Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 28

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A8 both -- Samir धर्म 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vital dexterity records and Vital Dexterity Records (copy)

^{[Check Google hits]} less than 300. Indie label that's NN under WP:CORP. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also added Vital Dexterity Records, a copy article. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Copyright violation Replaced articles and AfD notice with CopyVio template. Entire blanking appears to be correct procedure, including notices, and technically copyvio is more easily dealable with. Text is from their website's about page.... LinaMishima 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — nn Google hits (non-wiki, english): 79. Also, if it's a copyvio, then it should be deleted immediately.. Shouldn't it? :s --Deon555^talk_Review 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, copyvio gets deleted quite simply because if they really want an article, it is better for them to work from a blank slate. This helps people avoid copyright violations. LinaMishima 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under CSD A8. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. All species are notable. Basing a species article's right to exist on Google hits, once it has been proven to exist, is ridiculous. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic jackknife clam

This artical is very small and not very informing, if someone wants to learn about the Atlantic Jacknife Clam they will not be informed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M6gt2k6 (talk • contribs) . (Completed unfinished AfD nomination -- Scientizzle 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

• Strong Keep Atlantic jackknife clam is, in my opinion, a short, but useful stub. This was an attempted bad-faith nom in response to my nomination of M6gt2k6's Dragonball UD for deletion. Nominator failed to finish this AfD and instead moved on to blanking several articles (many that I indicate on my user page as having created or contributed to)[1] [2] [3] [4]. -- Scientizzle 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree the article isn't the most informative around, but there seems to be a precedent for keeping species pages, however stubby, for future expansion. Espresso Addict 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Whilst i agree that stubs are not the best of things, this article has references, and enough information to allow it to be expanded out to a full article. With references and notability (all distinct species can be considered this), it's hard to argue for deletion. LinaMishima 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep edit history of nom makes it clear this is a bad faith nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep although article is not the greatest, no legitimate claim can be made that is should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Knife Edge Neutral — Looks good enough to become a stub, but on the borderline of non notable with only 80 hits from google] Deon555^talk_Review 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chumby

^{[Check Google hits]} as far as I can tell a NN product, and the article needs a rewrite even if kept. Company's site is down, which doesn't bode well for it. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• NN product? A number of blogs have entries for actual use/hacks/autopsies of the chumby. --x1987x^(talk) 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, personal blogs are almost never reliable sources per WP:RS. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But the corporate website would be, right? That google hit link, has the corporate website as the second entry. I understand that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the product information would be. Please give this article a chance. It only released 2 days ago. google cache--x1987x^(talk) 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The company's own advertising does not count towards notability. Non-trivial published works have to be written by other people, independent of the company. See WP:CORP. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — 9,280 hits from Google is good enough to keep I say Deon555^talk_Review 01:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. One has to actually read the pages that Google locates. The very first page that Google lists, for example, doesn't even contain the word "Chumby". Many of the others in the first 20 are random people who are using this either as a pseudonym or as a random nonsense word, or even people who have this particular surname. If you want to make a case for keeping, demonstrate notability by citing sources that are about the subject, not by counting hits. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

<after ec>A vast majority of those google hits have absolutely nothing to do with this product. If you include something more specific in a "Chumby" search, such as "device" you get 55 distinct hits, and 266MHz ARM gets one. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It certainly appears to be a legitimate product. If it hadn't just been announced at a trade show, I'd vote delete because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The product announcement for early next year is sufficient in my book. Erechtheus 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough to start the page; worthwile to expand. --x1987x^(talk) 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject satisfy those criteria? Please cite sources. Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a product only recently launched. I had hoped some users might have more information about the technical specs.--129.116.73.88 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As above: What notability criteria are you using? How does this subject not satisfy your criteria? We have criteria for products and services at WP:CORP. How does this subject not satisfy those criteria? Uncle G 03:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete <after ec> currently a not notable product. And problems with verifiability and reliable sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) A bit more specific for Uncle G, specifically, the product fails both criteria one and two of WP:Corp Criteria for products and services. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User:X1987x has been spamming people who support deletion, asking them to change their minds. My view has not changed. I don't think company released product information and a small number of articles and blogs meets CORP. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if reputable sources can be provided, otherwise delete under Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reputable sources will appear shortly. It was just released late Friday, August 25th, few news sites have the ability to cover the product since their staff is probably out for the weekend. The product is "in the wild" and released to a limited few. Google rates links by popularity, as soon as it starts spidering the hundreds of blogs about the product, the corporate site will be top on the list. --x1987x^(talk) 05:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[5] O'Reilly Radar the sponsers of Foo camp have an original first-person writeup. Corporate blog.--x1987x^(talk) 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be reputable sources now, before the article was written even. Wouldn't the company who made it have something on their website? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The product does not yet appear to pass any of the criteria for product under WP:CORP. The product's existence merely eliminates attack under WP:HOAX, but does not imply notability in any way. The future success or otherwise of a recently launched product from an unknown company would be too weak to justify an entry under WP:NOT. Note that x1987x is author of the page under AfD. Ohconfucius 10:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable. If reliable sources are provided, than its a keep. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable and unverifiable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems real enough: Hackaday MikeMorley 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't imagine why anyone would want something like this, but it does seem notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - many products are announced at shows, but some never see the light of day. No independent articles for the product appear to have been published. I don't see where the criteria for WP:CORP has been met.

1. There currently aren't any independent articles about the product. They may be written in the future, but as of right now, they simply don't exist.
2. The product is not so well known as to be suffering from genericization.

--Whpq 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's now 5 original articles from companies other than the manufacturer. About the possibility of a hoax, [6]100 prototypes were passed out at Foo. The product exists but hasn't been finalized. --x1987x^(talk) 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, promotion. Mukadderat 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as seen here: The product exists but hasn't been finalized. Whispering^(talk/c)

  Comment x1987x is canvassing for keep votes.

• Weak Delete, per WP:NOT but if the author can find better sources showing it's notability, then I'll change my vote to keep.Ramsquire 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There are now two magazine articles cited in the article, which I do believe satisfies WP:CORP. Erechtheus 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither of those articles satisfy CORP for me, namely: "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." I don't see those articles as "non-trivial." My delete stands. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm not sure what criteria you're specifying for non-trivial. It was my understanding that examples of trivial coverage include reprints of press releases or listing of hours of operation. Am I missing something else? Erechtheus 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - promotion --T-rex 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - In the same spirit as the Sony Mylo, people come to Wikipedia to find out more information on a currently unreleased product. The product itself is notable, as there does not seem to be any direct competitors as of yet. It is alone in its category of bedside computer. Eptin 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Product website is back up --x1987x^(talk) 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above too. -- bruce89 12:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has references, is notable (first product launch at O'riely's foocamp), hence keep LinaMishima 00:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep TMC1221 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are not good reasons to delete it: it's notable, "crystal ball" does not apply, and WINP. And even if it were a flop, failures get articles too.
• Keep per being extremelly interesting. Linux based, Open PCB design, etc. It's an interesting initiative exploring interesting new ideas. It does not matter whether it succeeds commercially or not, which is yet to be seen.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Promotion. Interesting product idea, for sure, but anyone else remember Kerbango, which never shipped at all after similar buzz? -- PKtm 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep obviously notable product. don't see what discussion is about. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Deville (Talk) 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chad

Non-notable individual purporting fame from an appearance in his local American Idol audition. Only real claim is an article in Rolling Stone talking about their favourite kook from the audition. I think he does not meet WP:BIO -- Samir धर्म 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete obviously. I have been on TV more than once - perhaps there should be an article about me too? Bravada, talk - 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom --Deon555^talk_Review 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no real reliable sources with non-trivial media mentions, fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 02:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Casper2k3 02:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the second video is currently a feautured video on the YouTube homepage with 127,999 views! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as with others, The Chad is a person of note, with Hundreeds of Thousands of views on YouTube, neumerous articles in the press and a loyal fan following - Lbotv 04:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - user had 12 edits at the moment of me writing that, with 8 to the article in question and the last one to this page. Bravada, talk - 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment YouTube views do not count for notability or basically anything at all. He could have 3 or 3billion views. Doesn't matter. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Provide some more peer-reviewed sources other than "Youtube". Rollingstone is weak alone. Being reported on in the news doesn't make someone noteworthy. I can go hold up a donut shop, make the 5 o'clock news, and send the video to Youtube. Can I be on Wikipedia then? I think not. -Shazbot85^Talk 06:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: He did not recieve notoriety from an event that can really be considered newsworthy. Local American Idol tryouts don't garner national coverage and his mention in Rolling Stone seems like 15 seconds of fame rather than 15 minutes. I am steadfast in my delete decision. -Shazbot85^Talk 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 15 seconds is very generous. The Rolling Stone thing isn't the print magazine, it isn't even their featured articles... it's their rock and roll daily blog. I closed the browser window after much fewer than 15 seconds on that page. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep When you look up the chad idol on google, you get this guy. The entry could use more work and citations, but it should stay. 24.46.72.72 06:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - IP showed 5 edits at the moment of me writing that, with 3 to the article in question and the last one to this page. Bravada, talk - 09:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Perhaps we should have an article on that guy they interviewed on the sidewalk for the 10 o'clock news about longer green lights for pedestrians. Signature^brendel 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO, the high number of viewers on YouTube does not meet the notability criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly unecylopedic. Wikipedia is not a guide to everything on YouTube. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Ramsquire 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep noted Idol kooks. Tens of millions of people know this guy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

From his appearance? Or from YouTube?Shazbot85^Talk 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masters athletics (track and field)

Both CSD and prod removed by original author, so AFDing. There's so little context here, I was speedying it as nonsense. I really have no idea what this is... seems like a POV essay. (|-- UlTiMuS 00:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, I'm typing as fast I can! Trust me, I know my stuff. I helped Len Olson write "Masters Track & Field: A History." I'm a career journalist and masters athlete for 10 years. This would be the first mention of masters track on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrackCEO (talk • contribs) .

• Then you are admitting that the article consists of nothing more than Original research? (|-- UlTiMuS 00:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Woah, assume good faith, that they simply are stating that they know how to research an article properly. LinaMishima 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Masters track field is huge. Many former Olympians and prfessional athletes compete, Willie Gault for one.[7] Even if this is a stub it should be kept. If you have trouble with the POV then edit the article. We don't AfD articles due to POV. David D. (Talk) 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete — Possible original research and 15 Google hits --Deon555^talk_Review 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Note that the systematic bias of the internet results in sporting events, particularly athletics, being under-covered compared to other areas. Hence the value of a google test is deminished. LinaMishima 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • a proper google test of "Masters athletics" (with forums and blogs removed to meet WP:RS) gives us 12,900 - about what you'd expect for a non-major sporting event type. Google's news search gives us five results, which is reasonable coverage again (especially given that the news search is not anywhere near as deep as google main, in my experience). The related newsgroups have been talking about this since 1999 [8]. Google scholar, whilst not my normally prefered tool for journal article hunting, suggests an impressive 46 papers!. LinaMishima 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once referenced There's dozens of wonderful references, so once these have been worked in, the article will have a very strong case for staying. See above for the proper webhunt test results LinaMishima 01:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep! Track and Field is in general competed in age and gender classes, staring with young kids (who would be somewhat discouraged, I think you'll agree, if they had to compete against 20-30 year old Open athletes) and commencing again with 40-44, 45-49 and so on. Without this highly developed and organized system, Athletics would be restricted to the elite, all of whom were once kids, so the sport would die out in a matter of years. There are international organizations (in particular the WMA) which govern and certify Masters Track and Field (MTF); every other year there is a World Championship, frequently involving thousands of athletes. So you need to check your sources before you go referring to this as "a POV essay". Ken Stone is probably the most eloquent spokesman for MTF, and is highly respected as a journalist. If you find his input too opinionated or colourful, well, revise it to your taste; I'm sure many others will too -- that's what a wiki is for. But don't insult a large, earnest and respectable community by deleting the topic.JHBrewer 03:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The World Masters Games attracted over 21,000 atheletes [9] to Edmonton, Alberta last year, and will be in Sydney in 2009. The article requires some work, but the topic is clearly notable. Resolute 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real sport with World Championships and a somewhat substantial following. Punkmorten 07:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep! Perhaps a cleanup is in order? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, source it and cleanup, seems quite notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the sources need to be cited, but that shouldn't be a problem -- Whpq 13:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is no credible reason to delete this. Piccadilly 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information as more boomers look for recreational and competitive opportunities. A good sport to consider when practicing on your own or with a group. barrier22154 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Petri Krohn 22:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a perfectly acceptable entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.112.252 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Many notable athletes compete in masters track and field. It is run under the IAAF umbrella so it is definitely a notable area of sport. David D. (Talk) 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compete Toolbar

Advertisement for a non-notable product. "Complete Toolbar" gets 623 g-hits (up from 582 when I added a prod tag a few days ago). Most are unrelated. BigDT 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Psst... that's "Compete" without an l. JIP | Talk 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ... it's not a notable product either ;) BigDT 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — non notable - 303 hits from Google atm Deon555^talk_Review 01:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - even fewer hits when you remove Wikipedia from the search. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment In fact, if you remove forums and blogs as well and omit related results, all you're left with is a handful of plugin-download websites... Make of this what you will... LinaMishima 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as a non-notable product. Bigtop 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep? - Technorati Links - from many top-100 blogs All stats/blog posts are based on toolbar. Just going through their Technorati link list - very recently linked by many top-100 blogs - list includes John Battelle, Micropersuasion, Read/Writeweb, etc. Appears to be growing in notability rapidly 10:31, 27 August 2006 (EST)
  • reply whilst I support using the blogshere to support keeping certain articles, these tend to be social ones that have no hope of otherwise breaking out from the blogsphere and yet are famous throughout it. Programs and plugins, however, can be reliably referenced by a review within an industry magazine, which means we should not rely on weak sources. Thought you'd like an explaination to understand my voting. LinaMishima 03:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete software doesn't appear to be notable. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, but mainly WP:NOTE. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for the following reasons:

1. Article is like an advertisement. 2. It is not notable yet. 3. Few results when you don't include the Wikipedia page as part of the search. --TheM62Manchester 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 11:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per all above, ad/spam for NN product. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ramsquire 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an ad for a non-notable product. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CpapforMedicare.com

nn website Hojl 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ^{[Check Google hits]}. Agreed. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — non notable with only 315 hits from Google Deon555^talk_Review 01:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like WP:SPAM associated with a site that fails WP:WEB from a company that does not meet WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This is a WP:Spam. Daniel's page ☎ 02:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Erechtheus 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. -AED 03:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spammination Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP -- Whpq 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted as successful prod. (Side note: Check out the nominator's contributions. There's something fishy in the sudden trend of newbies AfDing articles right away, although I've no idea what.) Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engvocab.com

nn website. Hojl 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — definetly non notable with only ~20 hits on Google Deon555^talk_Review 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB... although why was this AfDed when it was still in the PROD process? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but in the future, do not do that - PRODed articles should only be taken to AfD if the PROD is contested or fails. -Elmer Clark 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article doesn't assert notability. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was closed because the article was boldly redirected. — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Www.cardomain.com

Spam. Hojl 01:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Not _really_ spam: lots of websites have articles. 869,000 hits on Google, i say it should stay :) --Deon555^talk_Review 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Cardomain. Notable site, redundant article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. -Elmer Clark 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, as most of the content reads as breeching NPOV. Website has an alexa rank of 2,500... not bad! Given that we already have the material and a redirect will almost certainly happen, can we get this closed now? LinaMishima 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect most of the article is POV or unsourced claims, either way it's not right for Wikipedia. The only neutral information in the article is the part about when the company was founded. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Provide something besides the website itself to show it's notability. Has it been mentioned anywhere such as car magazines or television shows? Also, the information in the article needs to be sourced if it's going to stay. -Shazbot85^Talk 07:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cardomain. This is a pretty large and well-known auto website, with an Alexa rank of 2521, but the current version is a redundant version and not written in an encyclopedic tone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just redirected it to Cardomain. Almost all the information was nearly word-for-word the same. Anyone can do a redirect, it's quite simple really. Just type #, then REDIRECT with no spaces, then do a standard link to the destination. No need for everyone to "vote" redirect in an AFD if it's obvious that's what should be done... be like Nike and "Just do it!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs)
  • Normally, once an article is up for deletion we don't take any action until the comment period has passed. But, I agree this is an obvious redirect. — brighterorange (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Metamagician3000 11:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Royal Marietta Football Club, Hayden Weihl, Harrington Weihl, Christian Hudspeth

Non-notable local football club. ghits:[10]. Also nominating players who have articles as non-notable individuals: Hayden Weihl ghits:[11], Harrington Weihl ghits:[12], Christian Hudspeth ghits:[13]. — NMChico24 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additional Nominations If deleted, please also delete the following redirects: Royal marietta, Marietta football club, Rmfc, Royal marietta f.c., Royal marietta fc, Royal Marietta F.C., Royal Marietta Football Club, RMFC, Harrington weihl — NMChico24 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — per non notability Non-wikipedia hits on Google: 0 --Deon555^talk_Review 01:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erechtheus (talk • contribs)
  • Comment my apologies for not signing my work. I hate it when I forget to do so. Erechtheus 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I suppose we can defer the rack this time  ;-) — NMChico24 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all; this is a non-league amateur soccer team which only began play this month. --Metropolitan90 02:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above notability concerns Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Though actually I do find it notable that an American soccer team calls itself "Royal", but not notable enough!!! --Slp1 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is a top-division team in the USA called Real Salt Lake, named after Real Madrid. --Metropolitan90 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the team as a non-notable organization. The players have been speedied already. Get rid of the redirects. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The California Tea Company

nn corp Hojl 01:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per nom --Deon555^talk_Review 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but argument could be made for deletion.-Kmaguir1 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if reputable sources sources can be provided to assert notability, otherwise delete. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable; no reason given why somebody should spend time cleaning up the text. --Sean Lotz 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The company is as non-notable as its tea, which scores only 2 hits (both from Wiki), although Bloomingdales and Neiman Marcus apparently sell Artesian tableware (including an "Artesian Teapot"). Artesian Tea is a related article nominated for deletion below (item 57). Ohconfucius 10:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above notability concerns (WP:CORP) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No independent, reliable sources cited in the article and I could not find any, so fails multiple mentions test in WP:CORP. Does not appear close to passing any of the other tests. JChap2007 23:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence this meets WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No results in search for stock ticker symbol. Plinth molecular gathered 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Torant

Notability not established (per User:Tmorton166 and User:Zoe). And somehow I don't think "all people are notable" is a good enough rationale for removing the prod. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete /wangi 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cambok

The decision was to Delete --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 13:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Tagged as a hoax, only hits on Google refer to this page. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clear joke, and in the unlikely event that it's true, it doesn't give any indication of notability. -Elmer Clark 02:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Well, there is no official policy on notability, but WP:V is an official policy on English Wikipedia. And with all due respects, I have to disagree with your statement by stating that this article is a clear joke. For instance, please view this website. Notice that the footnotes at the end of this page contains some credible sources on this subject as well. However, I am not sure if it is WP:RS. Moreover, the first sentence of this article states that the game was invented by a certain Addkq Dääd, which I feel is likely to be an untrue statement. Perhaps a major re-write of this article is required here. And let me add that the nominator's statement is incorrect. Google shows about 300 hits for this term and quite a number of them refers to different websites on this topic. Further research have to be done here before making a conclusive decision about this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per Elmer Clark (~330 edits on Google) --Deon555^talk_Review 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable.-Kmaguir1 03:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please note that the game of cambok as described on website is substantially different than the one described in this Wikipedia article. I do not dispute that there is a game called "cambok" that exists/existed, but I don't think it relates at all to the version of cambok presented in this article. I cannot find a link to anything similar to this article that doesn't reference this exact same Wikipedia article as their source. At any rate, by the author's own admission, the sport "is not very popular", which, if I understand the guidelines correctly, is not acceptable, anyway. Am I correct in my assumption? I'm new here and just getting the hang of the processes involved with major editing/deletion, so please forgive me if I've stepped on any toes. Mutableye 05:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Then, is it possible to completely rewrite this article? However, on second thoughts, this article which is in Wikipedia is a hoax! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per above Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious hoax. Invented by "Addkq Dääd". JIP | Talk 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The contents in this article is a complete hoax upon further research. However, once this article is deleted, re-creating the page with a completely different content is the most appropriate course of action here. Cambok certainly could be verified given the number of websites dedicated to this sport. But the sport in question is definitely not notable. The current content, however, warrants a total deletion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete apparent hoax. JChap2007 23:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Strong consenus that it was mainly unreliable blog-work.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories

This was originally a five PROD, I'm not too sure so I'm bringing it to AfD. Yanksox 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Speculation and a timeline of bloggers' posts. --Daniel Olsen 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Though I believe Wikipedia should definitely try to include as much info as possible. This really appears to be nothing more than information taken from very unreliable sources. This article also fails in the sense that it uses unreliable sources to make very unsubstantiable and very inflammatory remarks. The likely motivation for the quotes that were made were likely racist in nature (not the contributor who posted this article, but the quotes used in the statements). An article that is heavily dependant on quotes like these from unreliable sources which are heavily POV generally fails to meet the NPOV requirement, even if the article itself is not giving any credibility to these quotes. This is because posting these quotes gives inherent credibility, and no attempt has been made to counteract the statements. I feel the article should deleted due it s inherent inflammatory nature, and the fact almost no real facts are presented as support. Nlsanand 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sorta weak Delete Seems unverifiable to me (speculation?) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been mentioned on mainstream press, has verified images, etc. It's as much an entry as 9/11 CT's. Yossiea 13:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The noteworthy parts of this article can already be found in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. Korny O'Near 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we delete this, we must delete the page on 9/11 conspiracy theories. If anything, there seems to be more evidence supporting the Qana CTs than the 9/11 CTs. If we delete ALL pages referencing ANY conspiracy theories on any subject, then I would support deleting this one. Valtam 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this should normally be merged, but there is enough information here that it merits an article of it's own. - Blood red sandman 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I disagree, Blood red sandman. A significant amount of the article shouldn't be kept at all. The sources are blogs, and news stations citing blogs. Merge into 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies per Korny O'Near. Picaroon9288|ta co 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mukadderat 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nlsanand, whatever verifiable claims exist can be (and generally have been) moved to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies. Tewfik^Talk 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, we keep other articles that just restate arguments pro- & con- in the Mideast: Allegations of Israeli apartheid, for example. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a blog aggregator or a mostly indiscriminate collection of allegations. Individual parts can be merged into the controversies article linked to above. Sandstein 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Nlsnand and Sandstein. This compilation of blogs etc. is pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tewfik --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I haven't seen any media sources the place I live carry stories about Qana being a conspiracy. Besides, there are conspiracy theories for every event that takes place; we can't keep including them in WP. --Bluerain (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While elements of the article are not OR and the matter has been mentioned in at least two reliable sources, Yedioth Ahronoth and the Jerusalem Post, Bluerain is correct in that conspiracy theories about everything exist. Since the vast majority of the article currently cites blogs which don't meet WP:RS and is largely original research, we would not lose much by deleting this version of the article and making a new article later if such conspiracy theories become more prominent. Userfication might also make sense if the user wants to work on it make it less OR and more WP:RS/WP:V compliant (as well as possibly finding more sources pointing to notability). JoshuaZ 16:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-reliable sources. A small mention of these theories as reported by reliable sources is already available at Qana_airstrike#Allegations_of_a_hoax_and_of_staging ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, WP:WING, Vancarlimospacecraft, and whatever other shortcuts can be thrown at this. In my opinion, this pales in comparison with 9/11 conpiracy theories, most of which are non-notable in themselves, but some have entered mainstream psyche. This was a small event for which concpiracy theories are just more grist for the bloggospheric mill, not Wikipedia. Avi 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Nlsanand. Bibigon 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The reliable parts of this article can and somewhat are covered in other articles currently. ---Xcrem 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Korny O'Near. --tickle me 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge merge the reliable sources into the relevant articles and ensure that sources are not blogs. --Ben Houston 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I am having trouble finding any part of this article that is not in volation of NOR. Instead of merging it (subtracting all OR, that would leave us with nothing to merge) with good articles let´s just keep improving good articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As Slrubenstein says, I think this article is basically unrecoverable. It's just a compilation of blogospheric speculation and violates all of the fundamental Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:NOR etc). The random rantings of bloggers who possess an inflated sense of self-importance are patently not a fit subject for an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin. Evolver of Borg 03:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This needs a re-write and a serious effort to shorten it. However it has as much accuracy as the plethora 2004 US election articles. If deleted, it will just come back in many places.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.63.236.141 (talk • contribs) 13:47, August 31, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayjg and SlimVirgin, above. Nothing else to say. Just the current minor footnote in the Qana airstrike page is enough. --Planetary 07:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- the mere fact that there are conspiracy theories is, I suppose, important and interesting to readers, but the details are vagues and mostly speculation. Even the IDF doesn't promote these theories. There are two paragraphs about the conspiracy theories on the 2006 Qana airstrike article that more or less sums up the general feel of this longer article.--GHcool 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Conspiracy theories are indicative of political tendencies. Moreover, they are part of human cultural heritage. To strike them from Wikipedia would serve only thouse who want to turn WP in uniform grey, politically correct color. -- Tiphareth 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- as per Jayjg. The evidence is flimsy and the sources are unreliable.--Kitrus 11:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As before: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a source that controversial bloggers should want to point to to 'justify' conspiracy theories. The fact that media report on theories in blogs does not make them true. Let bloggers stick to blogging, let encyclopaedia's stick to proven truths. PP, 3 sept. 06

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G4 of Rosster. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosster Records

Non-notable ringtone artist. User:Guysharpe was recently continuously creating the article Rosster which got protected by an admin ([14] Deletion log]). Now this article has popped up. Casper2k3 02:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — CSD G3G4 --Deon555^talk_Review 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, I meant G4, you're right ;)

• Speedy G4 if it's a similar recreation of something that's been XfDed before; otherwise, speedy G3 since this type of activity probably does fall under the purview of vandalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Starz

Non-notable street gang, apparently. Aside from the brief intro paragraph, the whole article appears to be a news story, although as far as I can tell it's not a copyvio. 57 unique Google hits for "Seven Starz" -wikipedia, none of which appear to be relevant. Possible {WP:HOAX -Elmer Clark 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, I'm retarded. The whole article, save about two sentences, is copyvio'd from the external link given. I guess I'll add that tag as well. -Elmer Clark 02:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Copyvio, and otherwise non-notable gang (even though the article says nothing about the gang, just the shooting. --Daniel Olsen 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Copyvio, and nn 38 hits from Google --Deon555^talk_Review 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hirooka Hajime

It was deleted because IMO it didn't demonstrate notability. Is there any independent source on this man? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Recreating the article is not going to help you. I've marked it as speedy since it was recreation of previously deleted material. Discuss it with CanadianCaesar before reposting it again. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did send him a message, since he was so quick on the draw to delete -- literally right in the middle of my editing / filling out the article. I got one sentence in for less than a few minutes before it was deleted. So develop an AfD if you're going to argue the tenuous "not notable" assertion (which, as an Inclusionist, I personally find quite silly). However, if you're looking for independent verification:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22johnnie+hillwalker%22&btnG=Google+Search
• IIRC, he's also listed in the Lonely Planet travel guide series, issue for Japan / Kyoto.

Suryadas 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The above was pasted from Suryadas' talk page. I actually have no opinion on this article. Danny Lilithborne 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion other than that it should be deleted? ...since you created the AfD. And if not for not-notable, then what? ("When Deletionists and Inclusionists lock horns, in this episode of Wikipedia!" :P ) Suryadas 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This AfD is really procedural; I created it via an admin recommendation, since a prod would be generally pointless. Normally I don't AfD something on nn grounds unless it's monumentally so, but an admin thought this was speedy deletable. *shrug* Danny Lilithborne 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, understood.  :) Suryadas 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop calling editors names and start citing sources. A Google Web search is not a source. Uncle G 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Deletionist" and "Inclusionist" are more like industry terms; Danny even declares himself such with a userbox on his userpage. They're not pejoratives, unless you want to tangent into the factionalism/anti-factionalism debate. However, as he has said himself, this is more about process not nn for him; I respect that. As for the Google link... if you actually look at it, there are numerous travel guides online which independently reference Johnnie Walker for tours of Kyoto. It seemed to me more sensible to refer to the list-o-links than to mirror them here. Also, I did mean to imply, for CanadianCaesar who began the nn claim, that a quick Google search would have done more to clarify the notability issue than an immediate deletion. Suryadas 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • IgoUgo review of Johnnie Walker
      • Washingtonian
      • nicole.com review
      • Japan Guide Association
      • Andrew C. confirms he's cited in Lonely Planet (Lonely Planet)
        • Tangenting into factionalism is exactly what you were, and still are, doing. Please stop. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If the point of contention is not-notability, it seems relavent to me to point out that the significance of "notability" has an on-going debate within the Wikipedia community. "Notability" does not stand on its own, according to consensus, as a reason for deletion. Wiki is not paper. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • You weren't doing that at all. You were name-calling. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Pointing to the Google list was not sensible. Google results vary from hour to hour and from minute to minute. Pointing to a Google search is not citing a source. Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I find it interesting that WP:BIO specifically mentions the Google Test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes. Now please read where and how it mentions that test, and also read the article on that test that you just linked to, which discusses its fundamental flaws. Also note that you weren't even employing the Google Test. You just linked to a Google search and said, effectively, "There are the sources.". Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:BIO says "Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?" This is what I was referring to. The link I provided just that. Suryadas 13:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I wrote where and how. Please read the whole of WP:BIO. At the very least, read from the beginning of the section that you are quoting. Uncle G 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Pointing to the actual source is citing a source. The above citations are a lot more like it. Addressing them: The first is a self-submission web site. The second supplies a couple of sentences of information about this person xyrself, but is actually mostly about Kyoto. The third is the same, and is someone's personal web-site. The fifth merely confirms that somewhere else is a source. The only substantial source is the fourth, which is good material for demonstrating that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. It claims to be a copy of an article in The Japan Times, but that isn't necessarily true. Where's the original? Uncle G 09:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • To be clear, being included in Lonely Planet as a significant figure in Kyoto is not sufficient in your view? Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Please address what I actually wrote, rather than straw men. Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't demonstrate notability IMO either, perhaps if a major media outlet wrote or him I'd change views. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Again, not-notable is not enough. More criteria, as suggested by WP:BIO seem to be required by consensus to justify a deletion. Put from another perspective, see the Pokémon test. Suryadas 12:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That test is just as flawed as the Google Test. Please stop using silly tests that we have whole articles explaining the flaws of and please start citing and discussing sources that demonstrate that the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied. Sources are your best and only arguments. Use them! Uncle G 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a tour guide?! Come on, people! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is "C'mon..." an argument? Appeals to popularity and so-called "common-sense" are not valid. Suryadas 13:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Some sources have been added to the article, and I think that the article now meets WP:BIO. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete below because I can't see how it meets WP:BIO at all. Could you perhaps expand on your opinion or counter my argument, so that other people will be better able to decide what they think? — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This discussion illustrates why it is usually best to compose an article off-line rather than using Wikipedia as a word processor. It also illustrates why premature speedy deletions are problematic. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you explain what you mean by "using Wikipedia as a word processor"? My understanding is that the whole point of Wiki (i.e. fast) is precisely to make lots of little edits, rather than a few big ones. Or is that not what you meant? Suryadas 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That it's best to make sure a new article is demonstrably keepable before you place it in the main article namespace, instead of creating a new, empty article, and expecting to be able to write it a sentence at a time, then getting all upset when someone speedys it before you've written the second sentence. This is not missing the point of a wiki: the point of a wiki is that an existing article can be corrected and expanded quickly, and requiring new articles to be easily distinguished from vanity or spam does not negate that point. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • False-positives of any deletion, particularly speedy, seems counter to WP:AGF. Zeal to delete vandalism/vanity should not come at the expense of legitimate contributions. IMHO, a dirty but information-rich encyclopedia is better than a clean but sparse one. Suryadas 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. The only criterion that could possibly be applied IMO is the last one, "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person", and while there are several press mentions referenced in the article, in none of them is this man the primary subject or covered non-trivially -- in all cases, he is mentioned only in passing and as just one of many aspects of a visit to Kyoto. As such, I argue that he does not meet that criterion, and therefore does not meet the inclusion guideline. — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I agree with Haeleth. I don't see anything that establishes the subject meets WP:BIO. Only one source even comes close to being non-trivial mention of Hirooka Hajime, and one source is not enough for me, or for WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Deville (Talk) 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cascade correlation algorithm

Not notable, only 472 google hits, no citable info, just a .pdf file, no evidence of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28 02:30:30

• Google scholar is not google 472 is an amazing number of papers on a subject, and the pdf file is of a peer-reviewed paper. yes, the wrong source was cited, but the reference is as good as they get. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Scholar most definitely is Google. Uncle G 02:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, but you know what I mean. It's not google-the-web, it's google-sciency-stuffs. As "X Google hits" commonly refers to a websearch with google, the same format should not be used for scholar results. LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, we don't know what you mean. Your use of "Google" was just as vague and imprecise as the use that you are criticising. Personally, I try to always write "Google Web" when I'm talking about Google Web Search, especially when contrasting it with another Google service. Uncle G 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with artificial neural networks, there's a nice space for it already. LinaMishima 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, not notable enough to stand alone.-Kmaguir1 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merged, awaiting redirect I saw no reason for the content to not be on artificial neural networks, so it's been merged. Haven't done the redirect yet, as I'd consider that bad AfD form (since it's effectively deleting) LinaMishima 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please copy over my expanded citation details for original article if content merged. LotLE×talk 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, thank you for that! Unfortunately the referencing sytle the article uses makes seeing the addition hard, but it's there, in the same format as the rest (or as near as possible). LinaMishima 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This concept seems to show up on Google scholar with 472 cites. Taking a look at some of these might provide information to flesh out this article. LotLE×talk 02:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has enough information to exist on its own. Furthermore, the topic is interesting. Non-notability should be less of an issue as this article may not be particularly popular, given the specialized topic, however, it does provideuseful information that some users would enjoy. Wikipedia is not a paper. As such there is essentially limitless space to provide useful information. Going in depth on topics will only add to the value of Wikipedia to users. Nlsanand 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "no citable info, just a .pdf file" So since when have PDFs not been citable? Seems to warrant an article IMO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to have a reasonable number of citations according to CiteSeer. [15] Cedars 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Referenced, encyclopaedic. Notability is a terrible criterion in Math, Science and the like WilyD 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Comes up during any introductory course on neural networks and introduces significant changes to these. Also, the topic recently has been getting attention in the field of modelling cognitive development.blackvoid 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think this stands up as an independent article. It could use some expansion, such as graphics illustrating the algorithm and more specific explanation of how it works, but that can happen with time. The expanded version I'd want would be too long for inclusion in whole in Arificial neural networks (but a "see also" between them would certainly be relevant). LotLE×talk 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least Merge . I don't know how you get as few as 472 google hits. I found the entry useful.

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

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

The result was delete discounting annons. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajesh Chauhan (physician)

Clearly a vanity article. Has clear instances of self-edits and possible sock-puppet edits. Shushruth 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The four publications referenced appear to be in minor local journals, largely case studies. The BMJ claims are actually unrefereed responses to the BMJ's online bulletin board, and the other 'papers' in high-quality journals appear to be similar. Espresso Addict 03:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Espresso Addict's thorough research. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO based on WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 07:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Page looks fine to me. Rama's car 09:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The above vote was made bu a person impersonating User:Rama's Arrow and has been blocked for it. He/she is more than likely the sockpuppet of a banned user. Ryūlóng 09:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very blatantly NPOV, and appears to violate WP:AUTO. Assuming the other facts are real and significant, I would be happy with a tidy-up. However, from the heavily non-neutral tone, it is possible that the claims or the significance of the achievements are bloated. Perhaps needs to be verified by an expert. Ohconfucius 09:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I fear it will be difficult to find a suitable subject expert who has access to the relevant journals (J Assoc Physicians India & Medical Journal Armed Forces India). Espresso Addict 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. On 15 August 2006, I personally asked the page's creator to tidy it up and referred him to a number of our guidelines. However, this has been ignored for two weeks, during which the page has not been improved inline with the Manual of Style or our NPOV guidelines. Bob talk 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has a strong POV tone to it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.

1. How much more does a person has to achieve to make himself worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia?
2. The doctor's biography has been published by Marquis Who’s Who (American publishers of biographies of the best in the field) in Medicine and Healthcare.
3. Certainly he meets the criteria for inclusion.
4. The journals (JAPI - Journal of Association of Physicians of India, and MJAFI) which find the research of the doctor published are indexed with Index Medicus and are highly valued in India.
5. Maybe a reconsideration is required against the verdict of deletion.
6. Necessary minor editing may be adopted if considered necessary in order to make the article more readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.187.169 (talk) .

• Comment: The Journal of Association of Physicians of India is Medline listed, but I can't find Medical Journal Armed Forces India there. Espresso Addict 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *MJAFI link from medind now added for reference.

• Delete As no independent WP:RS reliable sources are used. Our standard for biographical notability is at WP:BIO, and Who's Who is intentionally not listed in that standard, as entries therein are often offered on a fee for inclusion basis. Article formatting is also definitely not in accordance with the Manual of Style, but that is not a reason for deletion. GRBerry 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or atleast wikify --T-rex 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ReverendG 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep has written original papers Doctor Bruno 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please clarify how simply writing an original paper (which almost all scientists and most physicians do) is a reasonable notability standard for inclusion, i.e., as differentiated from WP:PROF point 3, a significant and well-known paper or work? --Kinu ^t/_c 20:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Significant and well known are NOT OBJECTIVE criteria, but subjective criteria. Recognising Nutritional deficiencies (correctable cause) as a case of diarrhoea in HIV (at present incurable disease) is per se a notable achievement. I invite your attention to WP:PROF point 5 which suits this person adequately. Doctor Bruno 21:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I decided to debold your comment. And you're right, they are subjective criteria. I suppose based on my limited expertise as a healthcare researcher and a review of the articles themselves, I was not convinced per point 5... but obviously, other editors' mileage may vary. Nonetheless, thank you for providing the clarifications as to your position. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry for that bold text. That was a typo. I did not see the page after typing that comment. Well, you first said that you are not satisfied about 3. Now you say that you are not satisfied about 5 (after being pointed out) Can you be more specific as to what you expect per point 5 (as some one with expertise as health care researcher) so that it will be useful in future discussions _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the original article was a copyright violation and part of it still exists. Links to Google (and other) searches do not meet requirements of verifiability, no original research, reliable sources and biographies of living people. It also has problems with NPOV. Unless someone digs up some proper references, it needs to be deleted. I removed all the crazy bolding and the circular internal links because it was too distracting and made it too hard to read. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It's full of POV and needs a lot of cleanup. If the assertions in the article about the various medical discoveries are sourced and verified then I'd think it was worth keeping. As written, it should be deleted, especially if there are still copyright violations remaining. At minimum, those need to be deleted. Brian 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)btball
• Delete. Who = who can be bought. Publications should interesting but unless full citations are advanced we shouldn't need to verify them. Will reverse my vote if relevant papers are cited and their impact is stated; otherwise would simply fail WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Won't it be better and justified to enquire the credentials of Marquis Who’s Who.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.74.46 (talk • contribs)
• Keep per Doctor Bruno Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Ragib 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Can someone please help with the minor editing and wikify the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.65.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete without prejudice of recreation if his work can be shown to be verifiably important or notable. Virtually every study in Pubmed reflects some sort of "first"; I'm not convinced his "firsts" are sufficiently important or notable (per WP:PROF). (Closing admin: please watch for 219.64.XXX.XXX socks.) -AED 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep - Based on this article he has made significant contributions to the health profession. Work like this is vitally important and rarely recognized due to the technical nature of the material. His work establishes a foundation for many other sciences. I think it needs a rewrite, though, and clean up. Additional comment: I changed this to strong keep. His work with malaria alone makes him notable, in my opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KarateLady (talk • contribs) KarateLadyKarateLady 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable as per nom. Style nauseating. Nephron  T|C 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perversefixation

A website that (according to previous edits of this page) is not yet up and running - but is already the subject of a lawsuit by SuicideGirls.com. May be notable; nominated for speedy, deleted (by me) and recreated - but on second thought I'd rather put it to the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. --Rory096 03:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not only fails WP:WEB, but acts as little more than spam for other websites. Also, the lawsuit is apparently against an invdividual, not the website. Resolute 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:NOT a crystal ball (the website will not be up until October), and neither WP:WEB nor WP:CORP cover this: most ghits are self-promotional. --Daniel Olsen 03:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 03:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:WEB. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. JIP | Talk 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- aforementioned reasons. --Schulte 12:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons upon reasons already mentioned. ReverendG 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a crystal ball. Does not meet WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per bd2412. Good catch. RFerreira 07:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone! -Ladybirdintheuk 11:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. AfD is not the appropriate place to propose merges; you can do that yourself without AfD's intervention. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CATastrophie

A character who appeared on three episodes of a show that lasted for one season. Suggest redirect to The Secret Files of the Spy Dogs --Nonpareility 03:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per nomination, although I can't actually see where the information would go if sources are provided. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - non-notable, vanity, things made up in school one day. A quote from the article: We Kirbies will be hyper, bouncy, and annoying at all times. We shall annoy whoever we want to forever. - Richardcavell 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Kirbish Rebellion

I don't think there's a speedy deletion criteria for this kind of ridiculousness, so I've posted it here. A "rebel movement" on an internet forum?! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow... I think this falls under db-club, no? --Rory096 04:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right. You can speedy it if you want. Just to note, someone just tried to change my "opinion" on this article by rewriting my AfD notice. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy A7, article about an organization with no notability asserted, probably because there is none. Please note that the New Kirbish Rebellion is a well-known organization throughout the world, though only to the members of Neopets. So much for WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. A group of Trolls on a kid's site. --Daniel Olsen 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Screams vanity.--Jersey Devil 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lolowned

NN neologism. I'm also nominating Lwn, internet slang as a duplicate of this article. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ---Charles 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and here I thought Lwn was short for lawn. Anyway, notability not established. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As neologism. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable neologisms. JIP | Talk 11:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• pwn w/ f!r3 err, I mean delete per WP:NEO WilyD 13:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article is also becoming a nonsense magnet. NawlinWiki 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both: protologisms that are minor variants of pwn. JChap2007 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete amazingly void of information --Walter Görlitz 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Please tell me we have a criteria for this. RFerreira 07:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sadly no, but there seems to be consensus right now. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; this isn't urbandictionary.com. —tregoweth (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Ixfd64 02:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G3, clear to me that this is vandalism -- Samir धर्म 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah Sieracki

Google the article title: it is clear that this is an obvious (and childish) hoax. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This fruit is known by a very small portion of the population of the world, most in southern africa, where people do not have the proper technologies to make web pages, so you are correct in that google would not have many articles about it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineappleprincess (talk • contribs)

• Delete per WP:NFT. --Daniel Olsen 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the hoax. This is an encyclopedia. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per WP:NFT. Hannah Sieracki sounds more like a name - the name of the hoax-er --Deon555^talk_Review 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable at best. --Metropolitan90 07:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, covert promotion of CSD A7 band. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kolektovich

NN, 1 google hit, appears to be a hoax. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless it can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over The Hedge 2

WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I couldn't find any information on this film. Until it is officially announced, it's only speculation and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Wildthing61476 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 05:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above WP:NOT arguements. If the movie gets made, re-create. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, unverifiable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystallballing Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom ReverendG 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, recreate if the movie is made. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slumbie

NN Neologism — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This reads like an entry in a slang dictionary. Not notable. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This would be good on urban dictionary or wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, fails WP:V, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deletenn unverifiable neologism.--Jersey Devil 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see the harm in making this a redirect to slumber party (well, apart from the double redirect (this is America's fault!), so let's say sleepover instead). I've done so. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article appears to be slang. Wikipedia does not need more slang, I can assure ya...--Cookie 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect. We're not a slang dictionary, and this is extremely unlikely to be a search term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hantamaru Ririku

Yet another Naruto fan-character. Original research, fancruft. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, when did Naruto become a Lifetime Television movie? Kidding aside, totally fanfic, OR, non-notable, etc. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR, WP:NN, WP:NOT, etc, etc. As NeoChaosX says, fancruft. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Pure vanity page (A7). Only 2 Ghits from a single forum and utterly unnotable. The original author is also a single purpose account. Fanfic and RPG characters tend to fail WP:FICT anyways. Someone needs to post to the Naruto forums that fanfic characters aren't permitted on Wikipedia because we've been getting a lot of them in the last month. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fan fan WP:Vanity fan. Oh yeah, extremely overpowered as well. ColourBurst 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Destroy all non-notable fanfic characters. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete fanfiction characters are not for wikipedia per WP:V, WP:OR, etc.. --Kunzite 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• The A7 speedy deletion criterion applies to real people, not to fictional characters. It is aimed at vanity pages. Fictional characters, being fictional, cannot write vanity encyclopaedia articles about themselves. Uncle G 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SD criteria need to be revised to include fanfiction. Don't fictional characters have real authors who can write vanity articles? --Kunzite 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, also overpowered Stu. Who the heck has both Byakugan and Sharingan? --Alexie 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedied. I don't intend to comment on the dispute the nominator and author are having on our Denise Masino article, but this is an inappropriate solution. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denise masino (porn actress)

There is already an entry for this person at Denise Masino. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the deletion of unsourced material added by User:Hmoul to the Denise Masino page (see Talk:Denise Masino and User talk:Hmoul#Denise Masino for discussion of these edits). Also note that this material is still unsourced here. fbb_fan 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fork article created to avoid dispute in main page.--Jersey Devil 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engi no jutsu

Overly lengthy entry about a non-notable Naruto role-playing forum. Reads off like an FAQ for the site, something Wikipedia is not. Fails WP:WEB test of notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

I'm not seeing any sockpuppets, anyone care to explain? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it's preemptive, since this is a forum we're talking about here (it's also a Naruto fan forum, which makes things a bit worse). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pure vanity. 728 Ghits, all of which appears to be from forum posts. Fails WP:WEB miserably and also runs afoul of all three principles of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. I'll caution that we may see a bit of meatpuppetry with this nomination. --TheFarix (Talk) 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above notability, original research and verifiability concerns. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Violates the main three principles per theFarix, and any notability principles regardless. ColourBurst 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per TheFarix - Whpq 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity for a non-notable website. Also fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above, as it fails web. --Kunzite 12:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alexie 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koroake Kaidan

Article about non-notable comic. Appears to fail WP:FICT for notability - and Googling for "Koroake Kaidan" brings up only the Wikipedia entry. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion, being biographies of characters in this comic:

• Koroake (Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koroake --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC))
• Kornekin

–NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Also per nom Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all as non-notable fanfic characters from a fancomic. Koroake was deleted before, but I don't think it's G4-able. If an admin deems that it is similar, speedy it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all per nom. Fancomics and doujin by non-notable authors not belong on wikipedia. --Kunzite 12:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable original research and possible WP:HOAX. Also appears to be an InuYasha ripoff. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above, Wikipedia is not a place to gain fame. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Unlovable Losers

This is a non-notable film with only its website as any sort of source cited as well as the only one of "about 20" results from Google for the title plus the word film that isn't either unrelated or a result of the Wikipedia article. Erechtheus 05:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable student film, no IMDB entry. Gwernol 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non-notable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Mukadderat 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability ReverendG 05:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable student film. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chicago Cubs j/k, Delete ~ trialsanderrors 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Simon's Episcopal Church, Conyers

This is a non-notable Church location. The article asserts no special characteristic that would separate it from the vast majority of Churches. Erechtheus 05:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a non-notable church. Perhaps a cathedral is notable, but I doubt this church is. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Rockdale County, Georgia. JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to mull

You may want a little while to consider this :-) ... Seriously, while it has respectable Googling numbers Time to mull, most occurrences are in the middle of sentences, not as a phrase. For me, in fact, this was the first time I heard it. A neophrase? Daniel Case 06:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given, and Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Gazpacho 06:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gwernol 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:NOT. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. JIP | Talk 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNon-notable neologism.--Anthony.bradbury 11:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not more neologism-cruft... Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the phrase as I know it is "time to mull things over" or "time to think things over". Does not belong in the list of idioms, as the meaning is obvious. For amusement value it could be redirected to Contemplation LinaMishima 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. I'd say redirect, but this is an implausible search term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zornhut ward

Nothing on Google. I'm not saying it's a hoax, just unverifiable. Daniel Case 06:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If this were just Zornhut, I would redirect to German school of swordsmanship because that appears to be a valid position in that school. Since this is Zornhut ward, the best option is to delete because this is apparent OR. Erechtheus 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Origianal research (and hoax?) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat 18:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization 4 encyclopedia

Recently created article; Seems like it's headed in the direction of some sort of game guide for Civ 4, which is not acceptable per WP:NOT. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT a game guide (despite the article author's protestations) and not a collection of internal links. The article is juts a set of links to articles unrelated to Civilization 4. Gwernol 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Gwernol. JIP | Talk 11:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - A3. --Daniel Olsen 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the author's trying to dodge the "game guide" deletion accusations, but isn't very successful, because despite what the author thinks, it still looks like a game guide. ColourBurst 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as per Daniel Olsen. Consists of only links elsewhere. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There's an explanatory blurb at the beginning so this misses A3 by a whisker. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This will either be a game guide or a directory, both of which fail WP:NOT. --Wafulz 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Duran 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete next we'll have List of grand theft auto cheats ReverendG 05:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^chat/_patch) 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol Renaissance Faire

Abandoned by its creator. As stands doesn't assert any real notability. I was tempted to speedy delete it as an overly short article, but thought it might be better to submit it for discussion. As it stands, delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — 40K+ google hits, quite a few news articles, running for at least 10 years, and me (living 15,000miles away) had heard of it long before I read the article. I think we have here a stub of an article about something encyclopediac Peripitus (Talk) 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Peripitus. (Although I've never heard of it myself) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Renaissance Faires tend to be pretty notable both as events and regional attractions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. I'm from the Midwest, and this is definitely one of the highlights of the late summer. Certainly a full article here for someone with knowledge, sources and time. Carom 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the premier Renfaire for two major metropolitan areas (Chicago and Milwaukee). Zagalejo 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind and all above. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was since everything has been merged, delete. --- Deville (Talk) 23:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pipestone Area Baseball

No notability at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with the bolded "delete" there. AfD nom discussions aside, this looks to me a pretty solid merge candidate, no? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete compleetely nn random high school sports team. I'm tempted to click my sppedy delete buttion.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It does seem to be one of the better high school baseball programs in Minnesota, so we should at least mention them on the school's page. Zagalejo 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Does making state tournament appearances (and the article doesn't say how many teams make the tournament) qualify as making it a notable program? I don't think so, just by itself. One second place finish isn't enough, either. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There appear to be eight teams in the Minnesota Class AA baseball tournament [16]. Pipestone is not the best program in the state, but they've been relatively successful in recent years. So, really, I don't see why this can't be merged with the school page. Zagalejo 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Pipestone Area High School. Zagalejo 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per Zagalejo Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of this page, and hearing your discussion, I vote to Merge it with Pipestone Area High School.Jakeschneider220 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• merge per zagalejo Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment OK, I've moved everything into the school page that wasn't there already. Jakeschneider-feel free to make any changes you deem necessary. Zagalejo 03:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been incorporated into main High School page. --Storkk 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xavier's corner

Non-notable blog with no assertion of notability TJ Spyke 07:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Wiki is not a chat forum, and does not promote them--Anthony.bradbury 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• You fools, this it was not written as a blog or chat forum. It was vandalized by other people.--Nightshiver00 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is a blog. Also seems somebody here is violating WP:NPA, you might want to provide diffs for that, as I'm not seeing it. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just found this while cleaning up YouTube videos. -- ReyBrujo 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - notability established, but this page needs some serious work. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pendelfin

Spammy, doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. MER-C 07:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. This isn't like most corp's we see listed: it's been around for 60 years. Tons of google hits: ^{[Check Google hits]}. Probably has had a history of publications on itself. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Badly written spam. Pendle Hill surrounds Burnley - rubbish. -- RHaworth 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• The article by Proudlove and the book by Ashbrook satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Fixing the word "surrounds" is a matter of simple editing. Keep. Uncle G 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like notability is well established; we just need a better article. --Brianyoumans 04:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs a rewrite badly. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination - I am satisfied that this article meets our notifiability guidelines and is fit to stay. MER-C 10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author Jayadeva Uyangoda

2 reasons for nom:

1. Formatting is disasterous nonsense and incoherent, full of timestamps and sigs and other junk.
2. I'm fully willing to bet this is a CV from somewhere, since no new editor would ever type up such a long list on their own. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense, Jayadeva Uyangoda exists already. ~ trialsanderrors 07:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Trialsanderrors. ~ Casper2k3 07:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify: The only reason I'm AFDing and not opting for speedy is that Khatru2 (talk · contribs) seems to believe it has something worth keeping, per their merge nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well it seems to be articles written by Uyandonga for Pravada, but if someone wants to sift through them they're better off at Talk:Jayadeva Uyangoda. ~ trialsanderrors 08:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the list (all the datestamps are due to the creator's propensity to use multiple tildes in series, which Mediawiki gleefully converts into you-know-what), but I don't see why it should be standing on its own. Merge? I don't see the point either, unless as a greatly condensed footnote. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per trialanderrors --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge only that what is relevant to Jayadeva Uyangoda, delete the rest with no redirect. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful and delete the ensuing redirect. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer DeLin

Made a brief appearance in the WWE Diva Search, but that is all. Not notable. James Duggan 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Mukadderat 18:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per recent policy discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling. This is the first one I'm saying WP:NN to. -Umdunno 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Since when has simply having been a contestant on a TV show been notable? --Dennette 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete Bradley Baumkirchner, Marla Duran, & Katherine Gerdes; no consensus, default keep, on Keith Michael, Daniel Franco, & Santino Rice. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marla Duran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Michael, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Gerdes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Franco, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santino Rice. —Centrx→talk • 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Baumkirchner

Merged nominations per request for Marla Duran, Keith Michael, Katherine Gerdes, Daniel Franco, Santino Rice. It's a slight mess due to votes and comments since the original nominations, but I've tried to tidy them up and regroup the reason for deleting each article where I can. Could an administrator close off the individual AfDs below which are now summarised here, thanx Ohconfucius

Proposed Realitycrufts deletion. The subject, and co-nominees are non-notable designer contestants on Project runway, who do not appear to have an existence outside of PR. 212 unique Ghits out of 502 for

"Bradley Baumkirchner" + designer, the overwhelming majority was blog entries.

"Marla Duran" + designer scores 662Ghits of which 251 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries, and a few listings in directories for the Bethlehem area.

• Comment Could you please combine these deletions? It's a pain in the ass to separate votes that are all on very similar criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Keith Michael" + designer scores 44200Ghits of which 541 unique. He was the first person to be given a dishonourable discharge from the contest for cheating. Of these, the overwhelming majority of Ghits were Blog entries, and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject. His website has an Alexa rank of 2,178,220.

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Katherine Gerdes" +designer scores 774Ghits, of which 242 unique.

"Kayne Gillaspie" +designer scores 548 Ghits of which 243 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article and a fairly abundant number of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Project Runway (season 3), Kayne is still in the competition. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I take the line that reality show contestants are not inherently notable unless they are the winner and/or have some notability outside of it. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Daniel Franco" + designer scores 18900Ghits of which 638 unique. Alexa rank in the 4.28 millionths for danielfranco.com.

• Delete. (Thanks, Ohconfucius, for the research.) Two years from now, who will care? --Sean Lotz 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Santino Rice: Arrogant second runner-up in Project Runway.

In almost all cases, the vast majority of Ghits were for Blog entries, vox.com, sites/articles whose main subject is Project Runway. Ohconfucius 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all the contestants currently part of Project Runway 3, even if they have been eliminated. Until the show finishes airing in September it is impossible to guage the impact of their appaerance on the show on their career. Katherine Gerdes, in particular, seems to have a career as a designer independent of this show. Daniel Franco from seasons 2 and 3 obviously also has a career as a designer as does Santino Rice. The fact that he was arrogant is completely irrelevant. Crunch 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Psychotically strong keep for Santino Rice I'm so tired of these merged nominations when one subject is clearly more notable than the others. Santino made the top three, had a showing at Fashion Week, and is absolutely a notable designer nowadays. For the love of christ, Santino Rice gets 63,600 Google hits! Here's an MTV video story, here's an article from the Village Voice, there have been countless Defamer articles on him, and if you want tabloids, here's an article from the Philadelphia Daily News. Shall I continue? And seriously, why the hell are Runway contestants being targeted? -- Kicking222 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: It is not the least bit obvious what the terms "average notability" or "inherently notable" mean, yet they are used by Ohconfucius to convey some kind of pseudo-scientific aura of justification. Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. One can be a snob about all of this and think that notability should be something more than having hundreds of thousands of people wonder whether or not you are going to be eliminated on a TV reality show. But then you would just be a snob.

Jdclevenger 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The claim seems to be that unless you have notability outside of a Reality TV series, you are not entitiled to space in Wikipedia (space being such an increadably precious commodity within Wikipedia. Oh wait it isn't, is it?). By this logic, all Wikipedia pages devoted to fictional characters should be marked for deletion. After all, a fictional character's notability is almost by defintion a construct of the fiction in which he or she occurs. For example, Col. Jack O'Neill has a very nice article despite the fact that he is a character on Stargate / SG-1. Presumably, his notabilty is solely a function of the movie and the TV show and all the web references about him will be in the same contexts. Jack O'Neill will never write a book or run for president or do anything else notable, other than be a character of fiction. The contestants on a Reality TV show occupy an interesting niche. There notablity may be nothing more than that given by the show on which they appear. But if being a character on SG-1 is sufficent for notablity for Jack O'Neill, then it strikes me that it is sufficent for Kayne Gillaspie, Keith Michael, Bradley Baumkirchner, and all the rest. Jdclevenger 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• A follow-up to my note above. One might argue that as main character on a series that has run for 10 years, Jack O'Neill has acheived some kind of notableness outside the context of the show. If so, one would still be hard pressed to justify the pages of Mr. and Mrs. Stoppable or Josh Mankey. These may not ring any bells for those not plugged into day-time Disney fare. The former are the parents of Kim Possible's sidekike Ron Stoppable and the later is Kim's love interest in several episodes. Again, my take is that the characters on Project Runway et.al. are in fact characters in a drama. The standards of notablity for inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on the standards for Television characters. Jdclevenger 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are we limiting ourselves to one season of one show? There's Kwame Jackson and all the other articles in Category:Reality television participants. -Acjelen 19:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It does seem to me that a little bit of an unfair set of criteria in use here. Reality television characters can be notable only for things other than what makes people want to write and read about them? It's a bit like saying that bands are only notable if they have done something notable besides create music. I think the criteria for including reality tv characters should be pretty straightforwardly related to their Ghits and the same criteria that applies to other bios. Ghits for blogs and reviews about a band's latest album or tour aren't discounted immediately are they? Minor reality show characters are rarely mentioned in articles or blogs about the shows and don't have as many Ghits, therefore there's an argument there for not including them. Or a new set of guidelines relating to reality tv should be hammered out. Dina 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bad analogy. It's not at all like saying that bands are only notable if they have done something notable besides create music. The nomination is based on the lack of notability outside PR, not outside their field of expertise. One is not the subset of the other. Not all PR contestants were put up for AfD.Ohconfucius 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I guess what I'm taking issue with here is the basic assumption that appearing on PR does not make a person notable. What these people are primarily known for is appearing on this show -- why is that rejected out of hand as sufficient notability? Some are more notable than others within that ie. Santino Rice is a more notable Project Runway contestant than Marla Duran, not because of things he did outside the show, but because he did more things on it, and was mentioned in articles and reviews with greater frequency. Why must their notability be dependent only on factors besides what they're actually famous for? And anyway, non-notability is not a grounds for deletion.WP:DP Dina 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm wondering if it's just that people are surprised, shocked, and even a bit offended, by the idea that a reality show contestant, let alone an aspiring fashion designer, can warrant a Wikipedia article, while skads of other anonymous folks are dismissed as not worthy of such an article because they are "not notable." Look, I'm equally shocked when I see lengthy articles on fictional characters from video games. But apparently these characters are notable in some circles, even though I wouldn't know them if they were sleeping in bed next to me. Maybe we should just accept that Santino Rice, Kayne Gillaspie, Katherine Gerdes et al are as notable to afficianados of reality television or fashion design as (fill in your favorite fictional video game character) are to their followers. Crunch 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard through the grapevine that Santino was offered a spot on "The Surreal Life"

Keep. This is ridiculous. These people are notable now. We can't just say "Who will care in a few years?" because someone will care. As an active member of the Olympics Wikiproject, I can tell you that we have pages created for Olympians that placed from 1st all the way to 8th place in a single event over 100 years ago. Most of these are not Olympic medalists, but they get a WP page because they were notable at the time, and in their field. One of the things that drew me to WP in the first place was that it had obscure information like this, that I wouldn't be able to find anywhere else. This is the sum of human knowledge, and that includes Reality TV, whether you or I like it or not. As for notability on Reality TV, OhConfucius says that the zoo may be notable, but Monkey A and Monkey B are not. This does not come close to applying here. Imagine if millions of people across America were interested in these two monkeys - they knew Monkey A and Monkey B by name, could tell them apart by looking at them, knew their mannerisms, and went to places like WP to learn more. Then we'd have a comparison. tiZom_(2¢) 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I completely understand why, in a year or so, we might want to re-evaluate the relevence of these pages. Probably in 5 years they won't all need their own pages. At the moment, however, the show is a not insignificant part of popular culture, and I have trouble beleiving people (especially casual and rerun veiwers of the show) don't come here all the time looking for more information. None of these individual pages are inappropriately long or detailed, and besides, if we eliminated these we'd just end up trying to cram these details into the season 3 page, which is pretty massive as it is.Chunkyrice 13 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Can't add much to tiZom's comment; we should revisit when the season ends. I do wish this vote hadn't been combined; Bradley alone would get a delete from me. Bradley was non-notable throughout Season 3 and will likely remain so afterwards. Che Fox 06:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marla Duran

delete realitycrufts. Not very notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 662Ghits of which 251 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries, and a few listings in directories for the Bethlehem area. Ohconfucius 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please combine these deletions? It's a pain in the ass to separate votes that are all on very similar criteria. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable third-party published sources per WP:V, and insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. --Satori Son 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus default keep, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Baumkirchner. —Centrx→talk • 00:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Michael

delete realitycrufts. Unnotable designer, but who was the first person to be given a dishonourable discharge from the contest for cheating. No notability beyond Project runway. "Keith Michael" + designer scores 44200Ghits of which 541 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority were Blog entries, and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject. His website is a long way below radar with an Alexa rank of 2,178,220. Ohconfucius 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "and a few articles where the show or the incident was the primary subject." How does that not satisfy WP:BIO? He may not be the most important person, but he seems to be important enough. --Daniel Olsen 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he is not notable for being on tv show. If it is so damn important that he was kicked, then write about it under the tv-shows entry or the reality show entry. Lundse 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TomPeters 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Baumkirchner. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Gerdes

delete realitycrufts. Not very notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 774Ghits for "Katherine Gerdes" +designer, of which 242 unique. Of these, the vaaast majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article, then come a fairly abundant Blog entries. Her website merely recaps her thinking during one of the episodes where she shops in Ax-man as part of Project Runway. Ohconfucius 05:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself. Lundse 20:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayne Gillaspie

delete realitycrufts. Designer well below average notability who was eliminated in an early challenge. No notability beyond Project runway. Scores 548 Ghits of which 243 unique. Of these, the overwhelming majority are where PR is the primary subject of the article and a fairly abundant number of Blog entries. Ohconfucius 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Project Runway (season 3), Kayne is still in the competition. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I take the line that reality show contestants are not inherently notable unless they are the winner and/or have some notability outside of it. Ohconfucius 08:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: It is not the least bit obvious what the terms "average notability" or "inherently notable" mean, yet they are used by Ohconfucius to convey some kind of pseudo-scientific aura of justification. Reality shows done well are comedy / dramas. They are crafted to make us interested in the contestants for 15 or 16 weeks. They are in effect mini-soap operas. As such, winning is beside the point to the "notability" of those involved. Read the blogs on the show as people passionately defend the "good guys" or berate the "bad guys". Indeed, given that the producers do not need to worry about keeping fans interested in the same characters for year after year (as is the case in traditional television fare), they are freer to pump up the story lines and the resulting emotions. One can be a snob about all of this and think that notability should be something more than having hundreds of thousands of people wonder whether or not you are going to be eliminated on a TV reality show. But then you would just be a snob. Jdclevenger 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "average notability" applies to the Ghits. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding;

"inherently notable" means that the show is much more than the sum of its parts, and that while the show is certainly notable, the fact of having been one of the contestants does not necessarily confer notability, in much the same way that one is not notable by merely working in a successful theatre production or film, any other artistic work, or by being on the iPod development team. Ohconfucius 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am open about my dislike of Reality TV, but I try not to make bad faith deletions, or ones based solely on my likes and dislikes. I will admit that PR is unlike BB, as many of these indivuals have skill/talent and could be known for what they do outside the show and not just how they behave on screen. I try hard to be objective justify and evaluate deletions based on wiki policies and guidelines, and in applying the same methodology and research I have been using to support all my other decisions and recommendations, these contestants come up as delete recommendations. Ohconfucius 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for the clarification. Jdclevenger 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. When Jdclevenger says "There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR," that is a reason to delete. People should be of general interest to receive an encyclopedia entry or they should have made a notable contribution in a certain field. Even if being on a reality TV show were a field, there would still need to be a notable contribution. Flying Jazz 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - As long as the information is not commercial, it is relevant and important to wikipedia. Beno1983 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not only are such articles necessary for wikipedia to maintain its comprehensive nature, but Kayne is also certainly famous enough to warrant an entry. He has progressed as far in the competition as Nick Verreos did, who has gone on to do much more (and has his own entry), and the entire show is more high-profile this year than it was before. dizzilylizzily

• Keep While Ohconfucius points out that "Kayne Gillaspie" has less than 1K Google hits, the search string 'Kayne "project runway"' has about 138,000 hits. Further, there are 101 articles for that search string in Google News. I think he's notable and should be kept. xander76

• Delete. Yes it does matter if the person will be utterly forgotten in five years. Wikipedia is not a collection of ephemera. No it doesn't matter that much if the person happens to be the particular body that crosses the screens of millions of reality TV watchers. Notability is mostly about achievement, achievement recognized by one's peers or in some other meaningful way. I call on the closing admin to take note of the weakness of the Keep arguments. Herostratus 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Beating out other contestants to win a spot on a show such as this one is an achievement, no matter how frivolous it may seem to us. Chancemichaels 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

• Comment 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.' This is a common sentiment of the Deletionists, suggesting that the possibility of future notabililty is not enough for current inclusion. I would suggest that it works both ways. Arguing that a current article be deleted because the person will be 'utterly forgotten in five years' is a crystal ball prediction. It may be true. It may not. Come back in five years and argue that no one cares about this. Jdclevenger 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Franco

delete. Not notable designer who was eliminated in an early challenge of Project Runway. No notability beyond Project runway. Alexa rank in the 4.28 millionths for danielfranco.com. "Daniel Franco" + designer scores 18900Ghits of which 638 unique. Of these, the vast majority are for vox.com and blogspot.com. There are 20 incoming links to his site danielfranco.com, including 1 from Project Runway, 3 from search engines, 11 from bunnyshop.com, and the remainder from blogs. Ohconfucius 08:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. (Thanks, Ohconfucius, for the research.) Two years from now, who will care? --Sean Lotz 09:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - being on tv does not make you interesting in itself (and yes, Sean, very succintly put, who will care in a few years?). Lundse 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am curious to know what evidence does Lundse have for his claim that 'being on TV does not make you interesting in itself'? As a matter of sociological fact (as measured by the volume of web blogs and entertainment magazines etc.) it seems that being on television is enough to make almost anyone interesting. 'Interesting' of course cannot mean interesting to just you or just me. But rather it means 'is of interest to large number of people'. It seems abundantly clear that those arguing for Delete rather despise Reality TV and are not themselves interested in it. Good for them. Ohconfucius makes this point expressly clear on his page. He has listed 1 Dislike: Reality TV. And clearly he has taken it upon himself to expunge it as much as possible from Wikipedia. But it also clear that there are plenty of people who tune in weekly to see the exploits of the people on shows like PR. Regardless of what else they accomplish in their lives, for 10 or 12 weeks they become very important to many people. As for whether or not anyone will care in a few years, that is completely beside the point. If the standard is that only the timeless and enduring can be in Wikipedia, I think we would have perhaps 17 articles. Part of the NPOV is that you have a consistent bar for entry. You cannot raise it for projects that you find banal, trivial, or uninteresting and then lower it for those you like. Finally, of course, even if Lundse is accurate in his claim, it does not apply in these cases. If the PR contestants merely appeared on the show and where never discussed or noticed by anyone, then there could be a case for saying that they're appearance simpliciter was not itself interesting. But that is not the case. There is plenty of interest in these people by people interested in PR. That may not be your interest. But that is irrelevant. Jdclevenger 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reality contestant finalists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Asking who will care about Y in X number of years is a straw man argument. How important will Angelina Jolie be 1,000 years from now, anyone care to take a guess? The point is we are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia here, and finalists of major shows should be noted. RFerreira 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santino Rice

delete. Realitycrufts. Arrogant also-ran in Project Runway. No notability beyond Project runway. Ohconfucius 08:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep In spite of not winning, Santino was certainly the most famous character on that season. (yeah, I'm a dorky Project Runway fan, so feel free to take that into account.) Probably more notable than Chloe Dao, the winner. He is arrogant though. Dina 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I watch it too. You may have a point. He could be like the villain in the piece which makes the hero. Ohconfucius 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep reality contestant finalists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep there is no reason why wikipedia should not keep a record of this sort of thing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Dakota 23:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paulie Bromley

Not notable per WP:MUSIC Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that he fails WP:MUSIC? Go ask Google for some information about George (band). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Member of band that has charted down under. Catchpole 11:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep verifiable, encyclopaedic, et cetera. WilyD 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - stubby article about a well known musician. Part of a charting australian band with sufficient hits and albums to easily pass WP:MUSIC. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable musician/producer in well-known band, IMHO passes WP:MUSIC. --Canley 10:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. This is clearly not something that requires AfD's time, but can be easily solved with the help of our good friend Mr Redirect. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altar_Screen

Articles "Altar screen" and "Altar Screen" both exist. I am proposing the deletion of "Altar Screen" (both words capitalized).--Sean Lotz 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Deville (Talk) 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whittaker World cup 2006

Previously AfD'd here. I tried it as a CSD for lack of context and pretty much everything else, but was told to bring it here. Technically, had I known it had previously been deleted it would be a CSD, but I snoozed and lost, so I'll put it here to make sure nobody calls me names. BigHaz 09:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• As a further note about the initial AfD, there was a threat made to recreate the article if it were deleted. A suggestion was made to protect it, and I think this recreation is proof that someone should break out the WP:SALT shaker. BigHaz 09:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It definitely doesn't fall under an exact re-creation of an article deleted through the AfD process, because it's never been deleted in such a way (it was speedied last time). The article makes absolutely no sense to me (and Google makes things more confusing), and if I'd been first on the scene I definitely would have speedy deleted it as having so little context as to be nonsense. However, I trust Redvers (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), who seems to have more information than I. In any case, threats to re-create the article shouldn't worry us in the slightest — we are well enough equipped to deal with such things. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, so a speedy delete done via AfD is still a speedy delete rather than anything else. I think I'd heard that somewhere along the line, but it's useful to be reminded of this sort of thing. BigHaz 11:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Uncle G 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• No speedy deletion criterion applies to this article. I've attempted to verify that this even exists at all, and come up empty. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Regular Delete and Protect (if it doesn't fall on speedy deletion criteria).--Húsönd 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect per WP:SNOW as vandalism in the form of nonsense. This article purports to describe a soccer tournament which took place this year involving the national football teams of various countries (as opposed to a group of amateur sides which just used the names of the countries they were from). As such, it would receive thousands upon thousands of Google hits if it actually existed. In fact, it gets 22 or so Google hits, all from Wikipedia itself [17]. I may reconsider if someone can get me a videotape of Vatican City's 4-1 victory over Denmark as listed in this article ... I doubt it. --Metropolitan90 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, I admit that this article isn't patent nonsense which would be a speedy deletion criterion. The article is reasonably coherent; the problem is that none of the sporting results described therein actually took place in the real world. --Metropolitan90 15:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the Vatican City have a football team at all? I can hardly believe that we're having this article nominated for the second time in 24 hours, there's gotta be or there should be some criterion to speedy delete it. --Húsönd 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Vatican City does have a national team. Its chances of beating Denmark 4-1, however, are slightly lower than mine of being elected President of the USA. BigHaz 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed. Portugal lost all matches while England was flawless. Someone is a bad, bad loser.--Húsönd 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete and protect per creator's threat (and now execution) to repost. It's a hoax, self-contradictory and obvious. We probably could have re-opened the original AFD rather than started a new one, but whatever... -- nae'blis 18:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alias Flood 23:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect as per Nae'blis. Qwghlm 23:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above -- Alias Flood 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per above. – Elisson • Talk 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per my vote in the first AfD. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete and protect from recreation. Appears to be something like a fanfiction. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect although it has a great name its not a real article. SenorKristobbal 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marine Mania

Same reason per Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Dinosaur Digs: advertisement-like format, and the fact it can be covered in Zoo Tycoon. I suggest a merge. Bibliomaniac15 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - copyvio with the text copied from a press release -- Whpq 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Although it needs extensive editing, I believe both Dinosaur Digs and Marine Mania need seperate pages from the Zoo Tycoon page. I don't mind personally editing this page so it doesn't violate any copyrights, but would like to get everyone's OK before I do anything.--Dflocks80 21:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  09:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Expansion packs now count as notable? -Kmaguir1 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I improved the article a little. Generally Expansion Packs are considered as notable. Dwayne Kirkwood 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 01:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Would you also delete this simply because it is an expansion pack? note: stated AFD proposition also failed. Altair 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most other games include expansion packs as a subsection of the original article. See Battlefield 2 for example. Merge. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Combination 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Zoo Tycoon (and also merge Zoo Tycoon : Dinosaur Digs to Zoo Tycoon). Zaxem 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: AfD is not the place to propose a merge. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please or merge to zoo tycoon but not erase Yuckfoo 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volume Fifteen

This is a various-artists compilation created to go along with a magazine which doesn't appear overly notable in its own article (Google throws up a number of "Volume Magazines", none of which seem to be the right one). Even if the mag itself is notable, I'm not convinced that any given compilation of artists featured within its pages is notable. BigHaz 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Volume One
• Volume Two
• Volume Three
• Volume Four
• Volume Five
• Volume Six
• Volume Seven
• Trance Europe Express
• Volume Eight
• Volume Nine
• Trance Europe Express 2
• Volume Ten
• Volume Eleven
• Trance Europe Express 3
• Volume Twelve
• Trance Atlantic
• Volume Thirteen
• Wasted: The Best of Volume, Part I
• Sharks Patrol These Waters: The Best of Volume, Part II
• Volume Fourteen
• Trance Europe Express 4
• Trance Atlantic 2
• Volume Fifteen
• TEXtures
• Volume Sixteen
• Trance Europe Express 5
• Volume Seventeen

Also included in this afd are the rest of Volume magazine compilations. - Bobet 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all, since I can't find evidence of notability for any of the individual compilations. Having these articles would be akin to having an article for each issue of a magazine (since a compilation was supposedly included with every magazine), which isn't useful. - Bobet 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most. I'll agree that most of the articles are probably not notable enough (I created almost all of 'em, and some were very difficult to find info), but the Trance Europe Express series is reasonably well represented in a Google search (~15k hits), and were fairly important compilations of important artists. Keep those, keep the main Volume magazine article, tank the rest. — Wwagner 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Merge and redirect to Volume magazine, based on the Garrie's comments below, and a test page that I made. See User:Wwagner/sandbox. — Wwagner 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - all of these albums (except the "best of"'s, of course) were comprised of otherwise unavailable material by the artists in question, many of whom are highly notable and remain so. It would be silly to have some and not others based on a percentage of how many artists per disc pass WP:MUSIC. It would be sillier to move the tracklistings to the main article as it would be huge. I think the common sense approach is to keep them all. Ac@osr 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I don't quite follow that. The notability of the artists is anything but in question, but does that make everything which they release (or, in this case, don't release except in this format) notable? BigHaz 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comment - just as an aside, the article NME compilations survived a deletion vote earlier this year despite the fact the discs in question were nothing more than promotional samplers containing previously issued material. It may be that an article of this type would be appropriate here although, as I said, it would be huge. Ac@osr 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a method to "roll up" sections which is being used on some railway and bus information articles. This would significantly reduce the size of this page because only the CD the reader is looking at would be expanded. Sorry but I don't know the article specifically I think it is a list of London bus routes? Garrie 22:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per nom. TJ Spyke 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge FWIW, I just found myself needing an article on Volume Sixteen and hey, there it was. To justify keep... well, compare with Category:Compilation album series and make up your mind. To justify merge... we have "huge" articles on compilation album series like Café del Mar and Mystera. –Unint 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge These were significant influential albums - but merge into individual entries for series - ie just one for Volume, trance atlantic, trance europe etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.255.248 (talk • contribs)
• Keep all Very notable series in the UK. Also, the nominator has been misguided a little - these were full length CDs of new material sold in the shops at full price, but which came with a CD-sized book. They weren't freebies like NME, and the "magazine" was never available seperately from the CD. --kingboyk 07:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - In that case, aren't we then dealing either with individual issues of a magazine (which includes a CD) or individual entries in a compilation series of albums (which include a magazine)? BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, the latter. --kingboyk 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, if the series is notable in the UK, Google seems strangely silent on the matter. There've been a lot of things about music released over the years called "Volume", but the only thing I could find specifically on this was a discussion board post asking if people remembered it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Google doesn't know everything friend. These were early 90s compilations and predate Google. I think you have enough comments from British music fan editors saying "important compilation series" to have your answer :) --kingboyk 09:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC) PS for the record, imho Volume 2 and Trance Europe Express were the best :)
      • Fair cop regarding the limits of Google, and thanks for clearing up exactly what they were in the first place. The question is, though, whether or not every single one of these compilation albums is notable in and of itself. I'm willing to agree that the entire thing (Volume Magazine) is notable, but why does each album necessarily need its own individual article? Surely the approach to take would be to give each compilation a paragraph or equivalent on the Volume Mag article itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Possibly, because the articles are in a bad state at the moment. That's not an AFD issue though; the articles have a "right" to exist as does any other member of a notable compilation series. If you'd like to be bold and clean them up or do some merging it doesn't need to be an AFD matter. (Because, somebody else might want to undo it, particularly if more material becomes available - such as reviews. If an article is deleted, the history goes too and this kind of bold-revert-discuss pattern can't happen).

• • • • • FWIW, given the volume (pun intended) of albums in this series I think leave em alone. Whatever, I don't think they're deletable. Over and out :) --kingboyk 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep all these please per kingboyk they were influential albums and should be included Yuckfoo 09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • further comment - I do think the waters have been clouded here by a misunderstanding as to exactly what Volume was. It was both a magazine and a compilation album. The discs weren't cover freebies of the type you get now (although, in British publishing, it has a clear influence on magazines like Word which always carry cover CDs), rather each was comprised of new, previously unissued material. Each edition sold at CD price. That said, each issue carried contemporaneous album etc reviews so they were certainly a periodical. PS - Volume 4 was the best :) Ac@osr 13:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Tyler

Graphic artist and filmmaker. Two short paras in the listings section of Willamette Week, no credible evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70 (talk • contribs)

• Delete appears to have made a film about the electric can opener and that doesn't appear to be especially notable. Perhaps the Magic Hostess article might also merit deletion. MLA 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. The two news articles provided are a local newspaper, which doesn't qualify as major coverage in my books. And speaking of major coverage, he also fails WP:PORN since he's apparently an adult film actor as well. --Wafulz 16:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as insufficiently notable. --Satori Son 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 16:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artesian Tea

delete per WP:NN or WP:NFT. The concept is not notable. 38Ghits of which 12 are unique. Except for wiki, none of the others are for the product/concept. The article is written by the concept's inventor, Rocky Williform, whose page is also proposed for deletion per WP:VAIN. NN individual 11unique Ghits, including 1 wiki. Ohconfucius 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Wow - a special type of tea depending on the water source . Neologism with no notability - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC) Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— Normally fight against the nn tag, but this is nn. Williamborg (Bill) 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Artesian. - Blood red sandman 12:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How ? Nothing Verifyable from a reliable source here to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spy Guy Technologies

This page was deleted once before and is now back with only (very) minor edits. Looks like an ad for self promotion. Nominated for deletion. Rorndoff 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Being a webmaster isn't inherently notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Czerwinski

Non-notable article for a webmaster. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I'm afraid he doesn't cut it for a Wikipedia article. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 10:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kazenga LuaLua

Youth footballer who has not played for any first team. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Capelloni.

• Delete until such time as he has played for a first team at the professional level. Robotforaday 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until he is at least given a first team squad number. Qwghlm 11:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice to recreation if he makes the first team. Oldelpaso 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until (if) he plays for first team. Merge what there is with Lomana LuaLua -- Alias Flood 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the players featured on here (all of whom have never played for a first team) can have an article I don't see why Kazenga LuaLua can't. Bababoum 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until he plays for first team. I also support the deletion of Man United Academy players -- User:KRBN 09:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 16:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candy_Manson

Seems to fail the WP:PORN BIO she has been in 24 movies according to Adult Film Database.com or 23 iafd.com Anadin 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:PORN BIO, doesn't even come close to WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Mad Jack 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caoilfhionn Nic Pháidín

Non-notable academic Sam Clark 10:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:PROF Pathlessdesert 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of info below; article should reflect the ways in which the subject meets notability criteria as opp. to her academic background (in which the subject appears to be a standard nn academic). Pathlessdesert 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm far from convinced she is non-notable (given her field). Her work biography is impressive enough for me. I'd be interested to see what anyone who actually knows something about her field (or even how to pronounce her name) would have to say on the subject; at present we're all far too ignorant to really say much about this article. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • She threatened to sue a publisher once. Uncle G 13:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article asserts no notabiltiy, WP:BIO, unverifiable. So what if she had written a few books, are they notable in the first place? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 11:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you know? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • With due respect, I'm not so sure you know either. The nom is an academic in the arts and I'm giving him some credit. And double check the names of the publishers in your link, you'll see that a chunk of the books were self-published -- Samir धर्म 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, no, I don't know. If I knew, I'd have said "I know" rather than "none of us know" ... and am I the only one whose skin crawls when someone says "with [all] due respect" to me? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Do agree that it would be great if we had someone knowledgeable of her field here, but commenting on info at our disposal, I think it's still a delete. The significance of the books is unclear to me as a chunk were published by Cois Life which she is the co-founder of (according to Mark's link). And 2 peer reviewed publications in 2 years does not notability make. If she was the sole author/major contributor of the English/Irish dictionary listed, then I may be swayed, but right now, I agree that she's non-notable as an academic. -- Samir धर्म 11:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll ask User:Jtdirl for translation help. He is the Man of Ireland after all -- Samir धर्म 11:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I missed the self-publish thing; that's a good point. Look forward to seeing what Jtdirl thinks. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - on the basis of her work biog, linked above, she's an ordinary senior academic: she's written some books and articles, she teaches various courses at her institution. This doesn't add up to notability. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Currently, she reads like a run-of-the-mill academic, albeit one in an unusual field. I'll happily reconsider if someone closer to the Irish language provides more information. BigHaz 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep since information has now been provided about the body she's a member of. I wouldn't mind seeing more info, but the notability issue seems to be resolved (at least to me it is). BigHaz 06:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Cois Life is a real publishing company that publishes many different authors and books. See http://www.coislife.ie/index2.htm Her status as a co-founder of the publishing company does not detract from the notability of her publications. Moreover, she served on the Coimisiún na Gaeltachta for two years. The Irish Government established Coimisiún na Gaeltachta (The Gaeltacht Commission) in April 2000 to make recommendations on the strenghtening of Irish as the normal means of communication of the Gaeltacht community. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having published books is not in itself sufficient for notability. So, is the thought that although CNP isn't notable qua academic, she is notable qua member of Coimisiún na Gaeltachta? If so, perhaps that article should list the members of the commission, and perhaps this article (if it's kept) should make it clear that this is her claim to notability. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to me she cleary meets WP:PROF (regarded by others as a significant expert in her field). Coimisiún na Gaeltachta was an 8 member Government appointed national body recommending on the state of a national language. And FWIW I could pronounce her name although my expertise wouldn't go much beyond that. Dlyons493 Talk 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's the director of Fiontar and co-founded one of what must undoubtedly be one of the few publishers for the Irish language. Her book, Focloir Fiontar/Dictionary of Terminology lists for sale on major Irish Language booksellers. You only need to meet one of seven criteria for WP:PROF and she meets several. Irongargoyle 00:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Her role as an Irish language consultant for the Oxford English Dictionary for the past 20 years (see this page) meets WP:PROF no. 1 IMHO. Here is some more information on the publishing company she founded. Since it is funded by the the Arts Council of Ireland, a government sponsored body, I presume that the company is important for the promotion of the Irish language. Bláthnaid 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep— This discussion sequence shows the value of the Wiki process. The clear progression from questions to data makes me want to edit for another day. Good enough for Wikipedia. Williamborg (Bill) 02:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It certainly is. This discussion has convinced me of a keep -- Samir धर्म 06:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - dunno if I ought to vote keep as nominator, but OK, I'm convinced that I was mistaken. Now someone needs to make the subject's notability explicit in the article. This process has been a cheering indication of how well Wiki can work... Cheers, Sam Clark 10:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torrindale

Hoax article, band does not exist, not on allmusic.com, google only points to wikipedia and mirrors. Catchpole 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Well spotted. Punkmorten 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Destroy all hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not on everyhit.com, so claims of UK hits are false. -- Beardo 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete all as CSD G1. "Nick Long saw action as a foot soldier in the Roman legion during the First Roman-Jewish War. It is believed that during this time he was set upon by Catholics opposed to the Army" - that would be implausible, because there weren't any Catholics back then. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Long (Cult)

Also mominated:

• Chronicles of Long
• Nick Long (redirect)

AFDs merged (by Netsnipe)

• Delete seems to be a hoax or a wind-up Charlesknight 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Provided link is invalid. In fact, there doesn't even appear to be a WHOIS record for nws.edu.au. Fails: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Hoaxes --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  11:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Likely hoax; Nick Long is another related article that's also up for deletion. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone nominated an article for deletion, and the template has this date on it, shouldn't there be a space for debate here? Where else might it be? Is the deletion debatable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.192.56 (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy delete total nonsense or close to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was a contested prod, hence the AFD. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  12:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reach Out

Webcruft, Alexa ranking 487,984. Punkmorten 12:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, unless I am missing something, it does not even assert notability. A clear promotional effort for a nonnotable website. Uucp 21:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - does read as a promo but they are a serious organisation for youth mental health. I've heard them repeatedly covered on non-commercial TripleJ radio, and heard them discussed favourably (radio again) by the South Australian minister of health. At the worst tag it for importance + references and look back in a month or so. Defininately not a speedy candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Or, rather, revert back to the article I wrote about the Four Tops LP of this name (that, or actually make a proper move to the Reach Out (album) namespace. Whoever created this article didn't even bother to cleanup the links to the article). Wikipedia is not a web directory, not even for a non-profit website. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable Australian mental health organisation, needs rewriting though. --Canley 10:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the title should be moved to Reach Out! with an exclamation mark, that's the official name. --Canley 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable enough for me. In the same ilk as organisations such as Beyondblue. - Longhair 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Canley, Longhair. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Inspire Foundation, which runs the website and a couple of other projects, might be worthy of an article, but the website in of itself is not sufficiently notable. Zaxem 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Major support organisation in Australia. It is not a website [it HAS one, but is not focused around the website] so Alexa ranking is irrelevant. -- Chuq 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Hale, writer, producer

Vanity; non-notable. He "won a special award".. what for, exactly? Page was created by subject himelf. EuroSong ^talk 12:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Poorly written and poorly referenced vanity article. --Anthony.bradbury 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Book published by notable publishers in both the U.K. and the United States, and reviewed in The Times and The Daily Telegraph (or possibly The Sunday Telegraph - in any event, review found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ). Note also that the book is quoted in the material for an anthropology course at http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/syllabi/SYL_496-FA2006.html --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -Kmaguir1 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not all that well written, but basic notability established. LotLE×talk 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs rewriting, renaming and referencing properly. There are a lot of unsourced statements, and some ambiguous phrases ("make"? = wrote/directed/produced, etc?) Not being in the IMDb doesn't help. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep claims unreferenced, but notable if true. no reason to delete. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umezawa's Jitte

Individual Magic cards, even popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering) and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote, as nominator you've already made your argument, posting delete per nom is very bad form. WilyD 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • By default, listing an article for deletion is not necessarily supporting its deletion; the purpose is to have a discussion, and if the nominator wants to include himself in the discussion, he can note his support for deletion. If the nominator wants to abstain, he can leave out the "delete" (as I have done before in AfDs where I wanted to start discussion on topics for which I had not been so sure that deletion was appropriate). Andrew Levine 13:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Actually, I thought the accepted convention was to treat the default as a delete - because the nominator usually provides an argument for deletion. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I've seen people write something like I'm in favour of deleting this article at the end of their nomination, to make the issue clear. But what the nominator's done here reads (on a quick parse) like "voting twice" - and I've definitely seen people being told off for similar behaviour in the past. WilyD 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • As you correctly pointed out, AfD is not a vote, so I don't see how it's even possible for someone to "vote twice." Andrew Levine 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Betrayers of Kamigawa - merge if anyone's up to it, but it's already somewhat covered there WilyD 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not redirect, Betrayers of Kamigawa already has the card featured. ColourBurst 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The card is extremely prominate in the set, a reasonable search term and the term is (very) unlikely to be used to create an unrelated article - I can't think of any other rational for not making it a redirect - what am I missing? WilyD 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, jizzm resulted in a concensus for a redirect to Arab Nights. WilyD 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons I laid out in the Chaos Orb AfD... though at least this article is sourced.--Isotope23 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Unlimited (Magic: The Gathering), with possibility of merging. JPD (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos orb

Individual Magic cards, even important/popular ones, are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force of Will (Magic: The Gathering), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn and other precedents. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beta (Magic: the Gathering), it's already mentioned there, perhaps merging if someone desires. WilyD 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unlimited. Comment. I don't think the machinery of AfD was even necessary here; I'd already dropped a "Merge to" with a single card AfD cited, and was going to simply redirect it (possibly pulling some material along with?) very soon anyway. If any future single-card articles are seen (barring single-cards so famous/breaking that they are notable), they can probably also be quietly redirected without need to trouble AfD. SnowFire 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Tap 4BU and Delete, while I can go with a redirect on a deck build that was used reasonably frequently in tournament play, I don't see any reason for a redirect on an individual card. The article is also completely unsourced and not verified, which is enough to push it into deletion territory in my book.--Isotope23 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I think that is a great idea to just redirect these cards as they are obviously something ppl will search for. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. FairHair 23:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I disagree with the nom, and note the lack of binding decisions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unlimited, merging content if appropriate. It's a historically iimportant Magic card, but interesting mostly in context of overall history of the game. Unlimited achieves that. Maestlin 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Aggro deck. —Mets501 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Weenie

Individual Magic decktypes not notable for inclusion, even successful ones. See precedents:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/U/G_Madness
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sligh
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ravager Affinity Andrew Levine 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 12:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop posting delete per nom in your own nominations, it's extraordinarily bad form. WilyD 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, at one time this was a somewhat common practice; I'm not not aware of any guideline or policy that it is against...--Isotope23 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • This is true. I've been reflexively posting that for a long time, since back when the process was still "Votes for Deletion." Whether it's against current policy or not, though, if I stop now it will save me time. Andrew Levine 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aggro deck it's already covered there, merge if desired. WilyD 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, per WilyD.--Isotope23 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per WilyD. It's a notable deck, but it doesn't need its own article. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why delete this?

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hesher

Delete at best this is a dictionary definition for a slang term. The entire article is original research and unsourced speculation. This survived an AFD in early 2005 as no consensus with suggestions that it be cleaned up. No meaningful progress has been made towards verifiability in 18 months Gwernol 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• weak delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crichton Cobbers

Non-notable gym in New Zealand. Less than 700 Ghits, fails WP:CORP. fuzzy510 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• There are 20 references to this in the Press of Christchurch showing it is at least of interest in Christchurch although some are for gym guides as the like. Whether that qualifies it as multiple sources under WP:CORP is another matter. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't appear to be especially notable - SimonLyall 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete not apparently notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was flagged as copyvio. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alvicom

Long, rambling essay about the IT industry. Subjective and unsourced. Originally promoting the company Alvicom, now apparently just badly titled. FreplySpang 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is Spam.--Anthony.bradbury 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder. MER-C 13:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Just got tagged as a copyvio, therefore speedy close or speedy delete (CSD A8). MER-C 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Matthews PR

Contested prod about a non-notable company. MER-C 13:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Liz Matthews (before this page was created) was linked to from a number of her clients pages. This page intends to bring together these clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwaddington (talk • contribs)

Is this a comment or an argument for keeping the article? MER-C 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Tom, most of the links were introduced by you, based on the edit histories of the pages that link to this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising. Wikipedia is not a free directory or a CV hosting service. Piccadilly 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article fails WP:V - is there a better criterion for deletion? I think not. WilyD 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. --John Nagle 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising ~ trialsanderrors 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenn Shaw

non-notable; article marked as autobiographical; references do not list subject; non-notable linked references - CobaltBlueTony 14:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, appears nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect Zsinj^Talk 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Property maintenance

Borderline article that I think can be improved nicely, given time. Was tagged for speedy, detagged, prodded, deprodded, reprodded. Prodding editor thinks there is not enough information for this to have its own article. The creator is making an effort to improve the thing, if we don't run him off. (My brother has worked as a property manager, so I know a tiny bit about it and believe there is enough info for an article.)

• Keep and expand Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 14:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

or merge to Property management. :) Dlohcierekim 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Dlohcierekim. Likely search term. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Keep and clean it up with a firehose. Property maintenance is an old and established profession. This article is about as weak a description of the field as one could hope to find. Williamborg (Bill) 02:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

After further thought I agree with Dlohcierekim; I'd far more likley look for Property management.

• Why don't you expand this article instead of merging it (as has been suggested) or worse deleting it. Property Maintenance exists in the real world and I don't see why it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.202.3 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bonomo

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this closure as improper (among other things, the closer had commented in the debate.) This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Please note that I will be making no further edits to this or any other page on Wikipedia under this or any other account, as this nonsense has shown me that the amount of proportion of arguing one has to do to the actually useful edits one makes is way too high, and I don't have the time or the time or tolerance for frustration for something so ultimately frivolous. This article has enough sources, and it's your choice whether to vote to delete or to go out there and cite it properly. Enjoy your wikipedia. Grindingteeth 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, As it stands, should have been speedied as an attack article. :) Dlohcierekim 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What attacks are there in the article, and why haven't you removed them? Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - the ultimate criterion. WilyD 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Many reliable sources were discussed in the AFD and the deletion review. It's verifiable. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • False, exactly none were brought up in the AFD. One Business Week artilce was brought up that only happened to randomly mention him. No matter how many sockpuppets you make, you can't pretend what didn't happen did. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, all I can suggest you do is review the first AfD and the deletion review. Many reliable sources were brought up. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Now seems to pass WP:V and even WP:BIO - I suppose a keep is in order.WilyD 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Authors and defenders had plenty of time to address the concerns during this long discussion. `'mikka (t) 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • People who wanted to delete the article had just as much time to find reliable sources. Unlike them, people who wanted to keep the article have provided in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself several reliable sources. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A single notable event from his bio deserves nothing more than a sentence in section Online poker# Integrity and fairness: cheated, got caught, apologized (he may shove his apology you know where), lucky not got shot, so what? `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless article changes, I stand behind my former vote. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cheating is not sufficient reason for notability. Mukadderat 18:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we have a major, well-known player, who has been very successful at various forms of poker, being caught and publically outted for cheating. It's notable enough. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Non "major", not "very successful". not first caught. `'mikka (t) 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete will reconsider if sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Rohirok. ~ trialsanderrors 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V trumps all. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If it trumps all, then you can surely explain what's wrong with the many sources brought up in the AfD, deletion review, and now the article itself. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete again. Should never have been reopened. 2005 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I attempted to reliably source this. If I failed, please help by pointing out how. You might find benefit in the many sources discussed in the AfD and deletion review. Grindingteeth 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sourcing a triviality surely isn't the point. The subject is not notable as a poker player (and just to anticpate the obvious, his online accomplishements were due to cheating, which makes them non-poker accomplishments). He has one casino final table in a tournament, and isn't even old enough to play ring games in a major US casino poker room. The cheating incident is mildly interesting, but *he* is not, and merits no article. Two sentences about the incident in the poker cheating article are the appropriate place to mention the incident. 2005 22:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from removing my citations from the article while at the same time claiming I'm not providing any. Justin has done significantly better in poker than what you suggest, both in tournaments and in cash games. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The added source from bluff magazine fails to establish notability in my mind because the article is not primarily about the subject (Justin) but instead about the practice for which he was guilty. The second is an apology by him, thus also fails to establish notability. Unless there is a published article more directly about him, I think he is not sufficiently notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I am adding more sources for notability. Grindingteeth 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, added reliable, independant source all about Justin's poker career, including his cheating. Grindingteeth 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless better sources are used and a more complete article is revealed. ––FeldBum 23:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not notable in terms of poker accomplishments. SubSeven 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think WP:V has clearly been met and then some. The issue here is notability, and that's it. Seems to me that there are a fairly large number of poker players at about his level of success, but the cheating scandal thing has a lot of coverage. Plus, Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuice<sup>talk</sup> 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of the article isn't notable. Rray 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There is much longer way to establish notability and verifiability than just quote several online sources. To make references valid, the sources themselves must be proved to be notable. It is not my business to check whether the quoted website is not run by Bonomo's or Grindingteeth's boyfrend in his garage. `'mikka (t) 00:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Give me a break, Mikka. There's no such thing as a notable sources policy. And if you want to argue that sources are run by Bonomo or Gridinginteeth in some kind of bizarre conspiracy to delude Wikipedia into including an article, then it definitely IS your business to look into it; you're being dismissive of the hard work that another editor put in to trying to meet your own demands. Don't bite the newbies, but even if Grindingteeth wasn't new, you need to be more WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. But anyway, Here: Source 1 is from Bluff Magazine, which is a print magazine with a website. The magazine is a real magazine, with a decent Amazon sales rank. Source 2 is from CompatiblePoker.com, a website with a 200K Alexa rank; not bad, considering that it's a niche site that caters to Mac and Linux poker players trying to play online, yet doesn't offer games itself. They have bios of only 13 online pros, and the link is the one for Justin. Source 3 is a repost of Justin's apology from his website; it is hosted on a site about honesty in online tournaments. A quick websearch reveals other sources from msn.foxsports.com (yeah, I know it's Fox but *I* think it's still reliable), BusinessWeek online (before the cheating incident), another Bluff Magazine article; passing mention, but lists Justin as one of 6 "players to watch", and another Bluff Magazine; this time a profile of him. It's one thing to ask those supporting an article like this to do some work: it's another thing entirely to judge that work without even taking the time to look at it. Mangojuice^talk 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't pretend that the original editor acted in good faith, as that is very offensive to editors who do and have. Frankly I don't know what you think the above proves, or even why you mention it. There is no dispute a cheating incident involving this person took place, and is mentioned in places around the web. The point is whether this person merits an article, and given after all this time there are only two sentences that are far more appropriate to either the online poker article or the cheating at poker articles, that pretty obviously answers the question. The person is a footnote of a footnote. 2005 06:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Please read what I was responding to (Mikka's comment), and you'll see the point. And I don't know who you mean by the "original editor," because the article was edited by some dozen users before you nominated it for deletion. However, I certainly do assume good faith of the editors who try to improve the article in response to community demands. We're supposed to. Mangojuice^talk 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So now you insult the original editor by saying he wasn't acting in good faith by creating this article? Vivelequebeclibre 21:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking at it again, I have no idea why I said "original editor" since that wasn't what i meant. I was refering to the accounts used by the person posting here as Gridinginteeth. 2005 22:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with and to Online poker#Integrity and fairness. Subject is not notable enough to merit his own article, but the incident in which he is involved is quite notable within the context of online poker. Rohirok 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure why this is being nominated a second time. The deletion review already demonstrated that the article was notable, even though it is short. This is just going to discourage the original creator from making more fine edits. Vivelequebeclibre 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The DRV overturned the first AfD on procedural grounds, not on notability grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then why did people who wanted the article kept closed in the DRV talking about the article's content (namely, its notability)? Vivelequebeclibre 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mangojuice, meets my interpretation of the WP:BIO inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per mangojuice this poker player is notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo
• Merge/Delete per 2005 and others. This person is only notable according to the article for Cheating in poker, and it can be included within that article, rather than requiring an article of its own. Essexmutant 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, to me he is more known as "ZeeJustin" so I added that to the article. The story of him cheating is well known in the poker community and is often used as an example when describing cheating online. Definitly notable to most poker players. bbx 07:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and I question the assertion Definitely notable to most poker players since, if that were true, verifiability & sources would be out there in, so to speak, spades. Which it isn't. Eusebeus 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. So when did Wikipedia fall into the hands of these strict, authoritative, big-brother types who say "No no no!" to every minor article and edit, using the one-size-fits-all excuse of "Notability"? (No personal attacks notwithstanding, I point a big fat finger at User:2005 as the embodiment of this negative attitude). I, for one, envision Wikipedia to be a source of ALL knowledge, big or small. In fact, I am the creator of the Unity Young article, who is much less notable than Justin Bonomo, but who became (humorously) famous after ONE single bout on ESPN2. Does the Unity Young article serve the community of curious people who stop by Wikipedia to see if there's some info about her? YES! And I will fight anyone who wants to delete THAT article. Just like I will fight anyone who tries to delete this one here. Thus, I join with my fellow Wikipedians who wish to keep the Justin Bonomo article. We are not strict disciplinarians. We want free, open knowledge. Immense, vast, all-encompassing, searchable knowledge. I used to be a random user who searched Wikipedia for ANY and ALL knowledge. As long as there are curious people who come to Wikipedia to search for "Justin Bonomo", to see what Wikipedia has to say about his cheating, then that is notable enough for me (and most others). This article shall remain. Cloudreaver 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

These two points are so important, let me re-emphasize: SEARCHABILITY and CONTENT. If enough people SEARCH for it, Wikipedia should have it. And focus on increasing CONTENT, the more content the better. The more entries the better. 1,000,000,000,000 entries on Wikipedia, I say. Let the knowledge and information flow.Cloudreaver 21:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an impressive manifesto, but you don't make the rules. Here are Wikipedia Policies, a good place to start reading. SubSeven 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. :) But s/he is making a point that is well-established in policy: Wikipedia is not paper. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took up this cause and advanced this philosophy only after I myself was a victim of deletion. And it wasn't fun. It sucks. Suppression of information is a reprehensible action. So thanks to Mangojuice for showing me this page: Wikipedia is not paper. I will BE BOLD in adding content. And if all else fails, I will ignore all rules. - Cloudreaver 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo Bacor

Does not meet WP:BIO unless I mised something in his 16 Google hits. Cheers. I did not see anything verifiable. :) Dlohcierekim 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Creator of article: Djcmoney. If you click his name, it links to this article. Obviously, he just made an article about himself. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:GOOGLE, WP:BIO. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk _Contribs  15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; above. Notability not proven; fails Google test. - CobaltBlueTony 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Not verifiable. Rohirok 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.Victoriagirl 22:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

This article was speedy deleted under CSD G4 as a repost from this AfD. A DRV consensus determined this speedy was in error; the article here is substantially rewritten and sourced. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Geoffrey Spear 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or alternatively merge with punk house. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a potentially notable example of a punk house which is a subject, which, at this point, has no established criteria for notability. When a criteria is established for notability, then we can determine if this is a notable or non-notable article. However, in the meantime, lets KEEP the article and use it as a motivation to improve the punk house article, come to an agreement on the criteria for punk house notability, and overall build more interest and discussion concerning all punk rock related articles. The main venue for these discussions could be WikiProject Punk music, which though a really good beginning, needs much more attention until it is on par with related WikiProjects such as WikiProject hip hop. Thanx. Xsxex 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, "potentially notable" is not a valid keep criterion. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• CommentZoe, and others, by what criteria are you basing notability on? is there any chance that a punk house might require a different criteria for notability or have "we" at wikipedia already established criteria for all articles regardless of topic? Xsxex 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitravel and Delete. While I found no established consensus or precedent specifically concerning articles about pseudo-fraternal, counter-culture music venue/flophouses (I looked in WP:CORP WP:Music and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_shops), this does not preclude us from coming to consensus and setting new precedent here. I believe the subject of the article is not notable enough because it is just a local music venue. Maybe some acts that eventually made it big came through the venue, but the same can be said of many other venues, like Okayz Corral in Madison, Wisconsin, which hosted such bands as Nirvana and Barenaked Ladies. Are we going to have articles about all of these local venues just because some eventually famous bands once played there? True, some local venues like CBGB have become legendary on a national scale, but I see no evidence of this for TBP. The first source in the article, a local publication, even refers to TBP as just a place for "mid-grade" acts. If even the local media regard the venue as being of "mid-grade" importance, why should Wikipedia regard it as important enough to merit its own article? I think it ought to be moved to Wikitravel per precedent regarding touristic information Rohirok 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- ChrisB 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitravel and Delete per Rohirok. First, I'm somewhat amused by the armflapping triggered by the absence of notability standards. Notability, regardless of what class the subject falls into, is established by evidence that the subject has been noted. Despite the number of links in the article I'm not convinced that this place has. The Daily Iowan and Iowa State Daily links are passing mentions, others are just simply listings, and Newsbank does not provide anything either (two passing mentions). So absent a portrait of the place in a reliable source it should receive at best a passing mention in the punk house article, which itself needs some serious sourcing. I like the idea about inclusion into Wikitravel though, as long as it meets their guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. We can't transwiki to Wikitravel. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT Hey, I'm curretly trying to contact users from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music to get more opinions. Please keep the debate open for a few more days. Also I am interested in this Wikitravel idea. What does it entail? Do they have a listing for Iowa City already? Also since the venue is longer functioning, what would be the purpose of the article? Xsxex 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the debate closes around Sept 2 or 3. There a listing for Iowa City, yes, but I missed the fact that the house doesn't exist anymore. I guess Wikitravel doesn't make much sense then. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. DavidJJJ 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply nn. Eusebeus 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V. Most of the sources given are not reliable, and of those that could be considered reliable the coverage is trivial. Oldelpaso 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at very least Merge with punk house. I have no ideas what notability would say about this, but notability isn't even Wikipedia policy. The fact that many of the bands who played there are notable enough to have their own pages points to the institute itself being notable. The fact that it has survived in multiple incarnations is also interesting. JonnyChance 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability is an extension of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and is frequently used to decide AFD's. It's already merged into punk house anyway, so no need to ask for that. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Xsxex's notes. There's no established notability for punk houses. If various rail stations around Scotland deserve articles, then so do various Punk houses, which perform much the same function (albeit, for travelling punk kids). Canæn 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with punk house. Both articles are pretty sparse at present. If a load of new data on TBP becomes available it can always be separated out again. BTLizard 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Let's support the music. If anyone supports Punk Music, then I will too! We'll keep this posted LILVOKA 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - According to the article the building had notable guests. Now if this guests are indeed notable (Im clueless about punk) then I would be very much be leaning towards keep. Im suggesting this should be investigated. I do not believe that we should have a article on every building where something happens but this seems notable to me due to the fact that it appears the building was host to notable people. Also I would like to say if very little information is available about the building itself (which I would bet is true) then maybe this would be better off in a list since many lists host information when there is little available to make a fair length article on each list item. - Tutmosis 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Erotic Internet Models

Non helpful list, consists almost entirely of people without articles on Wikipedia Nuttah68 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete few (if any) of those listed would pass an AfD. Also covered by Wikipedia Is NOT a Web Guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly useless. Works better as a category. Rohirok 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a case where a category is infinitely better than a list. This list is useless, and the vast majority of the people on it have no articles about them, and wouldn't be notable enough per WP:BIO/WP:PORN BIO to warrant any. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution is a fact

POV fork, for a minor creationist slogan, and not a common search term. One of many such forks from author. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain in what way it is a POV fork? For example, has it been tagged for {pov} problems? Or does it emphasize or hide anything in a biased way? --Uncle Ed 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; besides, nobody would search for an article with this name. NawlinWiki 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete and merge referenced material into relevant articles. Vsmith 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect after merge is complete. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  Merge to where? FeloniousMonk 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yep, basic POV fork. Gazpacho 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's helpful that Ed has highlighted the lack of sources in that section of the controversy article, but why can't he add them there? Gazpacho 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into controversy article. •Jim62sch• 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the article can be deleted. A few sentances and points can find a home Creation-evolution controversy as footnotes.--Roland Deschain 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems a merge of relevant content into Creation-evolution controversy has been done. Vsmith 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Create a redirect, since merges end in redirects, then delete the redirect, fails WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No new infomation, useless pov fork. No suprise looking at who made the article.Rorrenig 07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Ed back to his old games —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)
• Delete - phrases are rarely encyclopaedic, and this one definitely isn't. Guettarda 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork ... Creation-evolution controversy is sufficient. --Dennette 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as another POV fork by the user Goatan 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: After it's deleted, I will check to ensure all the new info in this article was merged into at least one other article. I still don't think the distinction between "fact" and "theory" has been clarified. --Uncle Ed 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The consensus was to just delete. Punkmorten 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of furniture companies

This is redundant with the category Category:Furniture manufacturers. This was previously prodded, but the prod was removed without explanation. -- Where 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:Lists are not redundant with categories, they serve a different purpose - article is certainly a stub, but that's a terrible criterion for deletion. WilyD 16:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WillyD above - Blood red sandman 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not redundant with the category unless you don't care which country a firm is based in. Kappa 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WillyD. --Edgelord 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Stange Keep per WillyD. Wikipedia is passingly strange. But where else can you find this kind of data? Williamborg (Bill) 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD (ignore my edit summary). --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though I do not like the thought of the linkspam that may follow! --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iddea

author first created this article as pure advertspam for a company called IDDEA. Now recreated as less of an overt ad, but still seems spammy to me. NawlinWiki 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE ccwaters 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As it stands, this is an attempt to define IDDEA as a neologism. Unsourced, usage unverified. Also, this thing is so loaded down with business-babble buzzwords that it's just about impossible to discern any meaningful content from the article. Fan-1967 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable company/concept. Can't see how this would pass WP:CORP Ohconfucius 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bass River Yacht Club

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Would of relisted this but it's an obvious A7 nn-club. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film club

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete being unnotable is a terrible reason for deletion. Failing WP:V is an excellent one however, let's use that. WilyD 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WilyD -- Whpq 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V and WP:ORG as club at a single school. Dump the history and then recycle the title as a redirect to film society if that makes sense to others. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete as the page has been moved to DA-IICT film club which is relevant as the film club is run by the student community of the university of DA-IICT.
  • Comment: Merely changing the name of the article does not make it anymore legitimate per WP:V and WP:ORG, I think. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The page is relevant as the club is a part of the University. Specific reason for the deletion is demanded.

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icesalmon

Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Was planning on prod'ing this in a few days. There is competitive and professional video game playing, but the external links offer no evidence of this for this person. No verifiability to being that 'professional' or even paid for his work. The picture was recently deleted as license-less. Kevin_b_er 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - no other argument is worthwhile WilyD 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WilyD. -- Whpq 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No way to really verify any of the info in this article. (Failure of WP:V) --  Nishkid64  ^Talk _Contribs  17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (I think under G7, even though the deletion tag says vanity) by User:Alex Bakharev. ColourBurst 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WheelMedic

NN local auto detailing business. SPAM ccwaters 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Entry explains the business name "WheelMedic", information verifiable by third party. Can remove external links if needed. --Ebrady 16:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails to meet WP:CORP -- Whpq 16:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, fails WP:CORP. --  Nishkid64  ^Talk _Contribs  17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was not clear on WP:CORP, sorry to take your time -- Delete.--Ebrady 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)