I'm not sure the article meets speedy criteria. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Jack of all trades" in supporting roles in the local music scene in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Some of his instrumental recordings have been used as background music in advertising campaigns and radio shows, but not featured in a way that would have listeners going out to buy a CD of the music. He has worked for notable musicians but hasn't done much of note on his own. The press clippings that he has re-printed on his personal website are underwhelming. This is about the same as having an article posted about someone who worked as the "Key Grip" on five or six well-known movies. Not encyclopedic material. OfficeGirl 23:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not assert notability adequately. A Randy Casey has an AMG page, but it's unclear if it's the same person. And how do you record with a member of John Fogerty? (On second thought, don't answer that question). Caknuck 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGullet

edit
EGullet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't look like its been covered by any reliable sources. Admitted vanity article created by site owner. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB and fails WP:V. Delete. Wickethewok 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So wait, you cant be the founder of said organization and write the original article? Its a not for profit charity! (jperlow)

(Jperlow) There is no conflict of interest because I am no longer involved in the organization. There is no vanity because it is a short article that simply lists factual information based on data from publically avaliable sources, including the site's 501c3 determination filings with the Federal Government and at Guidestar. --Perlow 04:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(jperlow) the eG Forums site meets -all- the criteria for internet content under WP:WEB and it should be noted that the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts and Letters is NOT a website and its a non-for-profit charity which has 501c3 status with the United States Government. eG Forums, the forum site that it hosts is a website. The material by which the article is based is can by publically accessed on Guidestar, therfore the entire content is verifyable --Perlow 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, I'm not sure I understand how this meets WP:WEB/WP:CORP... what are your sources exactly...? According to Guidestar, they list 1.5 million non-profit organizations - what makes yours any more notable than any of those? Wickethewok 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life Fallout

edit
Half-Life Fallout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like a non-notable forum, failing WP:V. I was about to speedy and but saw it had a long history and was formerly PROD'd and removed. Delete, as I think it fails WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 21:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national rugby league team

edit
  • Delete - See above, I'm actually a fan of rugby league, but am trying to clean up these pages to stop people kidding themselves that countries that had a limited competition a few years ago deserve their own page James Bowes 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Assuming sources can be found (something I'll turn my mind to shortly if nobody else does), this is a team in a notable sport representing a country. The amount of game time its seen is the only concern, but I remind the nominator that there hasn't been much international league (with the exception of Australia, NZ and the UK) in several years anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the above rugby league has been non-existant in Canada for two or three years since the regional 9-a-side competitions folded and thus this is now a defunct national team. If they were still in existence I'd support the inclusion, but the fact that they didn't even consider entering the world cup qualifiers and haven't played internationals for years suggests that the team is dead. Maybe the results can be merged into a past international results section?James Bowes 22:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: Making the comment that "rugby league has been non-existent in Canada" doesn't actually make that the case. Indeed the reverse would appear to be true. A merger may end up being the best solution, but the way I read the whole thing is that the Canadian team is essentially on hiatus and may well return to the fold sometime soon - much like a football/soccer team which doesn't opt to qualify for a particular world cup. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the fact that I've left thirty other countries with a rugby league presence and just focused on two suggests something?James Bowes 14:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might do, yes, but it's always suspicious when a new user appears and immediately starts nominating articles for deletion and has a reasonable understanding of the process. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do think you have a point here. I've only just got my own computer, so the times I've edited pages (mostly rugby league ones) I've not thought to log in, as it was not my computer so it wasn't set up to log me in, and it wasn't necessary. I can see why it would look suspicious to you though. To be fair though, the reasonable understanding of the process is from the clear set out page on it.James Bowes 11:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea. AfD tags are meant to stay until the debate itself is closed (chances are that this one will be soon enough, but still). Additionally, league is still played in Canada per the source I provided earlier, so adding erroneous information to an article doesn't help matters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your sources very carefully before making assertions. The above link proves that rugby union is played in Canada. You may not know the difference I gather, but rugby union (the form sometimes simply called rugby) is the type played in about 100 countries and is the type played in Canada and in the confusingly named Canada Rugby Super League. Rugby league is a sport played in about thirty countries, mostly in Europe and Oceania and is no longer played in Canada, there having been no domestic competition since 2003.James Bowes 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link hadn't been working perfectly for me at the time I posted it, so all I had to go on was that it was used in a previous AfD around the same topic and that it contained the words "Rugby", "League" and "Canada". On closer inspection, you're right there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 twice; once on 3 November by User:Merope as CSD A3 and again on 4 November by User:Slowking Man as CSD G11. GRBerry 03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybo

edit
Cybo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable game developer with no evidence of passing WP:CORP; two Google hits for "Cybo Studios" [45] - own website (empty) and one blog entry. No relevant GHits for "James the Marble" [46] or Pinbey [47]. Contested prod and prod2. ~Matticus TC 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This Should Remain Up As This Is Based On A Fan Making Game Company Who Do NOT Make Money Out Of The Games We Make, The Company is very small and not well known, only recently have we set up a site *hint the google detection*— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybo studios (talk • contribs)
    • Note Please see WP:NN and WP:CORP. Your admission that you are "very small and not well known" is one of the reasons your company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Best of luck, and I hope your company creates some amazing games. -- Kicking222 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very small and not well known" is precisely why this article has been nominated - to meet Notability (companies and corporations), the business needs to have "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" so that information can be verified. While you're right that the Google test is not definitive in establishing notability, two hits for a video game developer is a very poor showing, even for a non-profit amateur group. I wish you all the luck in making and marketing your games, but you're a long way away from being notable enough for a Wikipedia article just yet. ~Matticus TC 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN. Palfrey 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryscott O'Connor

edit

Brazen self-promotion by User:MaryscottOConnor - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Delete. She is also the author of the My Left Wing Wiki page. - Corporal Tunnel 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but by precedent, the blog's article was deleted, and I saw more importance asserted there than in the O'Connor article, so by that logic, insufficient importance is asserted. Prior to MLW's speedy deletion, the assertion of importance here was that she created a notable blog. If the blog is non-notable, then what's the assertion of importance here? I still think speedy delete is merited, but I am not opposed to letting the AfD run its course. Besides, if I changed my opinion one more time, I'd be obliged to run for Congress and start getting written about in blogs. :) —C.Fred (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind"
  • Cute, but you really should know better than that. Speedy deletion is not a domino effect, based upon "notability," it's based upon a lack of stressed importance. The article attempts to stress/assert importance. Also, there's nothing wrong with having a partially open mind, staying the course no matter what is why George Bush appointed Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court candidate. Yanksox 11:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is my point: there is no stressed importance, or else the deletion of MLW should be reconsidered as an invalid speedy due to assertion of importance, because there was a stronger assertion of importance in MLW's article than in O'Connor's. (Do I think the deletion should be reconsidered? No, based on the discussion here and WP:SNOW.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if subject prefers, or in the alternative delete (but not speedily, she merits a full AfD) as autobiographical and failing to satisfy WP:BIO. The article's sources consist of a Washington Post article in which she was mentioned as an example of a trend, as opposed to being the subject in her own right, and links to her own blog. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think, per Metropolitan90. I noted the Alexa and Technorati rankings for My Left Wing on that article's talk page were unimpressive, although MLW does rate #81 on the TTLB blogging ecosystem ranking of political blogs, so maybe it's up-and-coming. Maryscott O'Connor does rate a brief mention (cited to the article) on Daily Kos, which I think is appropriate at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you're the primary subject of a front-page Washington Post feature article, you are almost by definition notable. I'd say that they are _quite_ a bit more selective than we. Derex 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Not a speedy candidate though. Also it is a self-promotional bio. --Tbeatty 05:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gamaliel and Derex. JamesMLane t c 09:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but IMPROVE, darnit! There's enough notability to warrant a brief and tasteful article about this person when written with NPOV. Pity she created the article herself. Pity that the article doesn't actually tell us anything that the media coverage said about her. I still think that a number of people would look for information on this person and want to learn briefly who she is, what she has done and her background. When I look at articles on AfD I ask "What is this article supposed to do, as created?" If it serves or is capable of serving to inform (not advertise) in the way I always relied on Wikipedia for knowledge before joining as an editor, then I am inclined to keep. OfficeGirl 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:BIO and her blog meets WP:WEB. However, the should be handled in the same article. I would suggest making My left wing a redirect to her.JoshuaZ 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion. If meets WP:BIO someone could write the article, but I don't think the editor should be the same person. --MaNeMeBasat 14:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Washington Post article about her shows notability. I hope people here aren't voting delete for political reasons. --Oakshade 06:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and redirect My left wing, per JoshuaZ's suggestion. Self-promotion, maybe, but seems notable enough, as Derex points out. riana_dzasta 06:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Does not meet any criteria of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. 1) Multiple independent published works from reliable sources about her? We've got one, which is not multiple. 2) Enduring historic record? Not yet. 3) Elected official - nope. 4) Local elected official with significant press coverage - nope, and none visible. 5) Widely recognized entertainment figures and opinion makers (Hollywood walk of fame level) - no evidence presented. 6) Sportspeople - nope. 7) Actor/TV personality - nope. 8) Published author with multiple independent reviews of their work - no published reviews seen 9) Professionals whose work is likely to enter the enduring record - nope, not a professional, and no evidence yet that her blog entries will still be known in 10 years, let alone a generation. 10) Renown or notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events - 1 article in the press does not constitute renown; that is when the press just uses the name and everyone is expected to know who it is. As all WP:BIO criteria are failed, the article should be deleted. GRBerry 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You left some important chunks of WP:BIO out. Here are a couple:
This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious).
This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.
And besides, alot of people highly value her appearances on Fox News Channel and Fox Radio in addition to the Washington Post story on her and consider those notability confirmations. --Oakshade 04:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sokol

edit
Dan Sokol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The individual appears only to be known for an exceedingly tenuous connection to Bill Gates in 1978

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

The result was delete. --Ezeu 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airboat World Magazine

edit

Too specialised to be encyclopaedic; reads like an advert. Firien § 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LisaNova

edit
LisaNova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "Youtube celebrity". WarpstarRider 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're notable if people take notice of you, which people have done with her 644,000 times over the past 5 months. I don't see why Youtube notability would be much less valid than Google notability. (Especially since the latter recently bought out the former...) --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Youtube's internal user stats showing high popularity insufficient? --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Arvedui says: if this is original research, then any research is original--the author looked up the secondary sources himself, right? YouTube is not the author here--it's the primary source. JudahH 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Published sources are needed, not a hit counter. WarpstarRider 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define "published". Here's a dictionary def. (answers.com): To bring to the public attention; announce. Something can be published online--what's so magic about print? I find the distinctions you keep drawing rather specious.
  • Strong Keep and improve. YouTube is like a media body in itself. Asserting YouTube isnt like a TV station for example is wrong, out out of times. LisaNova is a rising star, this article needs to develope along with her. I think it should remain to be seen how much traffic and edits this page recieves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.9.197 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete - I came across this one whilst doing my weekly speedy deletion cull of new youtube & blog 'personalities' that had slipped through the new page patrol. I nearly just speedied it anyway, but it's going through the process now, so there we go. Non notable biography, with no assertion of notability whatsoever. Proto::type 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability, no actual news stories Palfrey 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In twenty years YouTube will be considered a huge part of a media revolution that is going on. We are thinking about now. Think about posterity. I agree with with the unsigned user, give it time.Enjoitherhythm 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) —User's first edit.[reply]
  • Delete not nonable. Mukadderat 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Youtube's user-stats are a perfectly reliable reference, and this girl has 14,000+ people watching her, with over 600,000 pageviews over the past 5 months. Whether or not her Google-stats are comparable, she clearly occupies a spot in the collective consciousness larger than most. --Arvedui 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - YouTube popularity certainly counts as notable - David Gerard 08:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to what? There is absolutely no demonstration of notability in this article. WarpstarRider 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, there are a few hits in mainstream news sources on google news for LisaNova, but mostly incidental mentions. Is borderline. Morwen - Talk 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those would qualify as "trivial" coverage as defined in the guidelines, since she isn't the subject of any of those articles. WarpstarRider 22:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep No opinion on where to draw the line for notable, but I don't agree that notability from YouTube alone cannot be notability. But I don't feel like having this argument on every single "YouTube" page which is created. Isn't there a way to create a discussion page dedicated to the overall issue? JudahH 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Update I added an LA Times article as a refernce. --Oakshade 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article requires a login, and the title doesn't seem to indicate that it is about this particular user. WarpstarRider 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title doesn't, but the article has a large section of it about her. Never claimed more than that. Thanks for the link note. I'll work on getting full access (LATimes.com membership is free, btw). --Oakshade 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She'd have to be the sole focus of the article. Just a section of one article doesn't really cut it. WarpstarRider 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim she was the sole focus of it. It's a reliable source that verifies material in the article. The subject doesn't</> have to be the sole focus to do that. --Oakshade 01:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Non-trivial coverage does not necessarily mean "sole focus" of an article, it means exactly what it says: non-trivial. Yamaguchi先生 09:51, 9 November 2006
Fixed LA Times link. Found same article that's non-subscription in the Chicago Tribune (sister newspaper of LA Times). --Oakshade 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Looks like the Chicago Tribune article has also gone subcription only. Reverted back to the LA Times version that requires a subscription to view. At least it's free. --Oakshade 05:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the website does not make individual users automatically notable. WarpstarRider 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the stars (not just users) of that extremely notable website are. --Oakshade 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I state again: Just because the website is notable does not mean that any popular user there is instantly notable by Wikipedia standards. WarpstarRider 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. --Oakshade 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One that is more supported by the existing policies and guidelines. How on earth does it follow that if a website is notable, any popular users there are considered automatically notable regardless of any lack of significant outside recognition? That has no basis in any of the notability guidelines. WarpstarRider 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because when you're a star of an enormously popular website, you have notability. Besides, for "outside recognition" i just found many more WP:RS that recognize this subject as notable. [49][50][51]... I remember you now. Didn't you try to delete Jessica Lee Rose and then moderators had to lock it and the following AfD consensus was Keep?... Well anyway, that's a great example of "how it follows" that a star of notbale website becomes notable. --Oakshade 01:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are borderline passing mentions, and the last one doesn't seem to mention this subject at all. Again, popular YouTube users are not automatically notable just because they are popular on YouTube. WarpstarRider 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least this one is. The 3rd source does mention her (3rd paragraph from the bottom on page 1). The 4 (including this new one from the Chicago Tribune- [52] are very relaible sources giving "significant outside recognition" as you stipulated was nessesary. I see you've avoided the Jessica Lee Rose example as an answer to your previous question. --Oakshade 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that third article uses her name once; that's the very definition of trivial coverage. And I "avoided" the Jessica Rose example because it has nothing to do with this argument (and for the record, my position there was for merge and redirect to the lonelygirl article, not deletion). WarpstarRider 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" sources refers to things like "mentioning the person in passing" and "telephone directory listings." While that New Yorker article seems to mention her in passing, the others, particularly the Los Angeles Times one which has significant coverage, are examples of her having "significant outside recognition." The Jessica Lee Rose mention (you did delete all contents of it, btw [53]) was simply a direct answer to your question which you didn't seem to counter. I was just curious. --Oakshade 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not by WP standards. WarpstarRider 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even by WP standards. After performing a cursory search on LexisNexis I was able to locate five unique and non-trivial articles about LisaNova (also "Lisa Nova"), this person meets WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 10:19, 9 November 2006
  • Keep per several commenters above. As an example, The Los Angeles Times recently referred to two people, Lonelygirl15 and LisaNova, as "home-grown celebrities" in their October 23, 2006 article titled "CAPITALIZING ON AMATEUR VIDEO ; YouTube users keep dialogue running". Roughly half of the 26 paragraph article is devoted to Nova, and the other to Lonelygirl15. Wikipedia is the encyclopedic resource that people would expect to learn more about this person. Yamaguchi先生 09:58, 9 November 2006
  • Keep This YouTube 'celebrity' seems to be notable; and with there being sources available that are verified, deletion seems to be unwarranted. Brooke Brodack is another example of a notable meme from this site. --SunStar Net 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yamaguchi and several others. --Myles Long 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David "Fucking" Gerard ... (P.S. if you dont get the joke read his WikiTruth article.)  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomanganitalk 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Block of Cheese Day

edit

This is an article about a fictional holiday that was apparently mentioned in a couple of episodes of The West Wing. I believe it is non-notable. The article looks quite long, but the majority of it is composed of information irrelevant to the subject at hand. -Big Smooth 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is not "well sourced"; several references are West Wing fan sites that are not reliable sources. In addition, the parts of the article that are sourced have nothing to do with "Big Block of Cheese Day"; instead, they incongruously expound on other events of the West Wing episodes in which the cheese day is mentioned. If those parts of the articles are of any value (and I'm not sure they are), they should be merged into "The Crackpots and These Women" and "Somebody's Going to Emergency, Somebody's Going to Jail". -Big Smooth 23:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox
  • Keep as interesting and informative. This is no less notable than Better Know A District or any other number of articles about elements of fiction. Why do people want to delete well written articles? How is this harmful? This is a great example of why I oppose deleting articles based solely on the subjective issue of notability. — Reinyday, 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like we're going to keep this, so I've cleaned it up and merged the irrelevant information into the proper episode articles. -Big Smooth 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reinyday --Arvedui 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When someone sees the mention of the day on the West Wing, they should be able to come to wikipedia and at least find something out about its actual history. --YbborT 04:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is certainly more interesting, informative and better reference then 99% of the fancruft articles that are lying about. The factual historical reference and its popular culture tie in are worth some encyclopedic merit. Agne 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fido man

edit
Fido man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Individual claimed as notable only within a particular university *Dan T.* 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th Pyroclastic Flows

edit

This pertains to a conspiracy theory about the September 11, 2001 attacks. The article does not cite any sources, and focuses instead around one article hosted on a website "attempt[ing] to uncover the truth about September 11, 2001". We have a plethora of articles on the multitude of conspiracy theories surrounding that day, but the vast majority of them are on the conspiracy theory movement, instead of on the actual theories themselves. Of the few articles that we have on the actual conspiracy theories, the articles cite a multitude of sources and have established that the theories are verifiable and, at least within the conspiracy community, widespread and notable, something which this article fails to do. While a redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories is plausible, I would advocate deletion, as the theory has not been proven to fit our criteria for inclusion, and a redirect from every conspiracy theory made regarding the events of that day would not be appropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good for a chuckle, but it should be deleted. EVula 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Without verification from reliable sources, the theory (as far as WP is concerned) does not exist, so a redirection- as stated by Flcello- would be inappropriate. -- Kicking222 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verification.-- danntm T C 04:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. NawlinWiki 04:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am the author of this article. I have never written an article before and am not good at editing for NPOV. People posted NPOV warnings on this article but posted no discussion of what was to be fixed. I don't think it is fair to post NPOV warnings without explaining yourself so I removed them. If they had left reasons on the discussion page I would have left the warning and discussed needed changes to the article. The article also is not finished as I work and cannot update it often. But the existence of pyroclastic flows in NYC on September is not deniable. You only need to look at the images from that day, from the tower being pulverised into dust (by what is the question,) to it blanketing the Island of Manhattan and going as far as New Jersey. When the article is finished please comment but do not delete the article because it is a conspiracy theory. The official story is also a conspiracy theory. 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack the World Trade Center using airplanes. To use such an argument to justify it's exclusion is a pathetic argument, and to say that the one source posted so far is just an article is proof you have not even looked at it. It is a serious academic paper that has undergone four peer contributed revisions, and it is solid science. Not very advanced science, but correct nonetheless. The science behind this is not that hard, high school mostly. How much kinetic energy is in the buildings and jet fuel? How much energy is used in the dust clouds following the collapse? If the answer to the second question is substantially larger than the first answer, then you have a missing energy source somewhere. Couple that to the existence of red-hot metal at ground zero, 3 storeys below the ground, for 99 days after 9/11 is proof there was another, much hotter energy source present on 9/11. Please allow me to finish the article and please contribute changes to editing and format errors, or post competing science, but do not delete the article.

I have a newbie question: Is video from Youtube, even if it is from major news outlets, allowed on the site, or is it only pictures allowed on Wikipedia? WhoWillTellThePeople 09:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)WhoWillTellThePeople[reply]

  • Keep I think that the theory presented is completely and totally false. However, the article provides an explicit source for its claims. While I disagree with these claims as the ravings of the wackiest conspiracy theorists, the article is quite balanced and makes clear that it is an alternative theory, meeting all criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:V. I see no legitimate justification for deletion of this article. Considering that the article was created just days ago, the fact that no effort was made by more knowledgeable Wikipedia editors to improve the article or to seek improvements is an embarrassment to the entire project. Alansohn 23:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vsmith 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The basic observation of the dust cloud clearly shows an event that nearly identically resembles a pyroclastic surge phenomenon. If you understand the sheer amount of energy required to lift and travel the pulverized materials in that way, you'd have to question how gravity and carbon fires could produce said energy. If you do the math, calculating the potential energy of the buildings prior to impact (at rest) and then measure the amount of energy required to do what we all saw happened, there is a dramatic deficit.. anywhere between a factor of 100 and 500, depending on the variables. This phenomenon must be researched and the government's denial of it must be backed up with test results. This article should stay and be improved with it's focus being the thermodynamic requirements to move that pulverized matter in the way we saw it happen. Wikipedia's policies regarding information like this is showing firmly that the interest is not to provide truth, but to cover up "dangerous" information on a governmental level.
  • weak delete. needs reputable sources and is unencyclopediatic and POV in current form. Both of these can be overcome, however; absurdity of someone's quackery is in and of itself not grounds for deletion if there are prominent and reputable sources covering the quackery. But until then... Baccyak4H 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculations. Mukadderat 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn --Arvedui 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete `'mikkanarxi 21:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bowles

edit

First AfD was closed as a "no consensus" in a self-contradictory closure despite a 5/2 count for deletion and no sourced claim that the subject – a lawyer for Scientology – is notable. The best "Keep" argument (Bowles was Moxon's partner, until he messed up the Fishman/Geertz case) is not supported by any sources, and neither do the four sources establish notability. A Newsbank search for "Tim Bowles" Scientology yielded one article, for "Tim Bowles" yielded tons, but the top ten finds were about other Tim Bowleses. Absent better sourcing I recommened to delete the article or, if a notable role at Moxon & Kobrin can be established, a merge into that article. ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Timothy Bowles" on Newsbank, as well as "Bowles & Moxon" and "Eric Lieberman"+Bowles. wikipediatrix 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones would you pick for the article? Among the top 20, I can only find St. Petersburg Times - September 13, 1987, Scientology lawyer threatens lawsuit as about the subject, and that's more or less a press release. ~ trialsanderrors 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you've already voted on this AfD. wikipediatrix 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Occupation Government

edit

Zionist Occupation Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Organization is not notable, and content is redundant Tarinth 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a neologism, because it is not in common use outside of certain anti-semetic groups, and fails to cite any reliable secondary sources that meet the standards of Wikipedia's "Reliable sources for neologisms." At best, the subject appears to be a protoneologism, in which case it should be deleted because this article appears to exist only to promote the use of the term (despite that the article mostly contains critical discussion of the term, and many Wikipedians have attempted to correctly portray it as a fringe-term, they are merely playing into the hands of the individuals who wish to promote its usage.) In fact, the article has existed for several years and has neverbeen edited to include any references of sources.

If one considers the subject to refer to an actual organization, it should be deleted because it does not meet the criteria for the notability of organizations. Unlike significant items of historical interest, such as the Elders of Zion conspiracy-hoax, this "organization" is not notable; again, its presence as an article merely acts to ascribe notability to something nonexistant and invented by certain groups with ulterior motives.

Redundant: this subject is adequately dealt with as part of List_of_conspiracy_theories and therefore does not require more extensive coverage (and debate) here. If there is any content in the article that is additive to the subject of Jewish world domination conspiracy theories, it should be dealt with there. If it is determined that there should in fact be a separate page on Jewish conspiracy theories, it should be relocated to there.


There are pages for Antisemitism and List of conspiracy theories that would be more appropriate for this. Also, the page Jewish conspiracy currently redirects to this page. I'd suggest that when/if the content is merged elsewhere, that that page redirect to the new page (Jewish Conspiracy is clearly a larger subject than one particular acronym that hasn't met widespread usage.) Tarinth 18:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Comment The term, despite its dubious merits, is notable. We aren't going to start deleting neo-Nazi terms like 88 next are we? ZOG is referenced constantly on supremacist websites, forums and propaganda. Comment though, can we clean up the talk page and keep it only to the article content? The tit-for-tat jokes and assorted silliness is not what talk pages are for. They are for discussing the current, past or future content of the main article. Thank you.--Son of More 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The article is appears nicely neutral in its current form, and this is a frequently used propaganda term of bigots and hate groups. It's a fine example of what's wrong with some members of the human race, and it's definitely encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_3&oldid=1081097352"