Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dav boys school gopalapuram

Advertisement, fails NPOV, no assertion of notability. BoojiBoy 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I moved the page to it's correct title at DAV Boys Senior Secondary School. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN. Less of an advertisment than when I removed some of the severe NPOV failures. Viridae^Talk 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant advertisement/vanity, plus insufficient context to expand. This one is almost a CSD A1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per vanity. Michael 08:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if we can verify that the school exists, there's no verifiable information here to work with. It'd have to be started from scratch. Delete this one, and if someone writes a better one later, we can have this conversation again. Jacqui^★ 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it does seem to be verifiable. However, this article is vanity, and its claims are unverifiable with reliable sources. Start over from scratch if there is to be an article on it. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This one might potentially have verifiability problems; the only stuff on the web of interest that I could find was [10], and the only encyclopedia article one can write out of that would be "DAV Boys Senior Secondary School is a secondary school in Gopalapuram. Its principal is C. Sathish.", and I just added those two sentences to Gopalapuram. So, delete (I'm not convinced of the utility of redirecting because of the incorrect title and the fact that I didn't copy any information) unless references added before end of AfD, in which case keep. JYolkowski // talk 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If someone in the Schools Wikiproject wanted to create a factual and verifiable article under "DAV Boys Senior Secondary School" I would not object. BoojiBoy 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep iff reliable and verifiable sources for the article can be provided. Otherwise, we all know what must happen. Silensor 01:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jaranda, article text is not verifiable. Yamaguchi先生 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. High schools are notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor Miller

Non-notable article JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and Annie Gonzalez should have been combined nom-wise. -TrackerTV 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entire category of "JamXKids", apparently created just for these WP:VAIN and/or WP:SPAM jobs. --Pagana 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entire category. --Missmarple 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot of 'em. Speedy if need be. No notability other than membership in this group asserted. --DarkAudit 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Gonzalez

Non-notable article JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This and Chancellor Miller should have been combined nom-wise. -TrackerTV 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It would appear the whole troupe is non-notable and should have been given a combined AfD. Erechtheus 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entire category of "JamXKids", apparently created just for these WP:VAIN and/or WP:SPAM jobs. --Pagana 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as does not assert notability. Molerat 11:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article in question was speedy deleted. Srose (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Anne Parales

Non-notable article JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 04:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability not established. - Richardcavell 06:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Acyso 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entire category of "JamXKids", apparently created just for these WP:VAIN and/or WP:SPAM jobs. --Pagana 06:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 07:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. alphaChimp ^laudare 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Moesha

Next to no information; if it's notable it should at least be deleted until there's more information. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 04:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on the grounds that it seems to be common practice to have articles on individual episodes of TV shows. I don't know enough about this particular show to have a stronger opinion than that. BigHaz 04:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any useful content into a trivia bullet somewhere at the end of the main Moesha article. Poorly written fancruft like this is spreading through this project like a cancer. Moesha was a good show, but this is not good Wikipedia editing. --FuriousFreddy 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have tens of thousands of articles on individual episodes of tv shows. This one appears to have been nominated simply because it is a stub. Being a stub article is a reason for expanding an article, not deleting it. Why is this episode any less notable than any of the 100+ babylon 5 episodes, the 400 simpsons episodes, the hundreds of south park episodes, etc., which we have articles on? --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge that which is significant into the article on Moesha...Surely if someone thought it notable enough to make an article on, it is worthy of inclusion in her article. Michael 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical comment. It's either "delete" or it's "merge and redirect". Tyrenius 11:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The precedent is set: TV episodes are in, especially for notable series. I wouldn't be caught dead watching this one, but it's still notable. Needs expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is precedent to the contrary. Many editors have argued that individual soap opera episodes do not warrant individual articles, for example. Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Much as I hate it, it looks like we are stuck with TV episode wikis. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.There are already many television episodes on wikipedia.Other users can expand the article because it simply a stub.--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per precedent. It might be a good idea to rename this I Love Moesha (Moesha episode) as at first glance at the article title I thought it was a gush page or something. 23skidoo 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plainly consensus has long held that individual eps of popular shows are article-worthy. RGTraynor 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Individual episodes of television shows are notable if the rest of the world has deemed them so. The way that we can tell that the rest of the world deems them so is that individual episode guides have already been written and published by multiple sources independent of each show's creators/producers. "All episodes of type T television shows are notable" is just as flawed as any other "All X are notable" criterion. Notability is not a blanket. Wikipedia should reflect the subjects that the sources cover. Uncle G 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G, are you suggesting we look for reliable sources independent of the show's creators, or just any sources? I could be wrong, but it seems doubtful to me that many television episodes have really been covered in much depth by mainstream media. The multiple sources that one finds on simpsons, babylon 5, star trek voyager episodes, and so on, probably consist of fan web sites, blogs, personal web pages, and message board postings. (on the other hand, we can find reliable sources for the bare bones details of most any tv show episode) --Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should look for multiple non-trivial published works that are from sources independent of the subject. With your doubt will come surprise. Many of these shows that people want to argue "are notable enough for articles on individual episodes", but don't have a firm basis for doing so other than a feeling, actually do have independently written non-trivial works published about them. Babylon 5 has the famous Lurker's Guide. There are umpteen detailed episode guides for Simpsons, Star Trek, and so forth. If you are arguing that because the sources that you can readily locate are on the World Wide Web, we have no reliable sources that give episode guides, then I suggest that you attempt to counter that FUTON bias and look at books such as ISBN 1590920376, ISBN 0440223857, and ISBN 1590920392. Sources for "bare bones details", such as a broadcast date and so forth, do not satisfy the "non-trivial" part of the criterion, which is there precisely to ensure that individual articles aren't mere directory entries.

      So the question to be answered here is "Are there episode guides for Moesha?" Or is this article original research that is not based upon sources that have already analyzed this episode of this television series? Instead of arguing "All X are notable" (a deeply flawed argument), editors should be citing sources. Uncle G 15:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment: Oh, for pity's sake. Want a source? [11] - there, that's one. IMDB's got separate entries for every ep of every TV show now, and frankly, anyone deeming himself informed enough to vote on cinematic AfDs has to know about IMDB; half the media articles on Wikipedia link to it. As far as the general consensus that individual eps are notable, you could always lead (or join) a fight to change it. RGTraynor 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep TV is a cultural fact and a single episode can change pop culture for good. More details, please. -- Jdlow 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - wikipedia is excellent for this kind of information. - Richardcavell 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per existing precedent. I have never watched this television show, but it does appear to be a popular program and we have several other series of articles like this one. Yamaguchi先生 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Okay, I've added and cleanup the article a little.But like I said, there are many articles about episodes and this can/may be a stub. --Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budley

I suspect this is a hoax. Can't find any support on Google for the word or for this "legendary" person. eaolson 04:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't really see the reference to a person, but this is a clear Neologism, and thus fails WP:NEO. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to the author was removed by User:Colinky when he removed the prod [12] eaolson 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NEO, hasn't acieved any kind of cultural significance. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 08:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failure of WP:NEO. Michael 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable neologism. Molerat 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 08:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SimCity 5

All of this is speculation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless something verifiable can be found, like a press release from Maxis. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Antandrus. I'm also on Simtropolis, so I'm at a good position here. -TrackerTV 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless Maxis has confirmed this, it's failing WP:V. That's not to say that it won't be a good game...it's just that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 05:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, fan speculation is not notable enough for an article. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Acyso 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - click here for more information. --Bigtop 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:25 (UTC)
• Delete speculative Ace of Sevens 12:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alphachimp. Jacqui^★ 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be expaned though. Ric36 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain your keep. This is a discussion, and unsupported "votes' may be discounted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Stellmach 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep as The article for the Sims 2 Pets started out EXACTLY like this, was never considered for deletion, and thus is unfair to the creator of the article. --Moped 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'm sure you will be more than willing to supply documentation of the existence of this game? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've forgotten about the announcment made by EA in Germany confirming that a SimCity 5 is under production. --Moped 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • source? Ace of Sevens 20:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, haven't forgotten that the article claims that, but no source has been provided. The article also claims that Maxis denies the existence of such a game (but that also is unsourced). User:Zoe|(talk) 20:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • http://the-sims-downloads.com/article38.html%22 --Moped 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep Why take the page down? It's a bit of text. Who's to say there won't be a SimCity5 (if you think about it...SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, and SimCity 4. Is it just me or is there a pattern going on here...) Plus, what do we accomplish if we delete it? Save a few kb on the wiki servers? What if something does come out? Boom, it's up there.
  • The above was posted by User:205.238.250.102. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep ^ Ditto
  • The above was posted by User:4.227.98.79. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Our job isn't to provide up-to-the-minute updates on game rumours. Once reliable sources report on its production, it can have an article (if it happens). See crystal ball. --Wafulz 15:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If source for EA statement is found, then change my vote to Keep.
• Delete So far there is no verifiable evidence that the game has been announced. Also if it is announced in the future the article can easily be recreated then. --Edgelord 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean tatum

Non-notable singer/band PresN 05:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; likely vanity also --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. TheRingess 05:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - does not assert notability with respect to WP:MUSIC. Fabricationary 08:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability. Michael 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Molerat 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7. Author could do with looking at WP:MUSIC. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, so tagged, notability not asserted. NawlinWiki 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regain

non-notable software PresN 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. Michael 08:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This entry provides no claims or links to nobility. Even the product's web page lists no links to press or reviews. Google is nearly imposible to use here as the name is a generic word. With the name and java, I was getting hits about recovery from the tsunami.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NO Delete there are a lot of pages in category search engine, desktop search that could be deleted also, some examples are: X1_Desktop_Search or X1 Enterprise Client, ISYS Search Software, Docco, Copernic Desktop Search, Beagle (software), Blinkx, Google Desktop, KAT Desktop Search Environment, Windows Desktop Search, Spotlight (software). The new attempt regain (software) to overcome the above criticism is blocked again. So I have no chance to improve this article!!! You should ask social tags like del.icio.us or blinklist instead of google ...

It is a project started 2004 in Germany running on the website of one of the biggest european mercantile concerns. We try here to inform the international community about this well structured project. Some (up to now mostly german) reviews / references are:

nuke webmaster forum, place 12 among top 25 downloads of the month, good ratings 1, 2, link to (brief) reviews1, 2, 3,

Comment - I had a quick look at the articles you listed, I would support a deletion on those - many are very advertise-ish and also do not seem to have any verifiable sources. To your claim you have no chance to improve this article - you have at minimum 5 days (more like 7 or 8 with the backlog). In regards to using del.icio.us and blinklist, I had never heard of them before now, and in reviewing the links provided, I get the feel they are blog-y/discussion group type sites rather then sites that fall under WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, borderline advert. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 15:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil B. Gresham

I speedy-tagged this page, but the author put up the holdon tag. His reason is given in the talk page, as well as in the article now. I don't think that this page fits the guidelines whether or not the guy is real. PresN 06:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - this meets the criteria outlined in db-bio for a non-notable person. Fabricationary 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn "inexistant" person. One could argue that whoever decided that This Wikipedia page is created to provide a point of interest along a guided tour of the life of an inexistent person, part of the terms of an undergraduate course at SDSU, San Diego, CA. is in violation of WP:HOAX. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - violation of WP:BIO vanity project or non-existent subject 219.77.151.59 13:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. Sanction whoever assigned the project as promoting Wikpedia vandalism. --DarkAudit 14:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, so tagged, patent nonsense because of admitted hoax. NawlinWiki 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Comics Journal

Non-notable. Search on Google ("smash comics journal") produces 27 hits, including this Wikipedia page and copies of it. Acyso 06:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 08:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It has issued 8 editions in 4 years; along with google results says non-notable to me.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Uncle G.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder's Backdoor Pool

Who is Bob and why should I care about his pool? Newspaper98 06:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Fabricationary 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as deliberate misinformation. "Bob the Builder" is the (animated) star of a popular children's program. He constructs numerous structures, but it is unlikely any have been filled with "poo". Author is perhaps thinking of his/her own head. --Pagana 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishitetsu Busjack

ROM hack Newspaper98 06:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Michael 08:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ROM hack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Nightmare

Super Mario Brothers ROM hack. Not Notable. Newspaper98 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Michael 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable unless there's an super-significant importance to Mario community, which I doubt. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:23 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ROM hack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not my area, but we must have criteria for noteability for video game material, no? Wikipedia has criteria for everything else. Perhaps we should be citing the criteria in making this decision. Williamborg (Bill) 15:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We usually keep video games, but ROM hacks are not video games: they're vandalised (or otherwise altered) changes to the game code so that a game will appear differently using an emulator. They're a small subsection of emulation fandom, and not well known among gamers in general. They're not sold anywhere (obviously), and the video game press doesn't review or cover them. If you really want more proof that this is utterly non-notable, it gets 33 unique Google hits and many of them, oddly enough, are random uses unrelated to this ROM hack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a ROM hack. Anyone can make them, and there's no evidence this had a significant impact on any community. If anything, one could say it is non-notable software, but that would be a stretch. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It won the two Annual Hack Award Awards at Acmlm's,

http://board.acmlm.org/archive//thread.php?id=9217&ppp=20&page=0#180603 as seen here. And Acmlm's is pretty much the main community in the world of ROM-Hacking. Also, while it's agreed that the main site itself is not-notable, it's because not even I really link to it, it was just thrown in for completeness. Shadic 20:27, 31 July 2006.

• Delete Unfortunatly, inferior awards from something minor are not notable. If it were an award from something major then it would be considered notable. Sonicandtails 04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny, considering how it beat the "Hack of the Year" for the catagories in which the two of them competed against eachother. Also, show me a bigger rom-hacking community that has annual awards. Shadic 22:00, 31 July 2006.

• Delete. They don't exist. And that's the problem; the ROM hacking community just isn't big enough for an article like this to be notable. An article on this is just ridiculous. It's even a stub. To be fair, some ROM hacks are very much notable, and I wouldn't say to delete the Mario Adventure article, or anything. On the other hand, this is no Mario Adventure. Stylish Alastor the Stylish 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it may be a good hack (I haven't played it, so I don't know) but it's certainly not a popular one. As I stated in the Mario Adventure page, few hacks are famous enough to deserve their own page, and this isn't one. Maybe a page could be made for all SMB3 hacks instead. 64.231.193.187 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Acmlm's Annual Hack Awards are hardly the definitive awards for ROM hacks. This isn't notable enough for it's own page. --Drjayphd 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NN Thε Halo ^Θ 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article in question was speedily deleted as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Srose (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Donoho

It's just a baby. He's got no notability of his own. Reyk _YO! 06:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BigHaz 07:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Being born to a celebrity doesn't/shouldn't bestow notability on a person. Fabricationary 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:BIO. Michael 08:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finley Arthur Donoho where another article about him was deleted unanimously. --Metropolitan90 17:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete tag added to article with link to previous AfD.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Korea

Not notable, at least in English language media and sources. Better for the Korean WP. No hits on Google for (RS) news sources that I saw, just a few blog mentions. rootology 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. rootology 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:21 (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. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Pum

Not notable, unsourced. AfDing it as the creator took off my speedy tag (and on the redirect to the article). rootology 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rootology 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:21 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. The author should have placed a {{hangon}} tag on the page if they contested the speedy deletion, not remove the speedy tag. Molerat 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7, per nom. I've re-added the tag and warned the author with {{drmspeedy}} about removing speedy tags. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoomBox and Electrobe

Not notable, unsourced. No hits on Google. AfD as creator removed Speedy. rootology 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rootology 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. --Rogolo 09:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:20 (UTC)
• Comment Original author keeps removing the AfD notice. rootology 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete per nom. VoiceOfReason 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo

Not worthy of a separate article. I attempted to merge this content into the main article and Prod it, but the prod tag was removed and the content was removed from the main article (by different people) Xyzzyplugh 07:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom...pretty weird... Michael 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. If anyone cares, it's a really, really, REALLY bizarre anime show. rootology 08:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; useless stuff. Kalani ^[talk] 08:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fancruft. Danny Lilithborne 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for fancruft. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:20 (UTC)
• Delete as useless fancruft. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shave entry out of Wikipedia...I mean, delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about body parts

nn listcruft. I can't see any situation where it'd be very useful and it's unwieldy too. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed before on Apr 26, 2005, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about body parts, results was no consensus. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:19 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 10:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Body parts, while often hilarious, don't really require this kind of coverage. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 11:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. "Baby got back"? Please... -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about "Detachment Penis"? Heh. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RandyWang! (badum-cha!) –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And people wonder why I'm so emotionally disturbed. :) RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'd hesitate to consider this encyclopedic, though I'd like to thank the editors involved for the time they put into the article. Luna Santin 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure how I feel about the subject matter being encyclopedic or not. It certainly would help a person doing research on, say, sexuality in popular music. But I don't really feel strongly about it either way. The one thing I do think though -- those song quotes in the page have got to go! Jacqui^★ 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Short, attributed quotes are acceptable; you must identify the writer. As I understand it, what brings one into copyright violation space is quoting a significant percentage of the song. Or is it the "boarderline obscenity" of a couple of them that you're concerned about? Williamborg (Bill) 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if I didn't make myself clear: I'm not concerned about copyright, and Wikipedia is not censored for minors. But the quotes don't explain anything and sound merely frivolous; the tone isn't right for an encyclopedia. Jacqui^★ 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since the heart is a body part, this list could include thousands of songs. NawlinWiki 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NawlinWiki pretty much sums it up. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've Got Tears In My Ears (From Lyin' On My Back In My Bed While I Cry Over You) and agree we should Delete as unmaintainable listcruft. Fan-1967 16:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Allisonmontgomery69 23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That's just weird. per nom. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite the fact that I frequently search encyclopedias for lists of songs about body parts, I must reluctantly agree with the consensus to Delete. VoiceOfReason 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mailer Diablo 23:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Menshouse

nn local person, 49 unique google hits rootology 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rootology 09:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:19 (UTC)
• Weak Keep because she was Miss Kentucky in 1997.NawlinWiki 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: removed the "weak" from my vote because she has another reason for notability -- she sued[13] the pageant committee for failing to pay all of her scholarship money. I've added that to the article. NawlinWiki 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Weak artilce, but Miss Kentucky is a reasonable page with a number of links (including links to similar state sites). I've never seen a pageant and hope I never see one—but they are common, newsworthy and followed by many people worldwide. If we are going to delete all the Miss America & State pageants links that already exist out there (just follow the links from Miss Kentucky) we've got a tremendous amount of work ahead of us. That so many folks think it is encylopedic probably indicates there is some merit—guess the merit is in pop culture. Williamborg (Bill) 15:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I see nothing notable in a lawyer filing a lawsuit, nor in a pageant contestant per se ... I doubt, for instance, that anyone here could tell me who was last year's Miss Kentucky without looking it up. She had her fifteen minutes of fame, now she's done. RGTraynor 19:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as dual-winner of the Miss Kentucky and Miss Kentucky USA pageants and for the scholarship suit. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Definitely notable for both sourced media coverage and for winning both Miss Kentucky and Miss Kentucky USA. Allisonmontgomery69 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Winner of notable contest. Attic Owl 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BIO standards. Additionally, the only facts in the article that are verfied (as opposed to verifiable, which I haven't tested) are the name, the two wins, the total scholarship amount and the lawsuit. We really should remove all other facts from the article until sources are provided. GRBerry 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NawlinWiki; subject meets the standards for notability, if barely. VoiceOfReason 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per new sourcing... rootology (T) 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Yanksox 14:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quessenberry

Violation of WP:CSD, (A7, unremarkable person). Also, it is unsourced, formatted incorrectly, and contains grammatical errors.

• Delete unverifiable, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 10:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Jared Hunt July 30, 2006, 10:18 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Rob (Talk) 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Molerat 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete almost certainly an attack page, nobody would write about themselves like this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete this should have been deleted without vote. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as attack page. Tagged as such. --DarkAudit 13:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skasas paradigm

This is apparently something out of a work of fiction. If so, it's not notable enough to merit its own article. If not, it's nonsense. --Graham 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Molerat 11:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it has no context on which to base any further expansion on. Google produced 1 hit [14] which is from a Doctor Who episode summary.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's "Skasis Paradigm", and it's from School Reunion (Doctor Who). There's no source material for an encyclopaedia article on this subject. Delete. Uncle G 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect at the properly spelled Skasis Paradigm should stay, of course. Uncle G 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret avengers

Article dedicated to minor, unofficial detail in a recent comic book, so growth is highly doubtful. Does not differentiate between real world and fiction. Complete cruft. Chris Griswold 10:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Avengers

Agreed... delete as unsubstantiated fancruft. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No effort, no data, no real team. Delete. --Goldenboy 16:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. --Newt ΨΦ 00:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can be mentioned in the Avengers article, and it's not the name of a comic proper. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funhoney

Utter spam, not notable website. Viridae^Talk 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam. Rob (Talk) 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as already-deleted spam. I prodded this in July 25, it got deleted on July 30, and apparently got listed for AfD less than two hours later? I don't understand how this article has a 5-day page history if it has actually been deleted. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevermind, I got confused by the capitalization change. FunHoney with a capital H got deleted, but I didn't realize Funhoney was still here. Anyway, my vote is still to speedy it per the successful prod on FunHoney. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per duh, and I renew my plea for a speedy way of dealing with this kind of thing. VoiceOfReason 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awakened lands

Fails WP:WEB. NN online game Viridae^Talk 11:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, though a game about a homeless guy who works at a fast-food place is original, to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also WP is not a game-guide, or webhost for their advertising. Tychocat 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Peephole 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a nn band and copyvio. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InVersion (Band)

Appears to fail WP:BAND. (Note there is two exact copies of this page - the other one, InVersion, is marked for speedy as already existing) Viridae^Talk 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as no notability is asserted. Band also claims copyright of page. Molerat 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't notice that. Keen eyes you have :P Viridae^Talk 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete due to the copyright issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - as per above. Ac@osr 13:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January Malkus

This looks like a copyvio, especially since it came out perfect in one edit; but I can't find anything on the internet with a Google search of random phrases. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 157 ghits [15], incidental mention in 1 gnews hit: [16]. IMDB profile looks unattended to and lists only one filmography credit [17]... which itself has questionable notability [18]. I'm not convinced it passes WP:BIO at this time, though I'd like to thank the editor for their contributions. Luna Santin 11:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced claims. --DarkAudit 14:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shadow1 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete The article is now was marked copyvio. Don't know how voting on an AfD I started would look though... JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a copyright violation, even though the CSD tag has been removed. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The CSD for copyvio is only valid for the first 48 hours. --DarkAudit 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know; I was told to tag articles anyway if they were still copyvios. What happens now, they just stay? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • They should be tagged with the big 'POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION' sign, and blanked. --DarkAudit 19:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Yanksox. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brianna

Next to no information, and the article doesn't explain her notability outside this JammXKids club; or even in it for that matter. Information is also possibly copyvio. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 11:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Molerat 11:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelita bar

Was prodded as non-notable and under Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but prod was removed twice without comment or improvement. Also contains a lot of POV and what could be construed as original research. Also nominating:

• Hotel coahuila

as a connected article and for the same reasons (though that was only deprodded once). ~Matticus ^T_C 11:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Adverts for brothels! -- RHaworth 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. --Missmarple 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both as adverts. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontheball

Article seems to promote an online game. From the article: "As of June 2006, the game had over 1300 coaches [i.e. players], each with his own virtual club. The game is completely ficticious and players are randomly generated when clubs are created. Ontheball is in its 6th season and has been running since 25 November 2002. The game is currently still under development and continues to be badged as being Beta until the game is stable." These claims don't impress me very much; in addition; the game's website has no Alexa rank. My judgement is: no evidence of notability, delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, borderline advert. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Search of "ontheball"+MMOG gets three hits, no non-trivial third-party articles to verify notability. Tychocat 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God of War (band)

No vote, procedural nom. Article apparently a vanity for a demo band, but it does assert that they were signed to Universal Music Group. Whether this is true I cannot say. You decide!- CrazyRussian talk/email 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/godofwar states: Record Label: Looking.. Of course, maybe that's out of date. Per the article they've signed with a subsidiary of UMG, whether that makes any difference. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. They are most likely not signed to Universal. The article creator changed the record label from "looking/negotiating" to Universal after his article was deleted the 2nd (or 3rd?) time. The rest of the article is biased band-member advertising and ridiculous claims like "Over the next year, Nyx now renamed to Chambers of Nyx redefined and perfected a unique metal style all their own... etc." Prolog 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there is any concrete indication that they're signed with UMG, we need to keep the article (per WP:BAND). Barring that, however, the article should be deleted. alphaChimp ^laudare 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless and until the UMG connection can be verified. Jacqui^★ 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of claim that they're signed to Universal. Even if they are signed, they have not yet released an album on said label, and thus appear to fail WP:BAND at this time. If the claim that they are signed to Universal is false, the claim may have been made because Universal bought the rights to the God of War video game for purposes of making a movie [19] - maybe it was thought that we wouldn't look closely at our Google searches and believe the news was about the band instead? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCF Virtual

A non-notable web advertising company. I don't think it meets WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Created by Stevepcf (talk · contribs), who also created Aloha Shoyu Company and is making advertisment changes to Soy sauce. Middenface 13:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not free advertising. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I looked, and I can't even find any non-trivial news coverage of the company. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The creator tried to tone down the advertising content after the deletion request was posted, but it's still just an ad. GMcGath 23:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advert for an adverting company. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wmahan. 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--SB | T 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q Ashfaq Ahmad

It doesn't appear to me that, outside of a small local community, this individual bears the noteworthiness for a wiki. The data hasn't been updated since April 2006, the links are broken, and there are no wikis for the local organizations this guy is identified with. Delete. -- Dyslexic agnostic 13:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity article. Not notable outside the muslim community in sydney. Has not won any community service award in Australia. Very few google hits. --Ageo020 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tails Doll Curse

A completely unverifiable "curse" which allegedly applies to one character in one game on one platform. Original research and almost certainly complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, especially the bollocks part Lurker ^talk 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nearly patent nonsense. Clearly complete bollocks. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely unfounded. Hyper Anthony 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Torch it, if only for the fact it's the lamest urban legend I think anybody could bare to drudge up. And, er, yeah. That whole part where it's completely made up by a bored Sonic fan probably doesn't help it's case any. BlazeHedgehog 20:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Shoyu Company

A non-notable local soy sauce company, fails WP:CORP. Submitter Stevepcf (talk · contribs) also created an article for web advertising agency PCF Virtual, also on AfD, and has been heavily promoting this article on soy sauce. Middenface 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as partial copyvio from [20], although some wording has been changed. Tagged as such. —Whomp t/c 13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The submitter has identified himself as the webmaster of that company. -- Middenface 13:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. Still, delete as a blatent advertisement. —Whomp t/c 13:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to represent a hawaiian soy sauce.. this is legit as it gets.. sorry if it seemed to ad heavy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevepcf (talk • contribs) .

honestly Im a noob.. please try to at least post anything appropriate from what i subhmitted.. I didnt even see the talk area till just now.. thanks and sorry for disturbance.. was just trying to learn system.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevepcf (talk • contribs) .

• Delete. I'm sorry, we always try to welcome newbies but you must understand that Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry that your first edits had this outcome. Go make a splash in the world, and come back and we'll celebrate you :) Jacqui^★ 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ad. GMcGath 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting school

Seems to be an ad for a blog, combined with copyvio text from [21]. --Staecker 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable blog, advertising. *drew 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, especially because of the text lifted from CMU's website, as noted above. This article is also ill-focused: is it talking about accounting schools in general or one specific online school? —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Maybe this is salvageable after the copyrighted info is removed. Medical school has an article, why not Accounting school? Medtopic 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Medical school" is the common term for the post-baccalaureate education that aspiring doctors receive. "Accounting school" is not such a parallel term, at least not in the States. I will concede that a redirect, as Whpq describes below, could be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at least redirect as the topic is probably better off covered in Accountancy qualifications and regulation. -- Whpq
• Delete per nom --Wafulz 14:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Linux

POV; not encyclopedic (well, not very). Not much really has to be said about this article. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe it is a good thing to inform Windows- and Linux-users of the incompabilities and downsides of each operating systems in order to equalize the percentage of use. Currently a big majority hold to Microsoft's operating system. --Karmus 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You're never going to get a NPOV on this and still have it be a quality article. Some paragraphs are entirely "Windows users claim x. Linux users claim y. Windows users counter-claim z.", which doesn't make for good reading or good information. Anyone can claim anything and post it on a website, that doesn't merit its inclusion in an article. Particularely since most of the claims are from nebulous 'linux users' or 'windows users', which are hardly good sources. If the article was whittled down so that all these claims were of the form "<reputable independantly funded study> claims x" then it would be more interesting and informative than reading every gripe that every linux or windows user has ever had with the other OS.

Bongle 13:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Weird bug - it's redlinked in the page but this page exists and all :/ –127.0.0.1 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - no, it'll never be fully NPOV, but it has lots of references, crosslinks, etc, that show it has a lot of potential to mature. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Comparison of operating systems per Karnesky (below). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It certainly does have the potential to mature and become more NPOV. People do want to read a NPOV article on this. --Bduke 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By definition, it cannot be NPOV, ever. –127.0.0.1 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's far too broad of a subject to be able to cover with the kind of standards expected of Wikipedia articles. For those looking to keep this article, please review Wikipedia:The perfect article and think about how a single article comparing -all- of Microsoft Windows (and I mean *everything*, not just Windows XP's shell and web browser) to -all- of Linux could possibly be written. Have a look at www.xvsxp.com, which attempts to do a fairly balanced comparasin of OS X Tiger (one version of OS X) and Windows XP (one version of Microsoft Windows); the site is quite large, certainly much larger than any Wikipedia article we've got, and yet that site aims to be far less all-encompassing than "Windows" vs. "Linux". They didn't even try to address "server" issues... and imagine how much more complex this will become once Windows Vista comes out... No, this kind of article really needs to go. If someone wants to start more focused articles comparing a specific aspect of each operating system (such as the user interface, or included applications), then I would support that. -/- Warren 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't see a problem with the title or concept. Deet 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article doesn't have to be comprehensive in order to exist; it just has to be well-sourced and verifiable, which it is. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if someone actually wants to know the difference between Linux and Windows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01001 (talk • contribs)

• Then they'll probably want a page that isn't just a rehash of every "Micro$haft vs Open source" forum flamewar ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongle (talk • contribs)
• Comment. Should there also be articles comparing to other operating systems, such as those used on Macs? Would it be possible to create one article for a comparison between all operating systems that has headings such as "Kernel," "User friendliness," "Market Share," etc? --Wafulz 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Comparison of operating systems. This article is biased & has WP:OR and WP:V problems. However, it does have some useful info and references which the broader comparison lacks. --Karnesky 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anything there should be a comparison of open source as opposed to proprietary systems. As it is, GNU/Linux is the most popular open source and Microsoft is the most popular proprietary system, so the page is probably just about right at least as far as needing to there.01001 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the main "comparisions" is ok for tabulation, but merging all would make it way too big. The answer to NPOV in this case is to put both POVs, the pros and cons of each. Ace of Risk 14:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there doesnt seem to be anything wrong with the article and its staying at a neutral point of view --Alegoo92 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems pretty encyclopædic to me. No reason why this should be deleted. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hotel End

This article should be deleted as it is about a rather minor website, and was created by the administrator of said website *Delete NJW494 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - totally NN. Not quite speedy criteria, but next time you may want to consider prod instead - I'm not imagining much discussion on this AfD. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment prod was used, but was removed (without any other edits) by the original author of the piece, hence I listed the article on here. NJW494 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies, just trying to 'spread the word' ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perfectly alright mate, you were right in assuming that I'm new to all this stuff though! NJW494 15:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --MCB 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints

A non-notable church study group. Not an actual "church" as suggested in the title. IceCreamAntisocial 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - more of a NN sect in my eyes, but NN is the key. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the hell out of this one. There is only ONE valid Google hit [22] and that's to a Wikipedia category referencing LDS denominations. There's no Google ref to "James Taylor Smith" either for anyone in Utah. This has to be the all-time AfD record for non-notability. RGTraynor 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RGTraynor. NawlinWiki 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -Royalguard11^Talk 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment. Are we sure it's not a church? The article said it was founded by a study group, not that it is a study group. Deet 11:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I doubt it's an active church, simply because a Google search would have pulled up some manner of street address, but in the end it's irrelevant. Church, breakaway, study group, whatever, this is supremely non-notable. RGTraynor 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not clear, but I believe Deet is right in that this is a breakaway from the LDS church. But with no sources to back this up, it appears to be ratehr minor, and for all we know consists of 5 people. -- Whpq 17:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RGTraynor. Deet 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges in Singapore

WP is not an arbitrary list of pages that do not exist.

• Delete as nom. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists in wikipedia need not be composed only of items each with their own articles.--Huaiwei 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We could use more coverage of Singapore-related topics (per WP:CSB), and the red links on the list will encourage future expansion. I would prefer a restriction to bridges that are notable in some fashion, however. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you bring up a very good point - how many of these non-existent links will then be up for AfD for being non-notable bridges? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And how many of these bridges are non-notable according to your knowledge? While the flyovers are usually non-notable, practically every bridge spanning the Singapore River are considered architectural heritage icons locally. Should all of these be deleted just because of non-notable flyovers? As for the flyovers, precisely they are non-notable, that a list is the most viable location to talk about them collectively. You dont just flag lists for deletion for a whole lot of red links. Remove those links if you must instead of going the easy way out.--Huaiwei 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems completely pointless and not notable. Not to mention I have never seen so many red links in an article, and those pages are not likely to ever be created. xompanthy 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Folks, this violates black-letter policy here. "Wikipedia articles are not ... mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I see no article here; there is no basis whatsoever for voting to keep on this one. RGTraynor 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Huaiwei's and Hit bull, win steak's comments. Allisonmontgomery69 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also no notability stated, implied, or even attempted. Tychocat 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and turn it into a category. If the bridge is of sufficient note to have an article, it can be included via category. If it isn't, then it doesn't show up in the category. -- Whpq 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The said category already exists, and no, it dosent tell you which river they span, nor what type of bridge they are unless you are proposing subcategories for all variations.--Huaiwei 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why is this detail needed? If one goes to the individual articles, all of the information about which river, and structure type would be available. If the number of bridges in Singapore are so numerous as to need subcategories, then by all means go ahead and create them. -- Whpq 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. And why should that detail be unrequired? What else does a bridge do? Sure, anyone can go to specific pages for those details, but you are assuming wikipedia cannot do summarisation for cross-comparison so much so that all details can only appear in their respective articles? I see lots of assumptions there on expected user behavior and needs, and I am not so sure if I am agreeable to all. So, all users would prefer going to every single article in Category:Bridges in Norway to find out their Norwegian names, instead of seeing them all in List of bridges in Norway? Or visit all articles in Category:Bridges in Montreal just to know which rivers they span, instead of in List of bridges in Montreal?--Huaiwei 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The flyovers are probably pushing it, but the bridges over rivers are certainly all "notable" enough. This should be kept, just like list of crossings of the Ohio River and other similar articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this "structured list to assist with the organisation of articles". Kappa 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I would normally give it the benefit of the doubt, I do notice this particular editor has more often than not voted "delete" on Singapore-related RFDs with no better explanation than "per nom".--Huaiwei 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do not see how the fact that this editor thinks the nominator's reasoning is sound calls this editor into question. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; useful list; many such lists exist in WP. --Vsion 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we have such lists like List of bridges in the United Kingdom and List of bridges in Australia, this is an encyclopedic list, the bridges are notable and articles will be written. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the list appears to be encyclopedic, and I'm sure many of the bridges are notable. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Pigg

Fails WP:BIO, WP:BAND - this article has been speedied at least once already, so here it is. Rklawton 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, speedy if nom withdrawn. Major label artist, multiple television appearences, multiple pieces of non-trivial media coverage... is it just that the nominator hasn't heard of the subject? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  He's got just one album that's been out less than a week. Where's the notability in that? Not everything RCA produces is notable, and the requirement for inclusion here is notability first. Rklawton 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  He already has mulitple pieces of non-trivial media coverage. He is making multiple television appearences on major networks this week. There are lots of music acts on Wikipedia deemed "notable" that do not have the same coverage. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  He's getting the coverage due to RCA's marketing machine. Let's wait to see if this is all flash or if he's got any substance. In the mean time, we don't create articles based on speculation. Rklawton 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with PT and think it's notable. Artist had some media coverage, and it looks like it's probably going to continue. xompanthy 18:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We shouldn't look at what might happen. We should look only at what is verifiable. Rklawton 19:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What part of WP:BAND do any of you claim this fellow fulfills? Maybe two weeks from now he might ... and maybe he won't at that. In any event, he does not now fulfill any, and Wikipedia still isn't a crystal ball. RGTraynor 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has gone on a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. He's on All Music Guide, billboard.com, vh1.com, and 418 unique Google hits ain't shabby, either. This isn't my first music-related AfD, boys. Don't be willfully ignorant when the information is right in front of you. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the second time you've accused someone of being ignorant in the Pigg AfD. That's a violation of WP:CIVIL and I ask you to stop immediately. Rklawton 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As that is irrelvant to the discussion about this topic, please refer to our respective talk pages for the continuation of any discussion on the subject of my civility, your ignorance, or the lack thereof of either. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: really? What national concert tour would that be, now, and in what sources precisely would that be reported? Whether this is your first music-related AfD or not isn't the issue -- although it isn't "my" first one either, to the degree that I can claim it to be "mine." It's whether the claims are verifiable. Mind doing so? RGTraynor 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's in this AfD and the article, too. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The VH1 and Billboard coverage are both reprints of Allmusic material, but he's on their radar, at least. Worst case, some researcher for VH1 finds this in 15 years for a "Where are they now" special. :) —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Brand new artist isn't notable enough. Allisonmontgomery69 23:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's going to be on Late Night with Conan O'Brien in two nights, will be on Last Call with Carson Daly next month, had a song on Grey's Anatomy [23], and Radio & Records shows nationwide airplay [24]. That should be enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria (barely). —Stormie 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment read the article. Then read WP:MUSIC and tell us exactly which point he satisfies. Rklawton 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the adds + Conan + Grey's Anatomy easily do it. Since you're pressing me, a look at his website shows even more television appearances, he's doing a radio tour currently, and multiple media mentions (Teen Vogue, Glamour, Perfoming Songwriter). Easily meets the guideline, a guideline which states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  And absolutely none of that is in the article. Rklawton 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It is now. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comments: (1) Isn't that really just Ashton Kutcher? (2) Damn it pisses me off that these stupid mega lables can make somebody notable, but it is pretty obvious that if he doesn't meek criteria now, he will pretty soon--and that isn't just crystal-balling Joelmills has cited it all above. no vote -MrFizyx 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]