Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prospectus (university)

[edit]

This was nominated with {{prod}} by another user. I don't agree with it, and feel that afd is more appropriate. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lethbridge Cowper

[edit]

An upstanding member of Australian society, but I don't see anything encyclopedic in this bio NawlinWiki 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Google hits are a relevent criteria for someone who lived before the internet era. Kevin 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Law Society is still active, I believe that the Internet is still a relevant criteria for this discussion--TBCTaLk?!? 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Eminent Australian lawyer and President of the Law Society. Lack of Google hits due to the fact that he died in 1987. Besides, the Google hits he does get include references in ministerial speeches at a lecture named in his honour. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further to the above, I have read an article in the Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society published in 2000. He was the senior partner in Allen, Allen & Hemsley, Australia's leading law firm. In her book The Allens Affair, Valerie Lawson wrote Before the reign of Sir Norman Lethbridge Cowper, Allen Allen & Hemsley was a club. A good, solid gentlemen's club where the door was bolted to all but family and friends. After Norman Cowper swept the dust from the club's corners, the door was thrown open to talent. Aliens became the hub of a wheel, a network, reaching out to the world. Good schools and the right attitude still counted. But what mattered most was hard work and driven talent. Under the reign of Cowper, from the 1930s to the late 1960s, nepotism gave way to brilliance, drudgery gave way to energy.. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some notability asserted (president of peak lawyer's body in NSW and other roles), would like to see more if there is anything. SM247My Talk 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable? I strongly disagree. Btw, he has 229 google hits, not seven. --David.Mestel 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I used his full name in my Google search, which would explain the difference in the number of results. Either way, 229 results is not a lot for someone notable. Also, Cowper is not the president of the Law Society, but of the New South Wales Law Society. (Note: Since I am not an expert on the subject, I can't tell if the latter is a different organization or merely a branch of the Law Society, though either way they seem to be different)--TBCTaLk?!? 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above: president of the Law Society is notable. -- Synapse 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's not president of the highly notable Law Society, he's president of the not really notable New South Wales Law Society. -- GWO
    • Huh? Which Law Society are you talking about? That article makes it quite clear that the law societies in each jurisdiction are separate. JPD (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm talking about the New South Wales Law Society. Your question would be better addressed to those who said You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable, or president of the Law Society is notable. -- GWO
        • You said "he's not president of the highly-notable Law Society", but there isn't only one Law Society, as that article says. He was president of the Law Society in his jurisdiction, which is notable. I see nothing to suggest that the people who said this was notable didn't understand perfectly well what "president of the Law Society" means - it is only delete votes that have suggested it could mean anything else, and at least one of those admitted that they didn't know what it was. JPD (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup notable enough for me hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have started work on cleaning it up and establishing notability. For the record, Allen Allen & Hemsley is now Allens Arthur Robinson and has offices in eight Asia-Pacific countries. [2]. Cowper played a critical role in its expansion. A Google News search shows that the company is actively involved in the merger of OneSteel and Smorgon Steel and representing Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary GeneralRe. [3]

Capitalistroadster 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. W.marsh 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ChicoProject, LLC.

[edit]

An article about very small consulting company in a small California city, growing cruftier by the minute (it describes their dress code, for gawd's sake). They get 44 unique Google hits, so it doesn't look like they're that big even in Butte County. Calton | Talk 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guy, the guideline is about the notability (and encyclopedic worthiness) of the SUBJECT ITSELF, not about whether the article has its i's dotted and its t's crossed. And your company does NOT meet WP:CORP standards, period/full-stop, and all the buffing and polishing of the article won't change that one bit. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. ugen64 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of the Beast

[edit]

Unreleased homebrew game. It's crystal ball and possibly non-notable as well. Ace of Sevens 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheJC TalkContributions 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, non-anything really Kevin 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's extremely notable. It's the sequel to the immensely popular Beats of Rage. Beats of Rage has spawned multiple engine derivitives (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR) for multiple platforms and millions of downloads between the platforms and derivitives combined - and this game and engine is the next step. The creators of the game - Senile Team - have a ton of fans. MetaFox 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a must,this is a game long time in the making and very revolutionary as homebrew 2d fighting games go. theres tons of fans who download and enjoy making games with the original engine (BOR) and its cousins (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR), it will be no diferent with this game,people will love it and it be a mistake to remove it from here. So please leave it inn, thank you. AlexDC22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep After 'Beats of Rage' this will set the standard of homebrew games. It would be ridiculous to erase this article. BDBor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.162.210.232 (talk • contribs) .
    It "will"? I think you mean it "might". You have no evidence to support your claim: past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The game might never even be finished. The ridiculous thing would be if Wikipedia published unsubstantiated hype about games that don't even have a release date yet. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. It is impossible to verify the claims in this article from reliable sources: we have only the authors' word for it. So the whole thing is crystal-balling, and cannot be kept.
    Note that having the article deleted now will in no way prevent it being recreated once the game has been released. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There is a video available at the homepage showcasing the features of the game, and Age of the Beast: Special Edition was demoed briefly at the Midwest Gaming Classic on June 3, 2006. This makes the game just as notable for wikipedia inclusion as any unreleased video game that was demoed at the E3 gaming convention (and there's an abundance of those in wikipedia). - MetaFox 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because the release date isn't set yet, doesn't make it a crystal ball. Muerto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.211.143.61 (talk • contribs) .
  • Also they have a good track record wich should indicate that this game is the real thing....my GOD, they are the makers of beats of rage... alexdc22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep

Despite of what the 'Warning' says: Of course I came here because a friend told me that the Wikipedia entry of Age of the Beast might be deleted. And why shouldn't I make my voice heard ?

Some Facts: There is something like a release date set: Though annouced for 2006, a release in 2007 is very likely going to happen. One got to consider it's a game by semi-professional independent programmers, not a big budget major company. There will be a commercial release for SEGA Dreamcast. It's announced as a Special Edition that will peacefully coexist next to the freeware download - but still with a pressed run of estimated 7000+ units.

As others already pointed out, there is a video available showcasing the game in action: http://www.senileteam.com/downloads.php?d=12

Obviously the game is using all original graphics, sounds and music along with an extremely customizable and powerful 2D game engine. To really achieve commercial quality takes a good bit of time for a small group of people, working on the game in their spare time.

It's predecessor Beats of Rage was ported to an insane number of platforms (there even is an AMIGA and Nintendo DS port), and the SEGA Dreamcast version was downloaded several tenthousand times - alone from the website I am involved in (http://www.DCEvolution.net).

Three years after its initial release, Beats of Rage still sees updates (OpenBoR, Linux & PSP port), and there still are several promising projects in the works based on the Beats of Rage game engine:

Sailor Moon Plus (freeware, Remake of the Sailor Moon game series by BANDAI): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364

Rage of the Streets (freeware, Remake of SEGA's Streets of Rage) http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1140255667

Yumi: Samurai Warrior (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=366

GAGA Wing (original game, release details not set): http://www.dcemu.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26951

RAEL: The Redemption (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=rael_for - DCEvoCE 16:49, 30 June 2006 (CET)

  • Comment - you have mis-read the 'warning'. It is intended to provoke discussion rather than simple 'keep' votes without clarification. Detailed comments such as yours are utterly welcome. Kuru talk 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because a game is not mainstream, doesn't make the fanbase restricted. Age of the Beast is one of the most anticipated games in the retro gaming community, and the retro gaming community makes up a large portion of the regular gaming community. The game was listed in the popular UK print magazine Retrogamer in issue number 8 as being one of the most anticipated upcoming games for the Sega Dreamcast. This article should have been tagged for notability instead of being tagged for deletion, because with a small bit of article expansion, acceptable references can be made that will show that the game is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. MetaFox 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Proto///type 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of beat 'em ups

[edit]

There's no article here. If done correctly, it will effectively be a duplicate of <<Category:Beat 'em ups>>. I'd support a re-direct. Ace of Sevens 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shift (music)

[edit]

Nonnotable electronic music group; article is cut and pasted from band's website, [7] NawlinWiki 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. W.marsh 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redstarcanada

[edit]

Nonnotable Canadian record label that releases all its music for free; 25 unique Ghits NawlinWiki 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum aesthetics

[edit]

136 matches on Google. Sentences like, "Quantum physicists these days often rely on the poetry and fiction to illustrate the subatomic nature of the universe". Reads badly aswell as un-sourced. Rex the first talk | contribs 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted by Kimchi.sg as {{db-author}}. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Joseph Hoffmann

[edit]

appears to be non-notable professor and may violate WP:VAIN as the main author is User:RJOSEPHHOFFMANN Carlossuarez46 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is meant as cross reference/information only re C S E R. "Non-notable" has been settled in previous discussion.--RJOSEPHHOFFMANN 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ludicrous; Hoffmann is an internationally known biblicist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.7.187 (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 of the debate was merge or redirect.

Great Mighty Poo

[edit]

Okay, perhaps he's the second most famous singing poo in popular culture. And the scene is funny. Still, I don't think it qualifies for an article. UsaSatsui 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment - having an article around so that another has more links is NOT a good idea. However, for your second suggestion, BE BOLD! Start a new article. You might want to look at Characters of 8-Bit Theater as an example. -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Even if I did make a "Characters in the Conker series" article, wouldn't I have to wait until the discussion here closes before I can change this article into a redirect? SNS 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. ugen64 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Document No. 43

[edit]

There is no reference to this document in any government website, only on anti-Bush blogs. --Kainaw (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The original user (NarrowPathPilgrim) has almost exclusively edited Federal Governmental articles and always from a strong consipracy theorist/tax protestor PoV, see for example their edits to Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and The Law that Never Was. Also, based on the edit to driver's licence, I wonder if they're a Zephram Stark sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 06:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terraspirit Swordsman

[edit]

Apparently a manga character, but no context at all in article and nothing on Google but this article and its mirrors NawlinWiki 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Awe

[edit]

I quote: "The Chronicles of Awe is a fan fiction on the Lionhead Discussion Boards. It is writen by a happy senior member named HFB." I think that pretty much speaks for itself; fan fiction is very, very rarely notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this instance of it is somehow exceptional. Also unsourced, vanityish, etc. -- standard stuff, really. -- Captain Disdain 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was something to do while creating more ideas for the story. Sorry for any inconvenience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.70.157 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 June 2006

Well, there's no harm done, so don't worry about it -- it's just not encyclopedic material, that's all. -- Captain Disdain 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 'Delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffus (Irish band)

[edit]

non-notable band, frequently edited with copyvio information BigHaz 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rockajazz

[edit]

Neologism. Searching the web for this term results in three hits. One is Wikipedia, one is on one of the artist's web pages. Mikeblas 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 kept No consensus Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guam rivers

[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No notability given for the list, stated or implied. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the above reasons:

List of rivers in U.S. insular areas
List of canals in the United States
List of islands in Massachusetts
I'm adding List of hospitals in Massachusetts, since it is tagged and links to this discussion, but I'm not proposing its deletion. Afonso Silva 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor appears to like making lists. There are others, but I figure these will do for test cases, and I frankly fatigued out with the process. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find geographic lists useful as a cross-reference. A list of PokeMon characters or Simpsons jokes? Those, I'd delete. -- Mikeblas 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of islands in Mass - Or at least trim it to a smaller set of them. It looks like every rock found in a puddle of water is listed there. Most of them seem to be barren and uninhabited. The rest all seem legitimate and useful enough to me. Wickethewok 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are useful lists well worth keeping. For mine, lists of significant geographical features are generally notable. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. These lists exist for many features of many countries. They are a useful method of listing the features and subdividing them/further describing them in ways which categories cannot. They are also extremely useful since in many cases there will be numerous redlinks which - of course - cannot be categorised. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful lists that can help readers navigate through articles on related rivers--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the list of islands in Massachusetts, the list of rivers in U.S. insular areas, and the list of Guam rivers, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Guam river article is also redundant to the list of rivers article. Keep the list of canals. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guam rivers, as its redundant, and the Massachussetts islands for reasons above. Keep the canals. Abstain on the insular rivers. GassyGuy 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per below discussion with Sjakkalle: Keep the list of rivers in insular areas and redirect Guam rivers to that article.
  • Delete and categorise and the same with the others. ViridaeTalk 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not all that happy with the list as it is since it is a bunch of unannotated redlinks, but since we don't have any articles on any of these rivers, it is not redundant with a category (since we don't have the category). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see three pages listed at the top, in addition to Guam rivers. How is it that I got here from List of hospitals in Massachusetts when it does not appear anywhere on this page? That's the article I'm really here voting to keep; in addition to Mass. islands now that I see it up there.
  • Comment. There is no real connection between any of the articles nominated other than that they are all lists. The nominations for each should be separate as the debate will be rather disorganised causing possible difficulties for the admins. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The five lists list things that are certainly finite. Obviously, there is not an infinite number of rivers in Guam nor an infinite number of islands in Massachusetts, so, the lists are useful and can be expanded with further info. Afonso Silva 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Geographic lists are useful. Kirjtc2 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. I've used many such lists to help fill out missing articles on geographic features. When the article list is populated or stubbed out, then add a category and drop it. Kuru talk 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can't question the lists as being useful or finite to particular editors. I do question the basic notability and encyclopedic relevance of the articles, which I believe is to the point. These articles only exist as lists, since if you stubbed the individual rivers there'd be no reason to have the stubs at all. I have a toolbox that's been very useful to me (and has finite contents), but I don't see how that rates inclusion in WP. (sorry for the belated appearance, I wasn't aware that it was done for afd nominators to also vote on their afds.) Tychocat 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that there's nothing verifiable or notable about any of the redlinked items in any of the unreleated lists you've proposed for deletion? Or are you saying that there's not content to these lists orther than being lists? I'm afraid your toolbox example does not seem to be very clear; your garage toolbox has done little to help editors on wikipedia, and would continue to be useless if it were included here - are you saying that these lists are also not helpful to finding articles to create and helping editors? There would seem to be quite a bit more to some of these lists than just 'a list' as well; the List of canals in the United States is grouped by canal functionality and operating state and also has some notations included as well. Could you please exapnd on your point a little further? I'm trying to understand your position. Kuru talk 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I'm also a little concerned that the discussion here is getting a little fragmented since each list would appear to have different problems; and with the exception of the insular/guam issue - they're all unrealted. Kuru talk 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm saying the articles listed for deletion only exist as lists. There's no notability stated or implied for any of the listed items, except as readers apparently have for them on a personal basis. I point out there's no reason at all to have articles on most of the individual items, they only have relevance as items on a list. And being on a list does not make them notable, nor are lists intrinsically notable. Tychocat 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm still not sure of your point here: 75% of the items in the List of canals in the United States already have articles which are more than established. I could probably create articles for the remainder that meet the notability standards for geographic locations fairly easily. The list complies with the guidelines at WP:LIST or WP:LISTS. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of geographical lists along similar lines. Again, what is your guideline for the notability of a list? All items must be notable? Most? Which guidelines are you using? Please don't think I'm being combative - that's not my intent, I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. Thanks! Kuru talk 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reference work so I would hope to find info on rocks, islands, rivers. That is part of our role. The lists are very well ordered and highly discriinate, but could use better references. --JJay 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per various other keep votes. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but preferably Categorize. These seem useful enough, but should really be Categories. Bwithh 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These lists are crucial parts of what makes Wikipedia useful. Lists are articles, and are not the same as categories. Fg2 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this lists can be valuable and are above the usual listcruft. Peyna 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is beyond me how these can be seen as indiscriminate. In the case of the Guam list, I doubt that articles would be appropriate, but an enhanced list showing length, precise location etc certainly would be. Osomec 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to delete. An56 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the added note that these type of nominations should be seperated. Yamaguchi先生 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree. This deal of multiple articles under a single nomination is bizarre. Especially since some articles pointing to this deletion page weren't even listed on this page initially. Sahasrahla 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 userfy. Roy A.A. 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory P. Leichner

[edit]

Hoax biography - nothing on Google or Amazon for this supposedly famous philosopher who has written 32 books. Funny that no university affiliation is mentioned, either. NawlinWiki 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slantize

[edit]

Non-notable musician. Mikeblas 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowville Productions

[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB, however you'd like to slice it. Alexa rank around 6.7 million. Mikeblas 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breed Different Media

[edit]

Seems to be a completely non-notable company/zine. Only 17 unique ghits, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Delete with all due haste. Mak (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Snips

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, he has no releases on a major label. I spot-checked a couple of collaboration claims and couldn't find references to them on the web. Nothing for sale at Amazon.com. Not in AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy deleted. There's no assertion of notability present. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous Poets

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, with no albums on a major label (or notable independent label). Not at AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off with your censorship. they exist, dont they?

  • Of course. I exist, and I shouldn't get an article yet. Speedy delete as completely non-notable (and no assertion of notability in the article.) Most of these rappers don't look notable either. Grandmasterka 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurogood Wordsmith

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. --JoanneB 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grape joke

[edit]

No sources, all original research it seems. I didn't really find anything of interest while Googling this - I got more results googling arbitrary things like "Pants joke". I don't really see why grapes are special in this case. Provide some sources or something to convince me or else I think its worth a delete. --Wickethewok

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. ugen64 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedin David (M.D.,Ph.D.)

[edit]

There are no results for this person and the article should be clearly deleted. However, the article seems to contain some scientific-sounding text (I don't have time to read it). Was wondering if anyone wanted this content moved anywhere. Oldak Quill 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global funk radio

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old School Radio Hour

[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQcuties

[edit]

Contested PROD. This article has no verifiable sources, and reads like an advertisement. See also a comment by an outside user at Talk:High IQ society. Ziggurat 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly closed, restoring. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eon8

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Some website thats only claim to notability is the fact that no one knows what it is for. Sounds like a brilliant marketing tactic to me. Since the only sources are the pure speculation of blogs and alike this site itself clearly fails WP:WEB.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep*** This was a test for people's minds, it should be stated on the page, and the last line should be finished.

Delete: Possible attempt at hijacking Wikipedia for viral marketing purposes. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=eon8 forth time this page has been recreated (I nominated for a speedy delete the first time I noticed it). This time by User:Angelinacarmen whose account I suspect to be a sock puppet. Unless "eon8" hits the mainstream press like I Love Bees a few years ago, I think it might be wise to place a page creation block on eon8 and eon8.com.

  • Fails WP:WEB.
  • Google hits ("eon8"): 1,750
  • Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,323,027.

--  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Hooray!</sarcasm> YTMND fad in progress: eon8theinvestigation.ytmnd.com/ Expect more sock puppets on their way. --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, non-notable webpage. However, may change vote depending on what happens on July 1st, be it cyberterrorism or the release of a new video game product. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being sarcastic :D )--TBCTaLk?!? 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As this site has not yet been confirmed to be any kind of advertising I belive this page should remain alive. Even if it is confirmed to be an advertisement it is not going to further promotion to the bussiness, and becuase it has become something of a phonomenon in terms of peeking peoples interest I believe the EON8 page should remain as a source of information of this phonomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.118.171 (talk • contribs)
User has only 3 edits, either to the article or this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable webpage, horrible marketing ploy. I support protecting it from re-creation if it gets deleted, especially if July 1 comes and goes and nothing happens. In fact, if July 1 comes and goes without anything happened, I'd support speedy deletion per A1, since it will have turned out to be patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's notable, it's a big deal on the internet, there's a lot of information on it, and most importantly, we're about to find out what it is in 23 hours. TheDavesr 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB miserably. Notability will be created in the mind of some pseudo-cult that, for whatever reasons, gives the website attention when it merits none, but unless the media covers it thoroughly, then it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. GassyGuy 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit is to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after it turns out to be nothing (which will be before the AFD is scheduled to close). --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the countdown ends or more information is shed on this. It seems that this thing is getting more and more attention, thanks to the help of the YTMND made about it. And, since there's no real way of knowing what this thing is until this countdown ends, waiting seems to be the logical choice.--GenericnameI 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Netsnipe 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until the timer reaches zero, and we can fully understand the purpose of the website. If it turns out to be something significant, deleting it would be a bad move.Will 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. By this "logic" we need a page for every newborn baby, since they may go on to do something significant. Here's an idea: Significance first, article later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- GWO
  • Keep as WillFirminger --Ood 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, so it's a mysterious website. Whoopee. The idea that we should wait until the countdown reaches zero is ridiculous; as has been noted before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; something needs to be worthwhile when the article is written, not in the future. If this is so significant and exciting, let's see it get some media coverage or huge Slashdot buzz or something that signifies that people really give a damn -- otherwise, it's just another website. -- Captain Disdain 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forget my first comment(i removed), delete per Captain Disdain. --andrew 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Until the timer reaches zero. Even if it is a viral markeing site, the Wikipedia page should be about the site itself, not the product (in the same way that ilovebees is about the site, not Halo 2 itself)

Delete (or speedy), block recreation. Fails WP:WEB (note: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria), also fancruft, and article is largely nonsense, original research not encylopedic and not verifiable. If it becomes part of a marketing campaign then it can go into an article about the product, if enough encylopedic content can be found. akaDruid 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We don't know whether this is viral marketing or not. Until it is confirmed to be so, which will likely be at the end of the timer, it should remain. It should also be taken off if nothing happens after the timer ends, obviously. Additionally, this has become a big and noticable thing on internet blogs and various internet news sources.

Comment: I see no real reason why any site would be this deliberately obscure unless it was to create hype. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial observer, but with no solid information yet as to what Eon8 is, anything written in this article is mere speculation and conjecture that cannot be independently verified by anyone. Wikipedia cannot be an impartial observer if it lets itself get entangled in the hype -- we need to stay above the fray long as possible until the hype settles rather than be part of it. --  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we find out more about this site. MisterCheese 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Much is unknown about this mysterious site. If the theory about a marketing scheme for a console is true then move parts of this article to the console's article. I'm personally intrigued about this, if it turns out to be nothing then Delete. Bfscr 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's just create articles about every site on the Internet, just incase they might become the next Google. *sarcasm* It's just a hoax. If it's something important, than go ahead and re-create it. andrew 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know if it is something important or just a hoax. That's why we need to wait. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown ends. It's less than 12 hours away and considering there -are- people interested, maintaining what little info there is would be fitting in the stance of Wikipedia. Plus, when the counter is over and we know what will happen/happened, we can delete it or keep it as needed. (no sig to put sorry =/)

Wait until July 1st. If it turns out to be viral advertising, I would suggest a merge of all relevant information into viral marketing, provided that eon8 loses its notability following the conclusion of the countdown. Jryder 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or at least for now. This thing did generate a lot of buzz. Whatever it is, I'm buying one. At least wait till the timer ends to decide what'll happen to this page. --Nintendorulez talk 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the time is up, then we can see if it is definately a hoax or not, so we can delete, merge, or keep. Until then, we shouldn't delete it. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep and rewrite. ILB won a place as a settled phenomenon, this should, too. Keep the reference as a service to the myriad people who just want a one stop, no-hype confirmation that the page is generally regarded as real but not true, but make it clear that wikipedia is not for speculation. Update again after it's all said and done. 18:01, 30 June (UTC)
  • Wait as per above.-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect for the 10 hours remaining: Once there are some more "solid" facts on the subject, IE: What it means, sources that quote it, topics on the media, and a stance of notability, Rewrite entirely to meet WP guidelines. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be somthing important for all we know...and wikipedia is the only place i could find that had a colaboration of all the interent communites information on this strange site...theres more to this than viral marketing i feel
I really don't think all this waiting business is the way to do things. We don't customarily keep things because they might turn out to be significant; in fact, we pretty much do the exact opposite! As I said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Restoring the article if it turns out to be significant is a piece of cake. Ain't no thing. Right now, it's just a thing on the web, and not even a thing that everyone's talking about -- sure, it gets some blog action, but there's a reason why "stuff some guys said on their blogs" is not generally accepted as a Wikipedia source. It may turn out to be significant, but it may not. Point is, we don't know, which pretty much underlines the fact that it is not yet significant. The fact that a lot of us are clearly intrigued by it speaks well of these guys' ability to get people interested, but that doesn't make this site encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no special reason to wait until the counter expires. If it's viral marketing, then Wikipedia is not a billboard for it. If it's an inside joke propagated by someone with nothing better to do, then it isn't encyclopedic. If it's a real, honest web site, then the conclusions reached by the article are still original research. I don't see any reason to keep this around. --Elkman 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see a reason not to. I think it's really interesting, and as it continues developing the Wiki article should be there to help log it. If it turns out to be nothing, then I still don't suggest deletion, but maybe merging it with an article on hoaxes or something like that. It's been around for nearly 80 days now, and I think that should give it some sort of merit. -- Phallicmic 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Phallicmic has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 71.96.194.29. Jll 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Because we do not yet know what Eon8 is, it may be something of significance. And even if it is viral advertising, should it not have a page? If Ilovebees has a page, then why not Eon8? -- 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although this site is probably some sort of viral marketing tactic, it is good that Wikipedia has it marked as it has become a sort-of internet meme amongst forums and other communities. -- Necromancer 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's only got 8 hours left. At least let's see what happens.--Mobius Soul 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why the heck is this even considered for deletion? You have got to be kidding me, such other sites with similar characteristics such as ilovebees.com as mentioned above has a wiki page, why not this? --User:Tooooon 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Tooooon has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 86.20.242.197. Jll 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christ on a pogo stick. Another flurry of redlinked commenters. Is this catching or something? Delete as what I suspect is going to be a marketing ploy of some sort... it smells like one. (Considering that AfDs run five days, we'll know whether it's worth it or not anyhow.) Tony Fox (speak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is how viral marketing happens. cacophony 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This could be something big, and you know-nothings will be cowering away once it happens. I can't believe some of you think typing "NN, D" is actually hip and cool. Go find some girl (or boy) friends, you nerds. Bubby the Tour G 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, the above comment betrays a gross ignorance of how Wikipedia actually works. No one's going to be cowering away once -- well, if -- it happens, because this is not a personal thing or a guessing contest or a puzzle. It just isn't about trying to predict whether this turns out to be something important. At all. -- Captain Disdain 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're the ignorant one, buddy. This article is becoming very popular... and even if nothing happens, it still deserves a spot here. I am not ignorant as to how Wikipedia works... k? 65.34.136.176 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is a source for information, so why purge itself of its information on a topic that has little information available?

*Keep for now, and you can't accuse me of redlinked profile or lack of edits or any of those chestnuts. There are three distinct possibilities here. Possibility one: It is viral marketing, in which case it is probably notable. Possibility two: It is an elaborate hoax, which just might make it notable if enough sources pick up on it when the countdown hits 0. Possibility three: It's actually a conspiracy, which is highly unlikely, but obviously notable. We'll have more information when this thing hits 0. Crystallina 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Wait - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this hoax is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes here. --Jon Ace 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. Xuanwu 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't change our votes when we're all dead! </hardyharhar> - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Wait - Wikipedia is about the only thing out there that has any information on this whole buisness. It may not have a huge traffic rating, but then again, it's realitivly new and has been generating quite a bit of buzz. If it turns out to be a lame advertising ploy, then it can just redirect to the company. But for now, it should stay. --Tiler 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is not enough information on/from the site even to warrant notability. It is clearly viral marketing, and has will be even less appropriate here when it starts selling a product in a few days. Seidenstud 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as crystal ballism, unless something totally cool happens. --Merovingian {T C @} 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just keep it. 5 and a half hours remain. if something noteable does happen you will have to rewrite the article 5 hours after it's deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.198.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, not notable and probably viral marketing. Zantolak 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website exists and it deserves a place in this encyclopdia. It is not a marketting ploy from what I can see especially considering there is no specific details or contact details or anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfkami (talk • contribs)
  • Comment User has six edits to articles. - Motor (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this comment meant as a means of invalidating my vote just because I don't feel inclined to edit Wikipedia very often? I assure you that though I haven't done many edits, it's primarily because I have had very little time to do so since I created this account. As such, turning away an opinion in this manner can be discouraging to people who are aspiring to become prominent editors.--Esuriat Corinths 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. What happens on July 1? Someone gets either fired for getting no publicity, or paid off for running a successful campaign. Who cares? Not me, and neither do the Wikipedia guidelines. It fails WP:NOR and fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep it who knows what will happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.98.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom, and all the marketing arguments. --nlitement [talk] 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. —Stormie 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't KNOW if it's viral marketing. Stop voting to delete, until the timer ends. After that, this article will become incredibly useful, or stupidly useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.159.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep/Wait, This discussion alone proves this site's notablity. Removal prior to July 1, 2006 would not be prudent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.86.24 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep/Wait, Have some patience. There is less than a day left. When the counter hits zero, then do what you will, but wait until it does. 4-5 more hours ain't gonna kill Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.238.145 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep/Wait, this is definitely notable. Delete if it's viral marketing, but right now this is serious buisness. --YesIAmAnIdiot 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly, non-notable vandalism magnet. Also, it's a YTMND fad, and if Brian Peppers is any indication, YTMNDers will stop at nothing to avert VfD. They have much more spare time than we do. Thunderbunny 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I am saying this just on the basis that this article is VERY useful to people, especially today and tommorow, assuming there will be an internet tommorow. Heck, I went to wikipedia to look this up. It is an event that there is so little information on that everyone wants to try to find out more. Where else to go but here?Sbloemeke
  • Keep if we do not know, we should not delete. too early for afd.--Buridan 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Wait, It is clear that there is no concensus on the purpose of the website. This invalidates the argument for deleting as marketing. This is an assumption, and considering the general unpredicability of the internet, an assumption that is not well based. --70.101.178.208 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd like to say wait, but in this case it's just a passing fad which is popular because it's been researched enough to make people ask themselves if it's a conspiracy or not (it isn't, you don't see MJ12 making a website and telling everyone when it'll assume control of the world). Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7, Do Not Wait, and Permanently block the IP addresses of the creators of the article for continuing to recreate the article after previous deletions as well as flagrant sockpuppetry attempt to subvert afd discussion. This is pure and relentless and appalling marketing/self-promotion abuse of wikipedia, either for yet another idiotic "enigmatic" web-based art project or for a marketing campaign. The idea of waiting for the countdown to end is absolutely ridiculous and is an invitation for more art self-promotion/viral marketing abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a cog in a marketing machine or a free billboard for "edgy" web artists. If the site does in fact turn out to be notable after the countdown ends, THEN create an article. To do so now is simply to blindly help someone promote themselves for zero encyclopedic reason. It does not matter that we don't know if the website is for commercial marketing, we DO know that is relentlessly and obnoxiously (repeatedly recreating the article and the flagrant sockpuppetry) self-promoting itself on Wikipedia without any evidence of encyclopedic notability or any notability beyond its own promotion. If we wait until July 1, we would merely be bowing to the main goal of the self-promoters, and be prostituting Wikipedia in the process. Delete, and ban the IP addresses of the creators for unacceptable and repeated abuse of Wikipedia. No mercy. Bwithh
  • Keep, Wait until the counter reaches zero, then we can see wether or not to take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanko (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, Let's wait until the timer reaches zero. If it is something that is not noteable, then get rid of it. dposse 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: Wait until the time is up. After we can tell whether to keep, merge or delete. -AndThree
  • Delete Quoting verbatim from the lead, Eon8.com is a website "with unknown origins and a slowly-developing purpose and function". Sounds like a fancy way of saying non-notable to me. Fails that, nevermind WP:WEB. -Fsotrain09 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible terms delete per WP:WEB and the fact that this is a non-notable phenomenon. Vote-stacking of all the above sockpuppets and blockheads saying 'Let's wait and see' is not a valid exercise as (a) this is not a vote and (b) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it isn't notable, it isn't notable. We don't create speculative articles about things that might be notable one day. Given that the website is now not available, this remnant should also be purged. Wikipedia requires more than self-published sources, and the only alternate available references are an array of forum posts. Only 176 unique Ghits for "Eon 8" (mostly unrelated) and 308 unique Ghits for "eon8" (likewise). Big WP:V problems alone merit deletion. Kill it with fire NOW. SM247My Talk 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can do anything at Eon8.com, I mean Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: Wait until the time is up. If it turns out to be a viral marketing ploy then merge to list of viral marketing ploys. If it's a virus then keep. There is no such thing as a "hijack" of a free encyclopedia for marketing purposes. Other articles exist about other web sites. These articles serve as marketing for said media. - m0nde 1:27 AM July 01, 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to mOnde Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:FREE. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, and that especially includes non-notable marketing and self-promotion efforts. Bwithh 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Some documentation should be available on Wikipedia about current events. You were correct to refer me to policies but I reiterate that this has become an internet event which people have been discussing ad nauseum. I do believe, however, that the page should be rigourously monitored for misuse by those who are disscussing it. m0nde 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait/Keep* At least wait until the counter reaches 0. If something notable and worthy of inclusion happens then, keep it; otherwise delete it. Xgamer4 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can just see a bunch of fat nerds in a basement sweating profusely at this BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROSTITUTE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!. The website has created buzz. It's notable. People are coming here to "vote" not to stack anything but because they want to weigh their opinion without making an account. Are these people's opinions worth less because they're anonymous? Tokakeke 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of us, myself included, would argue that proposition. If you are only coming here to give an opinion, you are likely not familiar with Wikipedia policies. The above comments reflect this. SM247My Talk 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Don't straw-man me. I know Wikipedia policies, I feel it doesn't matter in this case due to the fact this site has spread in less than two days to pretty much everywhere. You want to berate someone for policy, look at the guy underneath who just chewed out a new user for being a "sockpuppet" (apparently someone's got a faulty definition). Too lazy to sign in, 67.188.132.146 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep\Delete*: Just keep it until it is over, then trash it. It's probably unimportant. ... ManualSearch 10:06. 30 June 2006
Comment Suspected sockpuppet - ManualSearch has only edited in relation to this afd. Bwithh 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If only as an excellent example of viral marketing in action? 24 / 48 hours ago Google knew next to nothing about eon8. today i've lost track of the number of forums discussing it in threads that run for page after page after page! and either eon8 are being very tricksy and ramping up the intrigue as the clock ticks away, or their site has gone down under the strain of god knows how many million hits? very, very well done IMO! sepher 88.107.219.208 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you see what I mean by how implementing long or permanent bans on the article creators being a good idea? Bwithh
Response: should i infer anything from the indentation of your post immediately below mine? along the lines of sock/meat-puppetry? by way of general comment rather than direct reply, if there are suddenly no end of new / anonymous users offering their opinions here on this, i suspect that that's as a result of the interest generated, and not because they are all in the pockets of theplanet / eon8. that that level of interest has been generated is reason enough to keep the article, i'd have thought? sepher 88.107.219.208 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not run by popularity contests. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia not a free billboard for whatever thing people are trying to create buzz for Bwithh 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I'm suggesting that the number of hits / searches / threads / posts, here, and elsewhere on the net, are an indication of the widespread interest created. not that Wikipedia should be a "popularity contest" or a "billboard"? i think the "buzz" round the net is obvious. how many daft sites and anims have you seen spoofing it, or analysing it? lots, that's how many! it's an event. keep for now at least? it may be a 9 day wonder? it may just be the biggest thing since dancing hamsters!  ;) sepher 88.107.219.208 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please try to keep personal attacks out of this, as well as needless generalizations. I do not appreciate being called a self-promoter, blockhead, sockpuppet, etc. and neither do the many entrenched Wikipedians who have voted to keep this article. I am reiterating this here so it hopefully does not happen again. Crystallina 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noone is calling you a sockpuppet. Noone is saying that all the keep votes are sockpuppets. But there is clearly sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on in this discussion. Bwithh 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep/Wait blah blah blah what everyone else said. This page is fun. --Liface 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing my vote. What a letdown. --Liface 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it doesn't meet notability requirements (not yet, anyway), as per WP:WEB. --dsm iv tr 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I definitley think this should stay up. It's a big happening on the internet right now, and therfore needs a page to document it. At the very least, it can stay up as an example of viral marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.124.56 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, of course. This type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be useful for. I've heard of eon8 from three different sources in a matter of hours. Google is 24–48 hours behind, and Britannica obviously won't ever touch this. Where else will I be able to look for a reliable synopsis of this meme, along with thorough details as to what's been discovered? Obviously this is nothing but a viral marketing site, but I can't determine that solely by looking at the site (which is down) or forums (which are segmented and unreliable). If you want to bring the page to Wikipedia's standards, then eliminate the "crystal ball" paragraphs and stick to the core facts about this site and what it has been discovered about it. —tilde 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, keep this page. It will record a historical event in internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.76.103 (talk • contribs)


  • Keep at least for now. This was a rather significant incident in the last 24 hours on the internet and one that is likely to be referenced in the future. --Sauzer 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above poster. It wasn't an ad, it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't anything remotely memorable. The site will be forgotten in 2 days. --JOK3R 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a significant event in the history of the Internet, just like ilovebees, where paranoia and human curiosity made a small insignificant website explode in popularity. --68.35.24.137 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SnoSupport

[edit]

Non-notable company with limited exposure. Brad101 04:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. The arguments here for deletion focus primarily on notability, and the rewrite hasn't provided any new assertions of that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino-American Christian Church

[edit]

This article is about a non-notable church, the writing is of questionable neutrality and quality, and it's copied and pasted from the organization's website. [28] -Sean Hayford O'Leary 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory M. Eichelberger

[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Of these Google searches [30] [31] [32], only "Greg Eichelberger" returns any real results. He (or someone else with his name) seems to have lots of activity as an IMDB editor, but nothing that would meet WP:BIO. Also possibly a vanity article (author is User:Gregwriter). --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gongshow

[edit]

Neologism. Also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. The case for deletion is very well argued and is supported by the weight of editor opinion below. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Enoch

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


A fork by User:TheEditrix, one of many. A quotation from Enoch appears in the Epistle of Jude, and it is accepted scholarship that what has come down on us as the Book of Enoch is identical to the work that the author of Jude quoted from. A reference can be provided on request.

Besides, the work is called Book of Enoch, not Lost Book of Enoch, so keeping a redirect would be misleading. Dr Zak 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I'm not familiar on the subject, I suggest a redirect to Lost books of the Old Testament.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: to where its relevant. Zos 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the article is problematic on several levels. Yes, there is a Pseudoepigraphical book called Enoch (which survives largely in Ethopic [Ge'ez] versions); however, no credible scholar refers to this as "the lost book of Enoch." Furthermore, no credible scholar would state that the book "may have been written by the Biblical prophet Enoch ben Jared, who was an ancestor of Noah." These books (the Pseudoepigrapha) were literary works of the :Hellenistic period. Finally, the one citation is not a scholarly source; but rather, appears to be an internet ministry. Em-jay-es 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MJS: This should be a keep. Please note that the pseudepigraphal Ethiopic book you reference is NOT the book described in the article. This article describes the original book referenced in scripture, which absolutely "may have been written by E b. J." I trust you'll reconsider your vote in light of this information. --09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. This is a thoroughly referenced article, and requires its own page for the following reasons:

  • 1. As the article notes, the existing Book of Enoch may or may not be the book referenced in the Epistle of Jude.
  • 2. I dispute the assertion that it is "accepted scholarship" that the two books are identical. To the contrary, there's a strong body of evidence that the existing Book of Enoch is pseudepigraphal. If so, the lost book and the pseudepigraphal book are entirely unalike. Note new Encyclopedia Britannica link confirming this position.
  • 3. If the two books are the same -- a question unresolvable by modern scholarship -- the article makes clear the possibility.
  • 4. Moreover, this is a daughter article to Lost books of the Old Testament. Redirecting it back to the parent would be comparable to redirecting all the individual entries for Biblical books (Book of Genesis, Gospel of Matthew, et al) back to Bible. These books are individually notable.
  • 5. Re: current lack of scholarly links. This is a growing article. Note that it's only a day old. Stub it, if you believe it needs more work, but deleting an article that is already this thorough because it's not yet thorough enough is premature, at best.
  • 6. Finally, if editors wish to discuss the possibility of the books being identical, the place to do that is within this article. Deleting the article makes that exercise impossible. --The Editrix 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. This would appear to be WP:NOR in respect to the claims there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" different from existing, known works attributed to Enoch. None of the links provided suggest that anyone has a serious, scholarly opinion that there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" that is different than 1 Enoch. Claiming that because Enoch 1 is pseudepigraphal and thus cannot be this so-called "Lost Book of Enoch" is a straw-man argument. Regardless of the true authorship of Enoch 1, the author of Jude apparently accepted it as scriptural and referenced it in his work; not surprising if taken in the historical context of when Jude was written. A discussion of whether or or not there is an additional Book of Enoch that differs from 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, or 3 Enoch is a disscussion for a forum or message board, not a Wikipedia article. I would say redirect to 1 Enoch but since this was found in 1773, the title would be a misnomer.--Isotope23 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to merge (no redirect necessary) with the existing article on the Books of Enoch. Apocalyptic texts are bound to attract esoteric interpretations. This text needs to be changed to make it clear who is promoting the notion that the true text of Enoch was suppressed, and otherwise restated in a NPOV way; and if that is done I have no problem with its inclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if that is done it needs to be sourced as well, because I couldn't find any evidience of the suggestion there is a true text that has been suppressed.--Isotope23 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Half-preserved text tend to attract speculation and conspiracy theorists, so it's imperative that any assertions made be on an adequate level of scholarship, lest the article descends into conspiracycruft. I see no proper sources there, merely websites with no scholarly aspiration. Dr Zak 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not original research. Note sources on page. --The Editrix 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please don't state keep again since you've already stated it once in this debate. The problem with the sources on the page is that none of them (as far as I could see) suggest there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch". They all refer to 1 Enoch. Thus, the contention there is a "lost" book constitutes original research.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By itself, my remark about the article’s title is insufficient for a deletion. However, as Wikipedia already has several articles on legitimate Enochic literature, the title Lost Book of Enoch is misleading at best and sensationalistic at worst.
Please note the following points:
1. If this book of Enoch is separate from the known books of Enoch, and exists only in the short citation found in the New Testament (Jude 14-15), as User:TheEditrix asserts; then, the book in question is hypothetical. That is, it exists only in theoretical form (the theory being: Jude had a book called “Enoch” that has since been lost).
2. The presumption that Jude had a lost book of “Enoch” is problematic for several reasons. This is because the source cited by Jude is Enoch himself, and not a book. Thus, it remains in the realm of possibility that Jude was citing an oral tradition ascribed to Enoch, or (more probable), that he is citing a book in which the character of Enoch was a major player. The best example of this second possibility is the pseudepigraphical book of Jubilees, where Enoch plays a role.
3. To state that the historical Enoch “may have been the author” sidesteps not only the above considerations, but also the basic question of whether Enoch ever existed in history (many scholars view the character as a mythical figure). Furthermore, the statement stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming scholarly opinion regarding Pseudoephigraphic writing during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (i.e. the period of the second Temple of Jerusalem). The production of literature ascribed to biblical characters was commonplace during this time period. Biblical characters (like Enoch) who lived before the time of Moses, became popular “authors” in the third, second and first centuries BCE. While it is safe to say that Enoch is the “traditional” author of a particular text, it is improper for an encyclopedia entry to state that he “may” have
4. Finally, considering that User:TheEditrix is dealing with a theoretical book cited only in the New Testament epistle of Jude, it is problematic that no New Testament scholarly works are cited. To deal with a “Lost Book of Enoch” that only presently exists in Jude 14-15, one must begin by examining Jude 14-15. What can New Testament scholarship tell us? In terms of textual-criticism; do all ancient manuscripts of the NT include the Enoch quote? Are there any textual variations? Are there anomalies in the Greek of the NT that would indicate a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic source? Does the Greek quotation match up with any present Greek translations of Enochic texts known to date?
User:TheEditrix, I am not trying to dissuade you from conducting research into extra-canonical biblical literature (and I hope you find my criticism constructive); however, the article as it stands represents WP:NOR, and does not qualify as an encyclopedia entry. Em-jay-es 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediamarketing

[edit]

Appears to be a neologism, though I couldn't really find a definition for the term via Google, only companies that had the word as part of their name --Gnewf 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Avi 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Siegel

[edit]

Nonnotable embassy spokesman. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Closed as withdrawn by nominator.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rodgers

[edit]

Looks like some people can predict the future, as evidenced by this article... --ApolloBoy 05:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Dewey

[edit]

This article is about an activist who ran a write-in campaign for Congress once. He is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. NatusRoma | Talk 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSSO

[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 of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Story of the Course

[edit]

This article's references mainly refer to another book and the entire article is unverifiable original research. Please see the analysis on this permanent link to the talk page of the article. In the analysis each statement of the article is analyzed. Ste4k 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I contest the accusation that this page is "Original Research". This page contains the following citations:

^ Publishers Weekly article about Disappearance of the Universe Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace translation article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Miracle Distribution Center study group list Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace "Scribing of the Course" article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Attitudinal Healing homepage June 30, 2006

I have provided a link to the publisher of this book [52], and a picture of the book itself. The article hardly says anything beyond what is verifiable in other places. You may not like the sources I've provided, BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WILL YOU ADMIT THAT I'VE PROVIDED SOME? I'm getting sick of you ignoring this.

Further, if you all think that these books do not deserve their own pages, could I make an article about the most notable books on Course commentary? Where exactly would the rest of you be comfortable with these references? Should I make a small section on the main A Course In Miracles page?

Oh, and I think the article should be kept (obviously) because it is notable for being the only journalistic overview of the entire ACIM movement. -- Andrew Parodi 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the entire ACIM movement is almos certainly not encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Celebrity sex tape is notable? I'm so glad I've decided today is my last day editing on this site. The idea of what is notable and what isn't is so incredibly subjective that it's laughable. I think there is even an article on this site about who has breast implants and who doesn't. Actually, here it is: List of people with breast implants. It's fascinating how on one hand Wikipedia is so un-elitist that anyone can edit it, and then some editors try to turn around and act like this is an Ivy League pursuit. -- Andrew Parodi 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy A7 userfied - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JC Curcio

[edit]

Vanity article. Need I say more? --ApolloBoy 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- 9cds(talk) 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Return to Love

[edit]

This author of this article already has a page and a similar article was already merged into that page. Discussion with several editors determined that there wasn't any reason for this particular one of eighteen books by the author to have a page of its own. Please see the authors recently merged page at Marianne Williamson, and the discussion on that page as well. Ste4k 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, a similar article was already merged into this author's own personal page ... by you, right? Weren't you the one who merged this book's page into the author's page? And then you tried to nominate this page for "speedy deletion" and were told that you can't nominate a page for "speedy deletion" on the grounds that it had previously been deleted, unless it had actually been deleted. It hadn't been. It had simply been merged. I don't think a nominating editor can use his/her own previous merging of an article as justification for deleting the article, can they? That's basically just saying, "This page should be deleted so that I can get what I want." And as I mentioned on the talk page, I think this book deserves its own page apart from her other books because this is the one truly notable book she ever wrote. See the third-party source I quote from that mentions this book was top of the Publisher's Weekly list for eleven straight weeks. I think that's pretty notable. None of her other books achieved that kind of success. -- Andrew Parodi 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion to merge this book into the author's page originally began on IRC in bootcamp where it looked to be the only way to save the author's page from being deleted. The author's page hadn't any credible secondary resources. All of the resources listed there on that page now were found on my own behalf and research. The book is prominently noted on the author's page, as well as cited resources for it. Ste4k 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is bad faith on his/her part that he/she has continually accused me of being part of "some advocacy group" or of making money off of ACIM, claiming that these things are the only reason I have any interest in seeing to it that he/she doesn't have every ACIM-related article deleted. This person does not understand that deletion nominations are not the place for resolving disputes over article content. Read his arguments for the deletion of Big Brother. This person seems to be prudish. He/she didn't want Big Brother Season 6 to have an article because he/she didn't think it was notable, all the while ignoring the fact that just about every mainstream major show is allowed a page on Wikipedia. He/she seems to not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Andrew Parodi 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have issues with a user's behavior that you can't work out with them, dispute resolution is the way to approach it. Here we just consider whether articles should be deleted. William Pietri 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agreeing with everything JzG has said. It is hard to read the article and conclude that this is bad faith. Clearly worthy of discussion at AfD. Eusebeus 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the nomination is well meant as part of a cleanup of some POV-ish material, but the book spent 39 weeks [57] on the NYT nonfiction bestseller list in 1992 and was seen a decade later as one of two books that took New Age thought mainstream [58]. It even gets a brief mention in the Skeptic's Dictionary [59]. I'd have a hard time calling it a non-notable book. --William Pietri 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per William Pietri. 39 weeks on the bestseller list is a clear sign that this book is notable. --Metropolitan90 00:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Monism

[edit]

This article appears to be WP:NEO. In itself, the article states that the term is "is found within" the book A Course in Miracles however, it doesn't cite the book itself as reference, and being mentioned only once in one book is hardly any reason to believe it should have an article for itself. The phrase itself only shows 477 hits on Google. Ste4k 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dartmouth Plan

[edit]

Not notable, not verifiable, no actual content Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The article describes a political plan that is only available by applying to receive it via a Gmail address. The article does not describe the plan in any detail. The plan has not been written about in any major media. Most of the linked sources are general and irrelevant. The only place the plan has even been discussed is astroturfing in blog comments. If it exists and is reaching opinion makers, it would have been talked about by now, but Technorati shows no current discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Discography

[edit]

Article apparently created in error; duplicates information found on article on band "Rain".--Hisako 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Business process outsourcing in India. – Avi 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing to India

[edit]

Page was recreated by User:Asirp on 30 June, 2006. Previous discussion. Currently a non-objective article spam-linking to outsourcing firms in India.  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Garrett

[edit]

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Abbotts

[edit]

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Gillibrand

[edit]

This is yet another candidate that Annonymous1000, Jenikap etc have tried to put on here as part of the election campaign. Fails WP:BIO - Delete. BlueValour 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if a candidate may become notable upon event A (e.g. producing a hit single, winning an election), we create it when event A takes place, we don't create it based on some sort of presumption of innocence and delete them when event A doesn't occur. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Busansky

[edit]

... and another. I wonder how many there are around? Delete. BlueValour 07:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. AfD template was removed, and this deletion discussion is dormant. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Construction (RuneScape)

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape)/Archive1 for other AFD nomination.

Page is a game guide, non notable. Edtalk c E 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want this page deleted or just redirected to RuneScape skills? Hyenaste (tell) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if everyone wanted it deleted or redirected. See RuneScape's talk page, and go near the bottom. As you can see, there are others to be deleted.--Edtalk c E 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Want to just withdraw this nomination and work with me for the next fifteen or so minutes on this article? We just have to get the useful information out of the article, put it in RuneScape skills, and make a redirect like in all the other individual skills articles. Hyenaste (tell) 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination--Edtalk c E 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Avi 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Castor

[edit]

What a surprise - another election candidate. Delete. BlueValour 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everest of Apples

[edit]

A very worthy cause but not yet notable. BlueValour 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandoo

[edit]

Effectively an advert BlueValour 08:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Peter Beter

[edit]

Self promotion for non-notable conspiracy theorist. [70]  Netsnipe  CVU (Talk)  08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Bite, Wild Feast

[edit]

Notability in question, extremely few relevant ghits[72]. --NMChico24 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I tried the db approach, and was denied by another admin. This article seems to be reaching consensus quite quickly, though. Thank you for your input. --NMChico24 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 08:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of free party sound systems

[edit]

This is a fairly indiscriminate collection of info, so it fails WP:NOT. There are no citations so it also fails WP:V. None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well. Kevin 09:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you guys read the discussion on the talk page? I fear not. We already went through the verifiability and 'should it be a list?' issues there. For verifiability, pretty much all the sound systems have websites but they are not linked because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Many are mentioned in the following books:
  • De Haro S., Estève W. 3672 La Free Story, Trouble Fête, ISBN 291425301X
  • Petersen, V. No System, Steidl, ISBN 388243645X
  • Van Bezouw C. Sonique Village, ISBN 9090159932
User:Kevin says "None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well" - this is not true, there is an entry for Spiral Tribe and more planned, but I dont think its worth putting up just stubs, so they come slowly. Going by WP:MUSIC I feel this list is notable because it falls under the category of others and, as I put it on the talk page ...
All the systems on the list qualify under the following spec:
For performers outside of mass media traditions:
  • Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
The tradition/school can be defined as teknival parties or underground culture, the genre as free tekno music. These sound systems participate in parties which can attract up to 100,000 people, for more info look at Czechtek or teknival. Mujinga 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this may skirt the edge of being an indiscriminate collection the way the current policy reads, the verification policy is not negotiable. Each entry on the list is a statement of fact that XXX sound system has performed at YYY event. These facts need to be verified, per WP:V. This means a reliable source for each entry, or a blanket source if it's a book or suchlike. I don't consider each sound system's web site as a reliable source, because they are not independant. Kevin 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point Kevin, but if I may respond, I would say that I believe the entries on the list meet the selection criteria for a stand-alone list. I had a quick browse and I don't see many lists with a reliable source for each entry. eg List_of_German_language_poets, List of breakcore artists, List of mathematicians. Further, if you agree this is not an indiscriminate collection of data (and it's really not!) the doubt over verifiability is not in itself a reason to delete. The list can be edited and made better, for example i just added the three book references i quoted above. Verifiability is indeed a problem, as it always is with recent history. Perhaps the introductory paragraph describing criteria for inclusion can be improved with your help? Mujinga 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". As I said, each and every entry has to be verifiable. With most Wikipedia lists the entries have their own article, which should provide verification for inclusion on the list. Almost all of these entries have no article, so the verification must be in this article. I'm in favour of removing the redlinks from those other lists if they have been there more than a few days.
The indiscriminate argument could be gotten over with a good introductory paragraph, which I can help with if the article survives.
The bottom line though is that without verification, the article should be deleted. WP:V states that if an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --Kevin 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". My argument was actually that I don't believe every item on a list needs to be independently verifiable and I gave the other lists as examples, but strictly speaking you are correct on this point and actually for this article I can see that this criterion helps prevent vandalism.
As I hoped you noticed, I am busy adding some "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" to the article in a References section. For example, 3672 La Free Story has a list of about 100 systems on page 187. We will ignore the systems' own websites for now even though these could be argued to be official sites operating in the same way as artists' websites do and they often contain fotos, writings, music and other documentation. I could add external links which document groupings of sound systems such as Brighton Alliance of sound systems and Czech Free Tekno. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that Another good source is Discogs (http://www.discogs.com), useful here because many sound systems (eg Metek or Foxtanz)have eponymous record labels. With the addition of such verification I think that the list can stay. Mujinga 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sashinka Teshxiera

[edit]

Hoax or utterly nn. Googling surname gives author's myspace page and little else. prod removed without comment. Delete Huon 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete as CSD A1, nonsense. Tangotango 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Bullshitery

[edit]

I don't think I need to give a long explanation. Not spelling 'Bullshittery' correctly is irritating enough, but I think it's clear why this article needs to go anyway... Peeper 09:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actaeon Films

[edit]

Corporate spam, as per WP:CORP; has not yet produced anything other than a single short; all features are in development, and as yet unnotable. Possibly better for inclusion after they've built up a solid track record and/or reputation, but at the moment just one of thousands of production companies. Girolamo Savonarola 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 DELETE. While 4-0 (including the nominator) is smaller quorum that I would like to see, the arguments seem straightforward and convincing, and there was no refutation. I do not see a need to relist. Herostratus 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cormack

[edit]

Not notable; likely vanity/auto-biography. Wikipedia is not the London Film Production directory. See also Actaeon Films's AfD. Girolamo Savonarola 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 17 et.al.

[edit]

I am nominating a series of new Shakespeare sonnet articles because they only contain the sonnet text and no description. Such articles run contrary to the guideline "do not write an article that consists only of lyrics" in Lyrics and poetry. Since I think that the sonnets make fair enough subjects for encyclopedia articles, I am listing up the articles which have no description and which probably should be transwikied to Wikisource unless they get some encyclopedic text on them. If anyone wants to expand any of them to make real encyclopedia articles, please do so and cross it off the list.

  1. Sonnet 17
  2. Sonnet 19
  3. Sonnet 20
  4. Sonnet 21
  5. Sonnet 22
  6. Sonnet 23
  7. Sonnet 24
  8. Sonnet 25
  9. Sonnet 26
  10. Sonnet 27
  11. Sonnet 28
  12. Sonnet 31
  13. Sonnet 32
  14. Sonnet 33
  15. Sonnet 34
  16. Sonnet 35
  17. Sonnet 36
  18. Sonnet 37
  19. Sonnet 38
  20. Sonnet 39
  21. Sonnet 40
  22. Sonnet 41
  23. Sonnet 42
  24. Sonnet 43
  25. Sonnet 44
  26. Sonnet 45

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki all to Wikisource. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, no need to traswiki to Wikisource, since Wikisource already has all of the above sonnets [75]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as there's an informal project going on to get these articles up to scratch see Talk:Sonnet_1 for some early discussion. Some of the sonnets have been updated within the last couple of days, and though it's a big task I think it might be able to be done for all the sonnets. MLA 10:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Give them a couple of months to get them up to scratch with some background. ViridaeTalk 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Merge any analysis into Shakespearean Sonnets. -- GWO
  • As written, I understand the desire. However, Keep with massive rewrites, as Shakespearean sonnets undoubtedly have plenty to be said about them from entiely reasonable sources. Perhaps stub them by removing the actual text for now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If nothing has been done to clean them up in a month or two, I'll vote for deletion. But I'm confident these can be improved. It shouldn't be hard finding verifiable info on Shakespeare! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no information here to delete! There is just the text of the sonnet. These are not "important articles", because they are not articles! They are just pages containing the text of the sonnet. If someone wants to write articles, that's great! But they should write the article and then create a page to contain it, not just create a page and say "please don't delete this empty page, I might get round to writing an article in it one day". (Delete, by the way. Create pages when you have text to go in them, not before.) — Haeleth Talk 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki (or delete if Tree Biting Conspiracy is right). If someone wants to write a real article about these, nothing is lost in having them start from an empty page. Also, a sonnet is only 14 lines. If you go so deep as to be able to write an extensive article about that, I think wikibooks is the place. On Wikipedia I would think two or three lines about each sonnet is enough, in which case they'd better fit in some combined form. - Andre Engels 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the massive rewrite Badlydrawnjeff refers to happens in the next 5 days. It appears these were all created by someone who was unaware of the division between Wikipedia and Wikisource. To me, it would be preferable to just have someone start from scratch if they want to write encyclopedic articles about each of these sonnets (obviously I have no predjudice against article recreation of the namespace with different content) rather than wait several months and go through an AfD again. On a side note, is it possible to create a navbar that links out to Wikisource? If so that could be done with the nav bar at Shakespeare's sonnets in addition to the already existing link to Wikisource... allowing someone to quickly access individal sonnets. Somehow though, I remember someone telling me that interwiki linking like that doesnt' work...--Isotope23 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I wish people would stop writing stubs, and promising (or just leaving the stub) to come back and flesh it out later. Is this a race? Is someone losing because they didn't place a stub first to get editorial dibs? Why not write the full article and get it right the first time, and then post the complete article? Yes, writing articles for an encyclopedia is a lot of work - it should be. Tychocat 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dr Zak 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet on the general series. Strong keep any that have text besides the template and source. I assume all of these are already at Wikisource. The "analysis" link contained in the stubs I visited suggests that each of these articles could be fleshed out. The noteworthiness of each separate sonnet seems beyond doubt to me. Not sure I agree with some comments that say that it would be no harder to write articles about the sonnets if the pages that now contain only a template and the source text are removed; the template and text are indeed a start. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Over about the last month or so, 26 articles have been written on different sonnets, as well as significant changes being made to other Shakespeare related pages and a template being created to unify the discussion of these. It is much easier to work collaboratively on these if the shells are set up and then additional work done. There are 154 to do, and it is much easier to keep the format consistent if they are done in batches like this. And, yes, I expect you will see many of the existing articles grow as the project continues to broaden and deepen. I myself have not been writing original articles, but have worked on improving the ones that are put up. Sam 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - pending further improvements. Let's give these folks a chance to do some more work :) --Doc Tropics 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also note that much of the specific work being done here was done by one of several newcomers who have been attracted to recent WikiProject Poetry projects, and that a notice of this process was not put on their page (just a note that the creation of the articles was inappropriate). A gentle reminder to everyone: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers -- Sam 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me biased, but keep all - I added these sonnet texts myself, and, not unexpectedly, I think they ought to stay. Having the sonnet's text online is better than having nothing, especially considering their significance to classical English literature. It would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to post links to all 154 sonnets, only to have 90% of them completely missing. Some of you may disagree, but my personal opinion of "getting it right," as Tychocat called for, is getting it done right, not getting it done fast. Of course it's not going to be done in a day. No one is suggesting that and I think the very fact that Wikipedia has stub templates implies that some articles are going to start out wanting. I understand that Wikisource already has the same content, but the fact remains that Wikipedia gets boatloads more traffic than Wikisource, and if I were to search Wikipedia for an article on a certain Shakespearean sonnet, I'd rather find the sonnet's bare text than nothing at all. The whole point of Wikipedia is for different people to add, little by little, and slowly expand and improve content. If all I have time to do right now is post the sonnet texts, that's certainly better than waiting for 154 individual people to write 154 individual articles, one at a time. So what if the synopses, analyses, and other encyclopedic content isn't all going to be written en masse, straight away? --Sean Parmelee 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now, good faith stubs. Sean Parmelee, I would suggest focusing on actually turning your stubs into real stubs. I.e. having at least one or two sentences in the body of the article and having some context such as "Sonnet 17 is the 17th sonnet of 154 known shakespeare's sonnets."--Nick Y. 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the deal. Eventually I am going to create articles for all of the sonnets. I usually get about 1 or 2 a day. So, there's really no point in deleting them, folks. Keep them. In a month or two each page will be back anyway. So, if you want to delete them, fine. But I'd rather you didn't because it makes it alot easier for me not having to re-write all of the skeleton. AdamBiswanger1 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you move the unfinished ones into your userspace and move them back once you are down writing the article? Dr Zak 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So far, Adam's been in the lead on this, the project was his brainchild, but he's had a bunch of collaborators in the project - Sean is helping, I've futzed around with a couple, Stumps and others have added bits and pieces. It is easier to collaborate with the template set up so we can look at the active editing and all kibbitz. Some of these are pretty raw stubs, some are starting to really develop, most are still empty. But a ton has been done in the last month, and I think the activity is attracting a number of new people to WikiProject Poetry. If this sits in Adam's userpages, we lose many of these benefits, and we'd have to completely redo the template to fit the userspace instead of the article placement. So, sticking it in one user's space would be, in my mind, very un-wiki. Sam 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Putting up raw, uncommented text is very un-wikipedia; people will complain that Wikipedia isn't Wikisource, and they are right! Hey, how about putting those articles without any commentary under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry/To_do? This would make them easy to find and would stop the "not-even-a-stub" complaints. Dr Zak 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, there's reference to it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#To Do and Portal:Poetry/Things you can do. I think I will, though, improve the descriptions and make clearer where the work needs to be done. Thanks. Sam 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Patience. --Alex S 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we can agree to keep the sonnets up, I think a standardized template needs to be established first, and all existing sonnet pages (stub or otherwise) need to be edited to conform to that standard before I or anyone else creates any text-only articles or any full articles. I noticed that the WikiProject Poetry page suggests using Sonnet 1 as just such a template, but I just wanted to make sure, if indeed Adam is going to contribute quite a great deal of time and effort, that he doesn't waste his time using a template that will only be modified later. As a side note, I personally would be willing (and planned from the start) to contribute some quantity of articles detailing the individual Shakespearean sonnets. Hopefully there is some way to coordinate contributors' efforts before there is any unneeded overlap. --00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Assuming good faith and have some patience, my love, patience..., appears to be work in progress SM247My Talk 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest Keep. I'll be interested in what can be done that makes each article worthwhile in itself while also not being OR. I'll watchlist some of these. (An idea for other people who voted keep?) Shenme 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Nick Y. Penelope D 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother's Keeper

[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Letters

[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Apples

[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2M Game Zone

[edit]

Doesn't say why they're notable. —Lamentation :( 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Taus

[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 5 ghits. —Lamentation :( 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver de paolis

[edit]

non notable-person, no mention of this guy elsehwhere, possibly a hoax Travelbird 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex strom

[edit]

hoax, no mention of any of the people on Google, article contradicts itself Travelbird 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. DS 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-fo

[edit]

non notable neologism Travelbird 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School?? haha right...anyway, just trying to have some fun, but you guys seem to be stuck so far up your own arses that you've forgotten what that is...oh well, "K-fo" may be deleted from here but that doesn't make a difference at all.....so you can all fuck yourselves especially you london sydney fuck.....mathematics is your hobby...get a life....oh yeah...WHO THE FUCK ASKED YOU?!?!?!? cheerfully yours....K-fo

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIÑAN, LAGUNA, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWOODS INTERCHANGE, SOUTH SUPER HI-WAY, Bgy. San Francisco, 4024

[edit]

article about a non-notable highway exit, utterly superflous as an article on the town already exists Travelbird 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete, deleted by User:RHaworth. --JPD (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udders of justice

[edit]

non-notable band Travelbird 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nzboards

[edit]

Boardvertisement. Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:NOR. 135 active members. Alexa rank 476,313. Need I go on? (And don't forget to zorch the image, too.) —Lamentation :( 10:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poleagraphy

[edit]

Neologism that someone seems to have made up in school one day. No google hits. (Poleography gets 6). —Lamentation :( 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Element

[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Needs serious cleanup if it's to be kept (although that isn't a reason for deletion). --ais523 12:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Avi 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa-Marie Rhyne

[edit]

nonnotable computer science prof NawlinWiki 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eigeleigen

[edit]

Non notable and possibly nonexistent "fictional" word + badly written entry (no sources, no explanation of meaning of the word); PROD contested Ioannes Pragensis 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Proto///type 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TotalGaming.net

[edit]

Article written by company employee. I don't see any precise claims of notability. No Alexa info. This is all original research and I don't see any reliable sources verifying any of this. I also question the notability of their products, which feature no sources, except for their respective homepages. Wickethewok 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - When this concludes, I'll attempt to figure out what should be nominated, unless you would like to add it to this nom (I would have no objections to that). Does anyone have any thoughts on Stardock (TotalGaming's parent company)? It seems like a possibly notable company, though the article is certainly original research as well. Wickethewok 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with additional referencing: Hi there! Primary article editor here . . .
Firstly, I think people are mistaking this for an article about a website, possibly because of the article's name. It is not - it is about a subscription service/system, which happens to have a website. That is why the majority of the content is about the details of the subscription service and a description of the games on it. It should be considered in relation to articles like Steam (content delivery). As the website's actual address is totalgaming.stardock.com, the site's traffic is absorbed by alexa's stardock.com entry, which had a rank of 6,321 as of today (this doesn't count WinCustomize, which is primarily a website, ranked 3,545).
TotalGaming.net's notability rides on the fact that it is a commercially-successful digital distribution systems for computer video games (not something founded with venture capital that didn't actually provide a viable product). It was in production before Valve had even announced their offering, and it has been running for over five years now. I know it's hard to prove commercial success for a privately-owned company, but put it this way - I don't think we would have kept doing it for that long if we didn't make any money out of it. :-)
The game articles that are linked in the text (within the Games section) are there because they were there already. I did not start any of them, although I am the majority contributor to Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. I used external links for the rest of the games precisely because I felt that was better than creating redlinks on the page for things which had not yet been judged notable by others. On reflection, I've commented these out from Template:Stardock as well - I was trying to be comprehensive, but they just clutter it up. Perhaps it would be a better article without the external links, either? It seems hard to judge a service's relevance without knowing what games are on it, though - that's why I've kept the list updated.
I will try to improve this article's referencing. I know I can get some more specific and additional sources for some of it - for example, I'm pretty sure Penny Arcade has commented on the service. Right now I'm a little busy with WikiFur and my presentation for Wikimania (as well as, you know, actual work ;-), but I should be able to do what I can by the end of the week. --GreenReaper 16:07, 26 June 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well-written article, but with only one independent third-party source listed, notability is an issue. And even the referenced article says of Stardock - "Stardock Entertainment, a small indie publisher..." None of the plethora of game articles linked seem particularly notable either. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find some more that aren't built mostly from our material. The game industry has an unfortunate habit of taking a press release and putting it out there and calling it news. GreenReaper 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually split it out from Stardock because it was getting too large, and because it seemed odd to be talking about a company and a digital content system in the same article. I can try putting some of the content and references back in there if suggested for merging/deleting. Some more information about what particular segments of the article people do and do not like (rather than just "original research" or "non-notable") would be helpful for knowing what to keep in that case. GreenReaper 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement, original research, also fails WP:WEB. No, I'm not mistaking this article for being about a website, I'm identifying this as an advertisement selling company services, written by a company employee (thereby failing WP:NPOV). Tychocat 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails NPOV if it is written non-neutrally, not because I wrote it. If you have specific complaints, please raise them and I'm more than willing to try and correct them. If you think it is selling company services, please tell me what parts of the article you think are inappropriate, and why - or edit it yourself, if you do not trust me to do so to your satisfaction.
I've been a Wikipedian for longer than I've been a Stardock employee, and I have tried to write a neutral, informative article about TotalGaming.net, which I believe to be notable for the reasons stated above. I'm willing to work with others who feel that I am missing something. However, I cannot "fix" complaints that don't have a specific solution. GreenReaper 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what else I can say in regards to that. I've done my best to make sure that the article is verifiable, if mostly from primary sources. I feel that TotalGaming/Drengin.net is a notable topic for being one of the first successful systems for the online distribution of games on a large scale, even if it has not been the most popular of those that emerged after it (not everyone has Half-Life 2 to promote their distribution system :-). Isn't covering a concept's origins as well as the current behemoths part of Wikipedia's goals? GreenReaper 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular material? The other sources are primary sources for the factual data they cover on the history of the content system (being mostly annoucements by Stardock employees Frogboy (Brad Wardell) and Yarlen). I guess the reasoning for the changes in the service over time should be attributed specifically to them, though there might be better references for that (would probably be more forum posts by Brad, I'm sure he's talked about it at some point . . .). GreenReaper 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you work for Stardock, I think using Stardock sources to write up an article on a Stardock product is too much like original research for my tastes. Sorry, I agree with WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN : if you do something important enough to merit an encyclopedia article, you should trust others to notice that. And I think that goes as well for the corporate "you" as the personal one. I'd encourage you to put the material elsewhere on the Internet, though. --William Pietri 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed prefer to use non-Stardock sources, but frankly the only ones I could find that had sufficient detail on the mechanisms of subscription were just repeating our press releases, as so many sites do. It seemed better to have an authoritative source for that. There aren't many references on the Steam article that are about the system itself, either - it seems not many people like to write seriously about content delivery systems, just the games that are on them. I've just been told Red Herring will be bringing a significant review out soon, but it's hardly a source before it's released. Maybe it will become useful at a later date. And thanks for the suggestion - I'll bear it in mind! GreenReaper 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really hate disagreeing with GreenReaper, as he's a nice guy and I have a lot of respect for his work (Wikifur rules!), but I'm just not seeing enough non-Stardock sources. Also, as a general rule of thumb company and product articles should be written by non-employees. Regretfully delete at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem! If you think it should be deleted, then that's exactly the right thing to say. I would prefer to change people's minds through reasoned argument - if my arguments are not convincing enough, then you should give your opinion based on that, rather than who I am. :-) GreenReaper 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? - I don't think your argument makes a lot of sense. Steam is infinitely more popular. Just because we have articles about one music player (iTunes) doesn't mean "Joe Shmo's Mp3 Playa" is acceptable. Similarly, just because we have an article about one content delivery service, doesn't mean every content delivery service meets WP standards for inclusion. Also, you didn't address any of the opposing arguments made here. Wickethewok 13:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitely so? No? Vastly? I don't know, where's the figures to compare? It'd be interesting to know that for TotalGaming.net as well - I have no doubt that Steam has more users, but the proportion that are there just for Half Life is perhaps a more relevant question (the same should be asked for Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II, of course).
In any consideration of the content delivery system as a whole (not just the games part, which was separated out in this article) you need to include all the applications which are provided to Object Desktop subscribers through Stardock Central (which has used a more rudimentary system since at least 1998; as with one of the first instances of "software as a service"). The games have historically been the "fun" for Stardock, while the apps have been the money. This may not apply so much this year, given GC2's success (beyond our most optimistic targets), but it has up to now.
I think that if this article is deleted it would make more sense to merge/redirect the material about the content (what games are on the service, etc.) to Stardock and perhaps add some of the material about the mechanics of the service itself to Stardock Central, as the same system is used for both the games and the applications (Drengin.net was essentially the "beta test" of the system before Stardock switched over the more important applications side of things from Component Manager, the previous delivery system). GreenReaper 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Valentinovich Belov

[edit]

Fails google test. pointless school teacher. Would need more text or proofs if ever true Abdelkweli 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Ichiro 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles

[edit]

There are many music charts on Wikipedia. This is totally unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not some place to look at a radio station's music charts. This should be deleted. Terence Ong Talk 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1981, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1982, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1983, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1984, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1985, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1986, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1987, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1988, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1989, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1990, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1991, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1992, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1993, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1994, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1995, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1996, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1997, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1998, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1999, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2000, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2001, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2002, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2003, KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 2004. -- Mikeblas 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of Kappa's comments. I missed the significance of the Oricon chart; my error. No vote. Sliggy 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and cleaned 'em up. -- Jonel | Speak 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted by Xoloz.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/60kb

[edit]

It's supposed to be a place to work on the United States page, but has not been edited for 2 weeks. In the meantime, the page itself has been edited 1000 times. If anyone wants to make changes to the page, making them to the page directly will be easier than making them here and then resolve a thousand edit conflicts afterward

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted by Xoloz.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/79kb

[edit]

The 'current' version (that is, 2 weeks or 1000 edits ago) for United States/60kb, which I have nominated above.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete this eyesore, since the creator freely admits it is complete bollocks from beginning to end. Just zis Guy you know? 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fetish List

[edit]

NN, unreferenced, and plain - oh lord knows how to describe it. Long. Bored kid in a school lesson. Coz it says so. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the article is not patent nonsense. Please remember that CSD G1 does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. --TBCTaLk?!? 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not that you asked, but just to explain myself the same, while this page is certainly far from article criteria, it does describe a bit about the creator and his personality, which is more than I can say for other user pages deemed acceptable, like this one, for example. I certainly won't be weeping when this is deleted, but I thought I'd throw the suggestion out just the same. GassyGuy 06:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH-HA!!!!!! Yeah I know, I'm just a time waster. A big fat Wiki time waster. The article's complete crap. It will not be wikified - EVER. It is a gargantuan slice of irrelevant nonsense. Thank you for the time you wasted.

Regards, Alan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmarsden (talk • contribs)

Strong Delete' - as per everyone above, Wiki:not and common sense. Amists 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganadu'r

[edit]

Non notable game: 1300 players after 5 years, 28 distinct Google hits, no reviews found Fram 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prahfitz Ov Inzaniti

[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC as they've got no major or minor-label releases. Searching for that very unique name yields about 60 matches. Mikeblas 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State Group

[edit]

advert Travelbird 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Baba

[edit]

non-notable Hanuman Das 13:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Line? CBS Cast Guide

[edit]

Listcruft, with no discernable encyclopedic value. cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introspexual

[edit]

non-notable musician Travelbird 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solvency II

[edit]

advertisement Travelbird 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. On a side note, it's also a blatant copyvio of [87]. Robert 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Solutions, Inc.

[edit]

Reads like advertising and/or a press release Neier 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Delete creator admitted to the hoax in an email - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse

[edit]

Does not exist, and neither do the authors (200 issues and not one Google hit?): I'll put all realted pages (and there are a lot) under this AfD as well, but it may take a while... Fram 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed for deletion:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiyodo

[edit]

Delete per concern over WP:CORP and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bome - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passport Software

[edit]

Press release(?) from the only other IP to edit Real Solutions, Inc. (also listed above) Neier 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ballon Fight/Kid games and cameos

[edit]

This unsightly table proposes to become a list of video game cameos, which is not encyclopedic. Pagrashtak 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy_Records

[edit]

Article is completely unencyclopedic in style, and the second paragraph utterly fails to meet NPOV policy. JamJar 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of the Covenant

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Another content fork by User:TheEditrix, who has been going through the bible, creating articles on works mentioned there that are no longer extant. A "Book of the Covenant" is briefly mentioned in Exodus 24:7. We have an entry on the Covenant Code, which is probably what the author of the above passage had in mind.

No one refers to the work mentioned as the "Lost book of the covenant", and all this article contains is unreferenced speculation. Dr Zak 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The supposition that the Book of the Covenant mentioned in the Bible is equal to what a particular minority of people call the Covenant Code is mere speculation. There is no internal evidence that they are one and the same, and frankly, no external evidence. Calling them identical WOULD be original research; noting that the Bible mentions the Book of the Covenant is NOT original research. This article notes the possibility that they are the same, without making the speculative ASSERTION that they are the same. Ipso facto, this article deserves to stay. It fits well within the parameters of the parent article, Lost books of the Old Testament. --The Editrix 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The above statement is incorrect and misleading. Valid reasons stand behind this nomination (i.e. it is a fork and it fails WP:POV and WP:OR). The nomination stands for itself and it is nothing personal. That it has become personal is not the fault of Dr Zak. Em-jay-es 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think The Editrix ought to at least be able to finish the article before we go voting it away. Apparantely, this is all the author's speculation? Perhaps if the article were allowed to be finished sources might be added. Again, keep at least until the article is finished. Vote again if the article isn't good enough at that point. shijeru 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what will giving the author several more weeks accomplish? WP:AGF, but if this is original research, we just have to go through another AfD in a month or so. If this is not original research, it should take no more than 20 minutes for the originator to post the sources she obtained this thesis from in the article. Just naming Book X, website Y, where this thesis has been published would help. Besides, no article is ever really "finished" in a collaborative project like this.--Isotope23 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have added the {{afdanons}} note per the talk page spamming Dr Zak has pointed out on other AFDs. It is inappropriate to spam talk pages to lobby for a keep. This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. If you can't convince a group of Wikipedians that your article is encyclopedic, then it needs to go. BigDT 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Postpone 1-2 weeks. Give the author a week or two to come up with acceptable sources for the thesis if she can, otherwise Delete per WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is holding back for another week going to achieve? Five minutes is all it takes to insert the reference to the monograph or webpage that were the source for the article. Dr Zak 18:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR, WP:WING Avi 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, specifically some sources would be good. --Guinnog 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note on Exodus 24:7 on p. 117 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The book of the covenant (Josh 24.25-26) contains the covenant laws, and here is implicitly identified with 'the words' and 'the ordinances' (v.3)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptdecker (talk • contribs)
  • Comments on Keep -- Note addition of two three authoritative sources demonstrating thesis. OR concerns above moot. More sources to come. --The Editrix 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looking at the sources I'm still not convinced this is verified via reliable sources. I can find just as many sources (if not more) that say that JFK was assinated by the CIA... but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Furthermore one of your sources states [91] "There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text." This in no ways suggests that there is a "Book of the Covenant" that was "lost" from the bible and in fact points out there are no authoritative sources for this text. The Hackwriters site mentions this "Book of the Covenant" but never suggests it was once part of the Torah, or added to the Old Testament when it was compiled. Ditto for [92], which mentions the passage from 2 Kings but in no way sources or supports the sections of this article which are not scriptural quotes. This just repeats the first source. Unless I missed something [93] doesn't even mention the book of the covenant. This makes the whole article other than the scripture quotes, the statment "no copies are known to exist...", and the website quote "...there 'are no authoritative sources' for this attribution...." original research. I think that last statement is the most telling.--Isotope23 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 MERGE with The Daily Show, and Redirect to that article. Reasoning as follows: there were many "X or Y" comments, but sorting them all out and putting the least-destructive option first, I get 6 Deletes and 4 Merge, counting a Redirect as basically a Delete. To my mind, that is not enough of a majority to by itself force a Delete. So then we look to the arguments. Do the Delete arguments win the day? In my opinion, they don't have enough of an edge by themselves to force a Delete. It's very close. There really isn't a consensus; my sense is that Merge is the best solution, with a Redirect since it was mentioned by a couple of commentors and costs little. Herostratus 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal's Paradox

[edit]

This page was deleted pursuant to an earlier AfD. A DRV consensus concluded that the AfD was closed before sufficient time had been given to consider expansion or redirecting. It is worth noting that the DRV discussion showed support especially for the redirect alternative. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBC Training

[edit]

Blatant advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Narcissist

[edit]

Hoax novel; not on Google or Amazon, and no author mentioned. NawlinWiki 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Malone

[edit]

No assertion of notability, tone suggests self-penned, therefore vanity, google returns fewer than 1000 hits, none of which seemed to refer to this Aaron Malone, unverified and POV claims of talent and skill. Jdcooper 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lansa

[edit]

This is a technical nomination because an anon user started this nomination but didn't finish it. --TruthbringerToronto 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user 84.160.232.48 84.160.232.48|Talk wrote on the Lansa page: ::Without an account I can not complete the steps as prescribed in wikipedia's policy manuals - maybe someone else with an account will take this issue up. Obviously this page is merely an advertisement for Lansa and their product. Neither company nor products are noteworthy or even unique enough to be presented in such a fashion on WP
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School to Home Communications

[edit]

advertisement Travelbird 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete (recreation of deleted content). If you dispute this, please seek deletion review. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Rada

[edit]

This is a vanity article, citing no references. I can't find any media reference so far yet online, except self-made publicity on discussion forums or music communities. Moreover, this article has been removed before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada. LimoWreck 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Seems to be an artist locally known in South America, has quite a number of Google hits [96].
    • that 's the problem, have you checked those google hits ? You should also do a good Google check: add "Angel Rada" between quotes [97] : 606 results, Usually some unknown communities, forums, sites where you can add yourself etc., sites where one can add his own mp3s, a homepage on geocities, etc... I've written and read articles about lots of "exotic", old or unknown artist, and even in those lesser known cases I could find references to serious sources... I'd like to see some serious reviews and articles about this man; since we can't judge if he's a million selling artist, or a local artist promoting his work through the internet... --LimoWreck 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity page, notability not backed up by any concrete sources. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The user who created this identifies himself as User:Angelrada, and his only other edits seem to have been adding links to Angel Rada in relevant articles and defending this article when someone objected to it. Thus, severe problems with Wikipedia:Autobiography and close to being a vanity piece (although I am reluctant to actually call this vanity). - Andre Engels 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extra reason for delete: recreated after being deleted in an earlier AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada. - Andre Engels 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added references, which seem to be add up to notability. Seems to have lots of credentials. --TruthbringerToronto 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • don't know, that are exactly those google "references" i talked about: online communities where one can add his own music...
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Most Ghits are from download sites, with a lot of the same quoted biographical material everywhere. References listed in article are personal commentary from downloaders, rather than having multiple non-trivial articles by unconnected sources. Unable to find much-quoted "El Nacional" article online except from his bios. Tychocat 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, it turns out that Americans of French descent actually redirects to this article, so I'm going to leave it as is and leave it to the editors to decide which article should redirect to the other. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Americans

[edit]

Americans of French descent page is a more extensive list of French Americans. Unecessary to merge the two. Need to erase this one as everyone listed is also listed in Americans of French Descent. Also need to categorize Americans of French Descent page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_of_French_descent Abdelkweli 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted by Xoloz.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kimberworth Treeswing

[edit]

It doesn't meet any speedy criteria, except maybe patent nonsense. But this is unverifiable, unnotable and should really be deleted. Irongargoyle 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Statue

[edit]

Article about a statue that was in a single episode of Thomas the Tank Engine. Non-notable. Tempshill 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. – Avi 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murphy (politician)

[edit]

Another election candidate. Non-notable. Delete.BlueValour 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is the official Democratic nominee, and he has the funds to mount a credible challenge against the incumbant, Mike Fitzpatrick. He is also an Iraqi War Vet running for Congress. That makes him notable. --Asbl 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry I disagree. We have a concensus on here that candidates are not notable (we are also weeding out UK candidates). There are, sadly, very many Iraqi War Vets. BlueValour 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you aren't seriously suggesting that Murphy is as notable as Hackett! (Are you?) wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. They are both veterans of the Iraqi war who then became candidates for Congress. The only difference is that Hackett has lost, and Murphy is still running. --Asbl 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some candidates or campaigns receive so much attention that they are notable, even in losing. That campaign gathered a huge amount of press, not just in the district, but in the national press, which makes it notable. The point is that merely being a candidate (and gathering some local press for being one) is not sufficient to be considered notable, and right now we're seeing a lot of articles for people who have no claim of notability other than that they're running for something. Fan1967 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous policy and it's unhealthy for democracy. If you consider Patrick Murphy non-notable, then what the hell is notable about Mike Fitzgerald? There are certainly many notable Congressmen, but he's not exactly one of them. Why is Wikipedia arbitrarily deciding that US Congressmen are all notable regardless of whether they've done anything notable but their opponents are not. I especially don't like being told by some British wanker that Federal candidates aren't notable. What do you know about anything American anyway? You can't even spell valour. Ortcutt 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I just checked that the challenger in my district doesn't have an article (yet). Despite the fact that I'll vote for him, I don't think he deserves an article, either. (As an aside, I might be willing to support a policy change to keep such articles if someone could arrange a self-destruct mechanism to delete them the day after the election unless they win. The problem is that these things get created and, like the campaign signs by the side of the road, the people who put them up never clean them up afterward.) Fan1967 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, Fan1967 Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The concensus from recent AFDs has been not to include candidates, there are many thousands across the world, and often the entry is of the press-release type rather than being encyclopaedic. A further problem that has developed is that outlined by Fan1967 above, we get left with large numbers of dated articles that do WP a disservice. BlueValour 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: I've missed that, which ones? Were they major party nominees for nat'l legislatures? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they come through here, regularly, as someone finds them. It's often a fight when someone insists on trying to argue that being the fourth-party (can't discriminate against the Greens and Libertarians, now, can we?) candidate in a race two years ago makes someone notable. Fan1967 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For one thing, being a candidate for Federal office in a general election certainly makes someone notable. Second, do we really want Wikipedia to be in the business of deciding that incumbents are notable but challengers aren't. That's not really serving the public. Third, there are many wikipedia pages for Congressional candidates, like Nick Lampson, Francine Busby, Diane Farrell, [[John D. Jacob], etc... It's seems a little inconsistent to decide that Patrick Murphy is non-notable. Ortcutt 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason there are so many WP articles for candidates is that they have put them there and we haven't found them yet! Unless those candidates are notable in their own right, and I am not prejudging this, an AfD will follow. We are an encyclopaedia and record notable events. If the candidate wins they become notable by definiton. It is the candiadtes who are playing politics not us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueValour (talk • contribs) .
You seem to be missing the point that being a candidate for federal office in and of itself makes them notable people. I don't understand how you can't grasp that. Ortcutt 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many people who do not share that viewpoint. I live in a district where the Democratic candidate for congress is usually whoever volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb against a safe incumbent. Is that candidate notable? No, he's just being a good sport on behalf of the party, becuase the guy who did it the last two elections decided it was someone else's turn. Fan1967 13:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Any US citizen can be a candidate for Federal Office. E Pluribus Unum. Hmm, the things they make political interns these days. Why, I remember a time when... herm never mind Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any US citizen can be a candidate, but that doesn't mean that they are. Beyond that, he's not just a candidate. He's the winner of the 2006 Democratic Primary election for PA-08. Ortcutt 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any American of legal age for the office in question with no disqualifications can run for the United States House of Representatives or any other office. This candidate, however, got the nomination for the office from one of the two major parties. This is a bit more specific than that. I support deletion, however of those articles on candidates that failed in the primary. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about third parties? Fourth? We had a by-election a few months back in suburban Ottawa where four of the six candidates had articles here. Fan1967 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, major parties. Some countries have two, some three, and so on. In Canada, I would argue the Libs, Cons, NDP, and BQ as "major." youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, are you gonna get hate mail from the Greens, for participating in the campaign to keep them down ;-) Not to mention the Christian Heritagers, the PPP, etc. Uh, tell me, who decides what party is major? Fan1967 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would need some discussion. Probably a tradition of possessing seats in said body, but yea, that would need some talk. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, he is a current major party congressional candidate [98]. Bring back up for AFD after November if he loses, but not now. KleenupKrew 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that many (probably most) mere candidates are neither credible candidates nor important people. Downticket candidates, sacrificial lambs, and crank third-party or independent candidates don't deserve pages. However, there are surely some major races (in the U.S., governor, Senate, and highly competitive House races) for which a major candidate should be kept. Just a few weeks ago, I was disappointed to find that Jon Grunseth (disgraced 1990 candidate for Minnesota governor) lacked a Wikipedia page, even though he was part of an interesting chapter in Minnesota political history. 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bschak (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep. He's a major candidate and is getting interesting attention. I'm pretty sure he was in a WaPo article not long ago about the Iraq vets the Dems are putting up for Congress, as well, although I can't confirm that now. Article is long enough to be more than just a stub, and is fairly dense with relevant (not spammy) information, which together should also weigh in its favor. Captainktainer * Talk 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. like Asbl said Winning a primary and being a major party's nominee is certainly notable. grazon 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a lot of discussion of notability - I come down on the side of major party nominee for Congress is notable. But more important this encyclopedia is supposed to be helpful. And the entry for Partick Murphy is that. What other criteria do we need? Tomkraj@charter.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.142.72 (talk • contribs) . (moved and reformatted by Asbl 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - winning a major-party primary for a US congressional district is certainly notable. What possible purpose is served by deleting this article? After all, Wikipedia is not paper. FWIW, "'Patrick Murphy' congress" gets 216,000 google hits -- Sholom 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are less than 400 candidates per year (to be more specific, 600 to 700 per two-year election cycle) who (a) are running for the U.S. House or U.S. Senate (as opposed to a state, county, or city/town elected position, of which there are tens of thousands), and (b) have won their respective major party primary. John Broughton 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major party candidate for substantial office Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? There is lots of space on Wikipedia and apparently people who care about this entry. I'd argue further that entries attracting debate are particularly worth keeping so they can evolve. Rx: Shape this article up though, or I will say delete it. It's written very badly.Mc4932 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Klein (Politician)

[edit]

Failed election candidate. Non-notable. BlueValour 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 but bring down to a stub (presumably, this means remove all the stuff marked as "citation needed"). Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and slavery

[edit]

This article has a heck of a lot of original research, is very long, convoluted, has large chunks of POV, and has never been successfully re-written or edited down. I was hoping to get some other opinions about it and see if other editors feel, as I do, that Wikipedia is not the place for it to live. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accurate info should be moved to either religion specific versions of this page ie islam and slavery or christianity and slavery, or the info should be placed into the main pages about the religions but that will take a LOT of time, energy and reverts. Other than those outcomes this must stay as it is important information on the "holiness" of the variouse religions.Hypnosadist 20:18, 30 June 2006

(UTC)

Hypnosadist, can you make your vote explicit? - Merzbow 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. – Avi 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Matheson

[edit]

Failed election candidate. Not-notable. BlueValour 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge and redirect. Speedy closure as it is a mis-spelled article. David | Talk 19:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Pike

[edit]

Incorrect name for Magnus Pyke about whom an article already exists

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barney McGroo

[edit]

I searched for "Fox Force Five", that pilot show that Marcia Wallace outta Pulp Fiction was supposed to be in, to see if it had an entry, and stumbled upon this orphaned article. Looked dubious, so checked it out on search engines, imdb, but to no avail. Delete. --Dangherous 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. 27 Ghits, either to WP mirrors or similar sources that recite same "information" as in this article. Not listed in IMDB, specifically for GWTW. I'm guessing Angus McLellan believes McGroo is the same as the McGrew in the TV show. I think McGroo is supposed to be a real person, while McGrew is not. Tychocat 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, but I was hoping to get some mileage out of this otherwise useless article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect to Sinclair Ross. Robert 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Sinclair Ross

[edit]

Sinclair Ross, a more extensive entry on the author, already exists. I suggest that this entry be deleted in its favour. Furthermore, I suggest that the title, Sinclair Ross, be maintained as it is the name under which he published and is remembered. Victoriagirl 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 DELETE. This is a tough call. Here's my reasoning: straight up on "votes", it's 7-5 delete (including nominator). But if you discount two editors who registered just for this discussion and (to their credit and honor) admitted to being SUCS members, it's 7-3. That's very close to being consensus right there, but not quite. So let's look at the other factors: (1) The article was recently nominated for AfD, and did survive, the closing admin finding no Delete consensus even after discounting puppets.(2) The argument that Alan Cox used the club's network for important Linux development counts for something. That's about it; otherwise there are no strong arguments for a Keep. That there may be articles on organizations no more notable than SUCS is not really germane; this argument is usually not strongly considered by most closers, lest Wikipedia begin a race to the bottom on notability.

On the other hand, (1) I found the previous nom to be so rife with puppets as to be essentially of little or no value a precedent (and thus this re-nomination is in order) and (2) the argument that the club fails WP:ORG is a strong one, and was not really succesfully refuted either here or in the previous AfD. The club does fail WP:ORG, I think; the only outside reference cited in the article is a Usenet post. This in my view overrides the Alan Cox connection, which does not seem to be strong enough to carry an entire article -- it could perhaps be reduced to a sentence in the Alan Cox article.

On straight-up counting, I see seven editors out of (an effective) ten suggesting Delete. And I see the stronger argument (fails WP:ORG stated and not really refuted by the Delete commentors. To me, that makes for a Delete consensus. Herostratus 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea University Computer Society

[edit]

This was previously nominated, discussion is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1. However, I feel that the resulting discussion was not satisfactory, there were too many newbies voting, and the discussion was not properly closed. I'd like to do this properly this time round. The first time I wrote "only have 180 members, making it non-notable. Plus, its in Swansea, which is never a good place to be!" as a reason to AFD it. Which was admittedly a little naïve. Now, I curtail that somewhat, my reasoning being "only have 180 members, making it non-notable". I call for a recognised responsable administator to close the debate. OK, so Deathphoenix, who closed the last discussion, fits the bill. But that may've been a mistake. --Dangherous 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per above. The existence of a cat does not make a class of articles encylopedic. Vegaswikian 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The society certainly is notable and student societies do belong in Wikipedia - why else would there be a category for them? I agree with RicDod that Wikipedia can contain much more information than a paper encyclopedia, so the notability bar should not be too high - why remove information that some people will find useful? FireFury
  • It's a really nicely written article, quite informative, fairly written, which is why it pains me to say delete because the subject is fundamentally non-notable. David | Talk 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Jasher

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


Still more content forking by User:TheEditrix. The Book of Jasher, also Sefer haYashar and sometimes translated as Book of the Upright is what appears to be a volume of poetry and is mentioned twice in the Old Testament. We have an entry on that book already at Sefer haYashar (midrash) Sefer haYashar (Biblical references). Calling it Lost Book would be misleading and original research, so delete. Dr Zak 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Sigh. As with the rest of original proposer's rash of AfD proposals directed at every article I write, this article is neither original research nor misleading. Assertions above DO constitute original research; this article does NOT. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the accepted rules of Hebrew transliteration, the pronunciation of this term should be sefer hayyashar. The first word is the common noun in Hebrew for “book”, while the second term (which is probably a verbal-adjective for “be straight / righteous”) is pronounced with an a-a vowel-pattern. Indeed, an article for the Sefer haYashar exists in Wikipedia, making EX’s creation of the Lost Book of Yasher redundant. The title that TheEditrix chooses, jasher, is the transliteration found in the King James Version, while the New Revised Standard Version has the correct form Yashar. However, several issues are raised by Yasher and TheEditrix seems unaware of them.

1. In some Greek translations (the Septuagint) we have the term translated “book of Songs,” which has led many biblical scholars to suspect that this “book,” in fact, represented an oral repertoire of songs. This idea is supported by the fact that the occurrences of sefer hayyashar appear in very archaic Hebrew (typically songs and poems preserved through oral tradition). Refer the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pages 646-647.
2. If this second lexical item is indeed pronounced jasher, as TheEditrix insists, then it is quite possibly yashir, the 3rd person masculine singular form of the verb shar, meaning “he sings / he will sing” (it may even have been the archaic prefix-preterite form = “he sang”). See also the other interesting translations found in the Aramaic (and Syriac) versions, discussed in Sefer haYashar. Over time, this meaning was probably “lost” (to use TheEditrix’s favorite word).


In other words, the Lost Book of Jasher, discussed by TheEditrix, exists primarily in the English of the KJV. There probably never was a “lost book” of such name, and the only thing lost would have been a long tradition of songs that were sung in the Temple of Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by the Babylonians. There is no reason for keeping this article, and I would suggest not merging it either. As it stands, it is a fork and it fails A. OR and B. WP:NPOV. Em-jay-es 06:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at least until it is finished. It needs to be improved, not deleted. --Guinnog 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note on Joshua 10.13 on p. 330 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The Book of Jashar, no longer extant, appears to have been a collection of poetry that extolled Israel's military victories and heroes (see 2 Sam 1.18). . . . ". Note on p. 351 of The Bible Knowledge Commentary edited by Walvoord and Zuck says, "(The Book of Jashar is a Heb. literary collection of songs written in poetic style to honor the accomplishments of Israel's leaders. cf. David's "lament of the bow" in 2 Sam 1:17-27)."--P Todd 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Note additional citations added 6 July 2006. Concerns noted above are obviated. --The Editrix 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment - Please consider the types of sources added to the article. Smith's Bible Dictionary was originally published in the 1800’s and the second internet source is not appropriate for a credible encyclopedia entry. (Where does the pronunciation Jashur come from?) These sources only intensify my concerns.
This article seems to be motivated by a POV that interprets these ancient sources as lost books that (as “books”) are comparable with the books of the Bible. However, what does the common noun sepher mean in ancient Hebrew? A quick reference to Kohler-Baumgartner’s Lexicon will reveal that it has a wide semantic-range, all indicating a locus of writing. In other words, it can mean “letter,” “inscription,” or “scroll.” It could be written on parchment, papyrus, or potsherd (letters or receipts), or it could be inscribed in stone or metal (inscriptions) and even engraved in plaster. If one follows the prevalent scholarly interpretation of these sources (such as the book of Jashar) as records from either the Temple or palace archives of Jerusalem, how are does one interpret sepher? If these were records from archives of lost institutions, can we call them books in the classic sense of the term? This basic problem raises a whole series of questions:
  • What were they written upon – scrolls, inscribed stele or plastered walls (see Deir Alla)?
  • Did the ancient communities consider these sources “scripture” – as compared with, say, the Torah? :
  • Were they written before the concepts of “scripture” and “canon” were operative in the various faith-groups?
All that to say this: this article (as well as the other “lost book” articles) operates according to a single POV that interprets them as books, in the modern sense of the term, and suggests that they were part of a once larger canon of scripture. Em-jay-es 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Proto///type 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships with age disparity

[edit]

Nominating again - First discussion was spammed by Inclusionist Wikipedians group. I want to hear REAL reasons and arguments for keeping this. I'm sick of excuses. There is no cutoff for notability or way this list can be completed. For God's sake, Wikipedia isn't the Entertainment Network, and it isn't a collection of lists! Kookykman|(t)e 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenthal

[edit]

Vanity biography of nn student activist, unreferenced, original research. VivianDarkbloom 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Purcell

[edit]

Biography that does not meet notability standards. Apparently article has been nominated for deletion twice before, but the tags were removed quickly after placement. I can find no evidence of notability, even the referenced works do not cite Purcell as the author. SteveHopson 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain, I started this article (okay, looking at the history, I guess I didn't start it, but) it's not a hoax. I can dig up my references if need be. I started it because someone had written are article in which they had put [[Frank Purcell]]. He's local to me, so I started the stub. If he's not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, then fine. --KSnortum 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe he isn't that notable. Do whatever you feel is best. --KSnortum 22:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolec

[edit]

Advertising for nonnotable product NawlinWiki 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete. TheProject 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scylla and charybdis (disambiguation)

[edit]

This disambiguation page is now redundant, inasmuch as it refers only to one article. The page was created by the author of an article about a nonnotable rock band which has since been deleted. Deletion of this disambiguation page is simply cleanup. Charles 18:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Cave Offensive Treasures

[edit]

Gamecruft. It's not notable. Kirby Super Star is somewhat important. A list of every item you can get in a minigame in Kirby Super Star isn't. Ace of Sevens 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedia

[edit]

Neologism - googling shows no fixed meaning Artw 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Possible: Remixed

[edit]

Self-promotion of webcomic of questionable notability (per most webcomics submitted to Wikipedia) Matticus78 19:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudofreeway

[edit]

This article seems to be some what notable, however, I find that this information should be merged to the main article (i.e. freeway) as it does not seem to stand alone very well, and could be mentioned in a generally larger article.OMEN 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, if the article is to stand alone, I think a general picture or cleanup is necessary (not to insult the author, but the article topic is very difficult to grasp). OMEN 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the initiator of this article, so I will not vote on deletion. The term is a neologism -- but one that should be comprehensible. We all know what pseudo means as a prefix, and we all know what a freeway is. If it is a neologism, it isn't that much of one. If someone has a better term, the feel free to re-name the article pending any effort to delete it.

The concept seems valid enough; any highway that despite having perils that cause it to fall far short of the normal expectations of a freeway although deceiving motorists into driving at freeway speeds. The pseudofreeway, as I see it, is a highway different from the "Blood Alley" infamous from the early days of motoring: the twisting mountain road or a mountain road with steep grades that push braking capacity -- especially that of trucks -- past their limits, the three-lane highway with the middle 'suicide lane', the rural highway with 90-degree turns and narrow bridges and no shoulder.

Does it need some re-writing? Of course. Most new articles need significant re-writing to raise them to the quality appropriate for well-established articles.

So go ahead and reorganize the article as you see fit. --Paul from Michigan 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not in fact Nintendude (assuming good faith and all...), please read Wikipedia:No original research. --SPUI (T - C) 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be more explicit, "pseudofreeway" is something an encyclopedia would cover once it has been researched and described by experts in the field. So if transportation researchers use it as a term of art, or you have DOT documents talking about pseudofreeways, then we could cover it on Wikipedia. But if the concept is yours personally or limited to a relatively small number of people then the material should find a home elsewhere on the web. --William Pietri 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge/redirect. Joyous! | Talk 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred becky

[edit]

Redundant article - the man already has an article at Fred Beckey (I checked the spelling is indeed "Beckey" - his books are listed on Amazon). Doesn't seem to be any information in here that isn't already covered in the existing article, but salvage anything worthwhile then suggest redirect (there are plenty of Google hits for his name when mis-spelt!) ~ Matticus78 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Robert 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Il Globo

[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, prod removed Tychocat 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge 101

[edit]

Non notable young Internet radio: 28 distinct Google hits, most not for the station Fram 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. WP is also not a Web directory, and the article looks like an ad. Tychocat 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, then I expect every other "station" and media outlet listed in Wikipeida to be flagged for deletion as well. Apparently you didn't seach Google correctly. An ad? Give me a break. It follows the same format most every other station on Wikipedia has. The station doesn't even have advertising to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teampozer (talk • contribs)
Comment: if you feel someone has made an error (like, searched Google incorrectly), then please indicate what they have done wrong and what the correct result would be. Anyway, today I received 35 instead of 28 distinct Google hits, and most of them are still not for the subject of the article. Fram 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Montgomery

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CSD A7. Google search for "Blake Montgomery" tuns up 1,860 hits, quite a few of which have nothing to do with this person (e.g. results like Sean Blake Mongomery). Other Google searches with things this guy is supposed to be involved in turn up very few, or few relevant hits. I originally PRODded this, but someone removed the tag, saying, "Deprod author of "Clown Noir: If the Gumshoe Fits" and "Hamlet"". Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare, and "Clown Noir If the Gumshoe Fits" turns up only two Google hits. Green451 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter

[edit]

this page does not fit within the standard Wikipedia guidelines. It may be better served as a small mention in a larger article on Austrailian rescue services. Caspiankilkelly 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and this is not the peak season for it. During the Australian summer, you would get more stories written about it. Needs to be wikified and otherwise cleaned up a bit but notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus, this is very borderline, but please note that the previous AfD had an overwhelming consensus to keep this article. I have to admit that the previous AfD was a factor in this decision, but even without that previous AfD, the consensus to delete is not high enough to warrant deleting this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns

[edit]

I don't think local radio station year-end countdowns are notable enough to deserve articles, especially not notable enough to deserve an article for every year from 1980 to 2005. This main article and the 26 sub-articles should all be deleted. KROQ may be a popular station in L.A., but that doesn't mean all of its year end countdowns are notable. These countdowns were copied and pasted from this page of KROQ's official site. A link to the countdowns can be added to the main KROQ-FM article. Also, others may use these articles as a reason to create similar articles for their local radio stations. Musicpvm 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete Joyous! | Talk 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily harvard

[edit]

Lacks verifiability and notability (see Google search). Possible vanity. Asserts claims of significance, so not eligible for speedy deletion. —Caesura(t) 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's the main reason I suspected possible vanity. But the complete lack of Google results for Harvard or any of the other alleged tennis players named in the article lead me to suspect that you may be right about it being a hoax. —Caesura(t) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm going to be bold and move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers. Any editor can move this anywhere else. In the interest of keeping cross-namespace redirects to a minimum, I will also delete the resulting redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers

[edit]

This article is just a collection of Wikilinks, conveys no information, and definitely unencyclopedic. See the relevant policy for details. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BudDry Movement in Country Music

[edit]

Probable hoax; no sources given for this "movement" and zero Ghits NawlinWiki 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elis Alia

[edit]

Drinking "a normal sized glass of water in 1.8 seconds" is a world record? Yeah, right. Unsourced hoax. NawlinWiki 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition I found a glass of water of the correct size, filled it up and had somebody time me as I drank it. Just under 2 seconds. I'm a world record holder! For my next trick, I'm going to get a life - Richfife 17:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This looks like complete nonsense. Guinness does NOT have a record category for drinking a "normal-sized" glass of water. Add to that the comment about the Primary school and you have a world record in nonsense (Well, no but you get the point) Wildthing61476 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Computing, Inc.

[edit]

Seems to be a straight advertisement from a non-notable company. My vote would be Delete Dipics 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM, no assertion that the company passes WP:CORP. Interesting that they list Red Bull as one of their product lines, but merely interesting, not notable. Tevildo 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose / Question: If the page were to be edited to reflect what they've done for the state of Vermont as opposed to a list of "What They Do", would it be more acceptable? kvidell 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --William Pietri 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Given the size of Vermont and the nature of its small towns, there is a lot of respect for organizations that are founded here and manage to do well. It's not usual for a technology company so small out of Vermont to have such a personal impact on the area and its clients. The article can be cleaned up, there is no question about that. Arthemys 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although the AfD process isn't a vote, as such, it'll be helpful if people who want the article to be kept put Keep rather than Oppose in their posts. Avoids ambiguity, and that. Tevildo 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing at all notable about this company. It appears to be a typical strip-mall store and just doesn't seem notable to me. Also, the original article was written by one of the store managers which strikes me as, at best, self-serving. Vermont companies can do well on a nationwide level. If you don't believe me, ask Ben and Jerry. Beaner1 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that this process appears to me as a matter of opinion now, versus actually going by rules and regulations. (See previous comment regarding "strip-mall") In my current position, I am not a store manager. My reason for creating the article was out of informational purposes, not advertisement. Time and energy for advertising is best spent elsewhere. Why post an advert somewhere where you don't expect revenue to be generated? Arthemys 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are not really that many "rules and regulations" here, as it turns out. The guidelines that are recognized at the moment are listed at WP:CORP. Can you help us understand how your business meets these guidelines? You may want to also read WP:VANITY, which talks about the problems which typically arise when an editor has a conflict of interest in the topic he is covering. Kuru talk 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The creator of it works there. Skinnyweed 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify, Arthemys, the author of the article, claimed above that he isn't a store manager. Yet, his user page reads "Vermont Computing, Inc., Randolph, Vermont (July 2004 – Present) Store Manager & Infrastructure Architect". I admit to being confused. As to why try to advertise here. It is already your second google hit. That's never a bad thing. And, as all businesspeople know, free advertising is the best advertising. Beaner1 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know -why- he says he's a manager in his wikipage, but from knowing him and knowing the company (I worked for it a year ago), he is not, and never was a manager.
Instead of attacking them, which I know you're not trying to do, but you're succeeding none the less, how about suggestions in the Discussion page on how to make the page better? If it helps I'll do it myself since I'm not a current employee and haven't been for some time. If you were from the parts of Vermont they service, you'd look at this "discussion" you all are holding with disdain.
I realize it needs to not violate the Corporate page, and that it currently is. If I were to go through and make it less... er... violatey (It's a word, I swear), can the AfD be reversed easily since it's not a vote?
I think they deserve a page and anything I can do to make sure they have one I'd like to attempt with the communities approval. They aren't quite "mom n' pop" as the next comment down says, far from it. Computer sales and repair are only what they do because they happen to have a retail store front, there's also a large consulting back end.
I also have a question. That is: Since you all want things to be cited and what-not, what can we do? I remember there being certificates of incorporation and community appreciation, but those are paper documents. Scanning them would violate the "personal research" clause. What then? Is Wikipedia really so locked-down by their own silly policies that you aren't "good enough" if you don't have web-news coverage to prove it? God forbid the state of Vermont appreciate something without forcing the whole world to know.
-kvidell 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we want 4 million articles on mom & pop computer shops. It's good that they sell Red Bull, though. NawlinWiki 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One Last Comment I think that what it boils down to in my opinion is that local notability does not equal notability on a wikipedia level. WP:CORP is really the best guideline available. It's nothing personal. It says much good about a company to have two (one current and one former) employee trying to get it placed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it also says something about it's notability that you two are the only ones that are voting to keep it here. I wish both of you and the company the best. It may seem that we are being unhelpful. But we, at least I, have no good advice on how to turn a non-notable company into a notable one. It is not so much that the article is written like an advertisement (which it is) as it is that the company just doesn't seem to be notable. Unless there is some evidence of notability that hasn't been presented yet, my vote would still stand.Beaner1 04:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairwaylife

[edit]

Prod removed. This article reads like an advert and no claims to meet WP:WEB are presented. 33 Ghits for "Fairwaylife" doesn't help. Last paragraph is an ad for Quickform, an article I've prodded for similar reasons. Scientizzle 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

[117] [118] [119] There's three mentions. I've changed my vote to weak keep, but I still think it is notable enough, if barely. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for providing those links. I disagree that they apply, though--#1 & #2 are basically yellowpage listings, not really meeting the "subject of [a]...non-trivial work" clause. I'm not sure about #3 because I can't translate it to find out what it actually says...it might work, but I just plain can't tell. -- Scientizzle 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all due respect Wikibout, the WP:CORP and WP:WEB guidelines for notability discard things like the links you have provided as they cannot be seen as independent. Pascal.Tesson 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misses WP:WEB by a fairway (sorry). And "www.fairwaylife.com" only gets 4 ghits, one being thte site itself. Inner Earth 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two first links posted are indeed "yellowpage" listings. There are more pages linking to fairwaylife though that are not indexes and not an act of the owners, but they are just links in a list of other noteable sites so maybe they don't count. The third link is very interesting. Its from the Swedish Golf Federations Official website saying "New Golf Portal, some history, talks about current features, the ambitions of the site." The topic of the article is "all about costa del sol" and the golf portal fairwaylife is aparently the only site found worthy of mentioning for that headline. --Widjet 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I submit paperback articles? --Widjet 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig B. Hulet, 2nd nomination

[edit]
  • Keep: I do not know the content of the original article so I can not comment on that. The main reason I think this person is notable is that there are disputes to his claims and makes me wonder if he is a charlatan. Also, I do not know if two responses represents a strong consensus from the first afd. I have noticed some anon edits that seem to cut and paste from his website and that could be a recurring issue. There also seem to be less notable people who have their own article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, I will not try to recreate it. MrMurph101 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article, deleted because of the results of the first AFD. Should have been taken to Deletion Review, not re-created and put up for a second AFD. Also my view hasn't changed, he is a minor, occasional radio talk show guest at best who has self-published a few books and a bunch of "white papers" and is not notable enough for an article. Somebody keeps copying and pasting blatantly POV promo material to the article and the only other people who seem to be interesed in him are a few critics putting their own POV in. The article has always been a mess of pro- and anti- POV both of which inflate his importance, and is unlikely to ever be anything more. He's just not notable. KleenupKrew 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to clarify something. I am not a critic of this person. If my edits are POV I will try to adjust them unless someone already has. I just find it fascinating how he is popular with progressives while accused of being right wing. If his claims are accurate, then he is a notable person. If he is a fraud, that in itself seems notable too. As long as there are verifiable facts, whether on the web or through a lexis/nexis search, we can find the truth and have a good, accurate article. MrMurph101 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article mostly meets WP:V, and he has apparently been a fixture of West Coast politics. By WP:BIO, he meets the guidelines for inclusion fairly well. Editors have done a very good job of 1) citing sources, 2) demonstrating relevance, and 3) demonstrating notability. They've done somewhat worse on 4) wikifying, but otherwise it's a pretty good article.Captainktainer * Talk 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As others have said, it's a pretty good article. --TruthbringerToronto 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in some circles, and the article explores the controvery surrounding his celebrity in a relatively NPOV way. Useful. Just because his fans keep inserting POV material is no reason to delete.--Cberlet 13:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Note: Subsequent to this AFD, I have deleted the page pursuant to WP:LIVING and due to the fact that it was a re-creation of previously deleted content (page content was nearly identical to the older content previously deleted) that had not been subject to a successful deletion review. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, because it fails WP:CORP. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickform

[edit]

Prod removed. This article reads like an advert. May be notable, but no claims to meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP are presented. 0 Ghits for Quickform "Fredrik Delin" "Marcus Bergström" and 175 for Quickform Marbella. Scientizzle 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy Deleted as, if not quite patent nonsense, a CSD G2/G3 obvious joke page. Xoloz 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Fourteen Worlds Theory

[edit]

Speedied as nonsence, tag removed. So here it is. DarkAudit 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" and it might need some protection as someone is intent on removing/altering the notice. --Charlesknight 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article sheds some much needed insight into the ambiguity of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and I feel personally can offer a great deal to the current state of quantum physics...

Keep - it may appear that I am the same person, but I'm actually from a different world than the previous person... so I'm gonna go ahead and vote Keep on my 5:4 screen.

  • Delete as delusional bollocks. GassyGuy 22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bollocks as... wait what?
      • What...?
    • "I'm basically here for the entertainment value"
      • 10 points to whoever can place that oh so famous quote
  • I recommed delete. That's just silly. - and MoonlitDorian said this, but was too stupid to log in first.
    • You must ascend into the 15th world, sir.

Keep - Their minds could not handle it, and during their spells in mental health institutions trying to get their shattered worldviews back to how they were before the revelation they were visited by Them and hired as anti-evangelists in an attempt to suppress the truth.

"In particular, if someone says that they think they can rework the "nonsense" into something worthwhile, then please give them some time and space to do so."

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public bodies and task forces of the UK government

[edit]

This article is simply a very large list with 90%+ redlinks Gay Cdn 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Duplicates Category:Public bodies and task forces of the United Kingdom government. Tevildo 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like it was largely one person's project and was almost abandoned. It is hard to see why anyone would want to spend time maintaining it. While there are some important entities on the list, they have articles, and there appear to be a great many ephemeral items which aren't article worthy and certainly won't get articles now. Hundreds of them would be redirects at best - and redirects which would most likely never be used by anyone. Also, the source data is now seriously out of date (and it may have been a copyvio in the first place). Osomec 03:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia in the Network of Al Qaeda terrorists

[edit]

Likely a POV partisan argument. Certainly original research - signed article by a professor with same name as article creator. NawlinWiki 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: the article has been blanked for copyvio. The version you are voting on is here. ViridaeTalk 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 closed, as the previous AFD is still active. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tang

[edit]

Previously nominated, blanked AfD. RidG Talk/Contributions 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interbay Superstar

[edit]

NN term coined by some blogger, article is even written by her! Bill (who is cool!) 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete both articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal preservation-cause theory

[edit]

Original research, admitted as such in the article itself, no Google hits, unverifiable. --Huon 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Original research in the Wikipedia context means new research/analysis not previously published, which is by definition not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. 24.19.184.243 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Liquid

[edit]

Appears to be a highly munged reference to binary chemical weapons. Initially I tagged it for cleanup but I think perhaps really it need to go away. Artw 23:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune2maniax

[edit]

Advertisment. The article very clearly states, "i edited this page because i want to make an advert to my site." Can't get more obvious than that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 DELETE and redirect to Digital audio. —Whouk (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Audio Technology

[edit]

Reads like a promotion for a single course at Cogswell College ([120]), which barely warrants an article of its own (especially when considering the college's article itself remains so thin). Not sure whether it warrants a delete, merge or what. ~ Matticus78 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentland CRT

[edit]

Non-notable neighborhood. Originally prodded [121], but prod removed by author [122]. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. We don't have explicit notability criteria for places - perhaps a deficiency in the system? However, considering that people are prepared to fight tooth-and-nail over individual high schools and roads, I think it's reasonable to say that neighbourhoods at this scale aren't, at least, obviously non-notable. And it's good to see a reasonably well-put-together article from one of our younger contributors, although I accept that this isn't really relevant. Tevildo 23:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You're right, I'm not aware of any specific guideline to cover neighborhoods. The closest thing I can think of is that this would be considered a minor street, which is generally not notable according to precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Transportation_and_geography. In my opinion though, the main problem here is that the article is painfully devoid of any assertion of notability or importance whatsoever. Shouldn't it make some kind of claim of importance? It also fails WP:VERIFY as it stands, and may be so small as to not be verifiable at all. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy until sources can be found. - brenneman {L} 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I laughed at "this article is now concluded." There is no asseration of notability for this street/neighborhood. It is just merely a description of a normal place. The simplest way to put notability, is to ask: how does article seperate itself from other subjects of similar nature and not be part of the normality. Ways to prove notability, would be uniqueness in structure, population, culture, etc. and/or outside non-trivial coverage. That does not exist for this article and it is just a simple place that isn't yet worthy of recording. Yanksox 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete come on, are we really going to debate this one? The article is nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, but cleanup. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet taxes

[edit]

Though I'd adding this for AfD, this is good information and I would prefer to see this merged rather than deleted. Any suggestions? RidG Talk/Contributions 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs appropriate references and sources, and (in the long term) references to jurisdictions other than the USA, but I think it's a suitably encyclopaedic topic, and that the current content is a good starting point for a more thorough coverage of the issue. Tevildo 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I can't find an existing article that would be appropriate for merging to, and this is an important topic that has certainly had its share of coverage in the major media. Yes, the article as it stands needs work, but with the recent hullabaloo over things like charging per email [123] or the somewhat-related net neutrality issue, I can see an article like this being important and informative if done right. Though I can't help but feel "Internet taxation" works better as a title (referring to the act of taxation rather than just the taxes, i.e. the money collected, if you follow me). ~ Matticus78 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As original author, I observed that the nomination for deletion (really for merging) was made when the first draft was merely a work in progress. I agree it needs more references and sources, and references to jurisdictions other than the USA, about which I know very little. But I agree with above commenters that it's a suitably encyclopaedic topic, and I meant the current content to be a starting summary onto which (I hope and expect) the Wikipedia community will jump with gusto. InternetJunky 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I noted in my nomination, the sole reason I placed this in the AfD is not to have the article deleted, but rather to attempt to find a better place for it, as "Internet taxes" is a rather loose title. I agree with the suggestion to have the article renamed to "Internet taxation." RidG Talk/Contributions 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article badly needs references and sources. Currently in poor shape and has US-centric focus. I'm Neutral on delete/keep Bwithh 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete as original research. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time-of-day effect

[edit]

Personal opinion or original research; unsourced and unverifiable as is. NawlinWiki 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Robert 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight Realty

[edit]

Non-notable business. Em-jay-es 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guyfriend

[edit]

Dicdef. Voortle 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedy keep Seems a little WP:POINTish. Computerjoe's talk 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mother

[edit]

Long dicdef. Some of the content is also questionable, for example, the Romania comment. Voortle 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. man and woman are different from this article in that they're beyond a long dicdef and have much encyclopedic content, whereas this article is not and contains questionable content. Voortle 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 DELETE --Eloquence* 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding Nair International

[edit]

Reason blatant advertising, no links incoming— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhoncho (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_30&oldid=1234121976"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy