Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 14

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by JesseW (A3/A7). — TheKMan^talk 06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Cookin'

Appears to be a fragment of the Frank Klepacki page (a page which may have its own notability issues.) Artw 00:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They only put out two CDs? Invitatious 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Shizane 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, I don't see notability asserted anywhere. Aplomado ^talk 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Aplomado Adambiswanger1 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Frank Klepacki may be notable (maybe), but this band sure isn't. Nothing on Allmusic except a blues band with the same name. --Joelmills 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Frank Klepacki is notable (have a look at the number of his releases (the list on his Wiki page is not exhaustive), look at how many millions of people have listened to his music through the games he has worked on & the fact that the music is so good that they (Westwood) decided to release the actual music on separate CD's as well as being in the games, most notably Command and Conquer), however, this fragment is already replicated on his page and should be DELETED . Librarianofages 03:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Starionwolf 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{db-band}} for this band, as no assertion of notability made in article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Norrim Lackey

Prodded, then the page was blanked, so a contested prod. Seemingly a hoax; the phrase "Henry Walter Noble" gets no google hits, and Norrim Lackey without quotes also gets no g-hits. Probably vanity if not a hoax. Morgan Wick 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Stephen Lackey" (in quotes) gets 821 g-hits, but the top result is on imdb. The article says he's an investor. Invitatious 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 821 g-hits is still not enough for notability by Wikipedia my standards. Morgan Wick 00:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 70 google hits is enough to get you a "keep" if you've created a flash animation, believe it or not. - Motor (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as almost certainly a hoax. Among other things, both the company ("Tapo's Industry") and the organisation he supposedly founded ("Center for Responsible Faith") get zero Google hits apiece. We get these "I'm a really rich guy" articles now and then, and I always wonder exactly what the point of them is. Possibly some sort of scam, or a way to pick up chicks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete certain hoax. "Stephen Norrim Lackey", "Henry Walter Noble", and "Tapo's Industry" get zero Google hits. Aplomado ^talk 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. Andrew beat me to it for the most part and only unlikely problems are left instead of almost impossible ones. His great grandfather died when he was about 20, but he was supposedly a junior business partner. For how long, one or two years? Without going to business school or college? Also, since the family is not very famous and is supposedly so secretive, it is unlikely that there would be multiple kidnapping attempts. -- Kjkolb 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax, per the nom, Andrew and Kjkolb. -- Vary | Talk 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vary. --Starionwolf 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:HOAX. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 03:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 04:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:HOAX. --Charlesknight 08:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article states that he is also known as "S. Norrim Lackey". A google for "Norrim Lackey" gets no hits at all. Henry Walter Noble gets nothing useful, and neither does "tapo industry". It smells like hoax, so supply some reliable references for it or it gets a hoax/delete from me. - Motor (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to questions about whether this is even true or verifiable, I'm detecting racist overtones in it. If any of the information can be verified as true, then I may change my mind to keep, but right now, delete. ONUnicorn 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You people actually care about this stuff? You are wayyyy too serious!! But it's funny reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.199.18 (talk • contribs)
• And by the way, google and the internet do not have all the information in the friggin world. I sit and read comments on the deletion pages when I am bored at work, and the people who write this stuff are amazing. "Only 5 million g-hits...certainly not enough to verify that 'tissue' wipes a butt." Let's call for an immediate deletion my friends! LOL. It's funny and it gets me through my work day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.199.18 (talk • contribs)
• Delete hoax. skorpion 10:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like a clear cut case of WP:HOAX. --Auger Martel 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Walker

Delete. This is an article about a very obscure UFO incident. The sources cited are weak, and most (or all) of the ones I can find seem to point back to some Discovery channel "documentary" of dubious reliability. The article itself consists of images ripped off of one website which themselves seem likely to have improper copyright status, and a large chunk of text quoted directly from the documentary. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but it could use some work. This seems to be a real phenomenon. [1]. Not that the theory isn't ridiculous, but it seems to have attracted quite a bit of attention. It seems to have had a fiction book written about it also [2] Adambiswanger1 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs work, but it's not hopeless and it seems notable. Since the text that came from the documentary is a direct quote, and is used as such, I'm not sure it counts as copyvio. The images appear to have come from Power of the Mind magazine, and not directly from the documentary. The uploader included a link on one of the two pages, and also tagged them as Copyrighted free use. Possibly the uploader should be contacted to confirm that this is the case? -- Vary | Talk 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How notable is it really? The sources all point to the Discovery documentary, and not one claims to have any original information or have any information "from the horse's mouth". The first Google page only has a couple results that are actually related to the UFO, with the others talking about fast walking people or such. Generally, popular or well-known conspiracy or UFO theories with such distinct names have the first pages of Google tied up. I also don't see any real discussion occuring over this anywhere to make it any more notable than the thousands of other UFO encounters that don't have their own articles. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it's an extremely common phrase, I don't think the fact that there are unrelated links on the first page of search results is enough on its own to condemn the article. For a source other than the Discovery segment, see the one in my comment below, an article in Omni from 1994. It's on UFO sightings in the 1980's, and it spends a good chunk of time on the 1984 'fast walker'.
      • Arr, the other results on the first page that use "fast walker" aren't exactly popular webpages themselves. Anyways, with the Omni one we now have two sources. Not much. Any other sign of notability? As I said, there are hundreds of other UFO encounters out there with as much evidence and notability as this one. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without any references cited, it looks like complete bunk. But why not - nobody on Wikipedia bothers with references and most of the information in Wiki pages comes from google. Its like the old telephone game. First someone puts up a web page, then google catagorizes it, then it is copied into Wikipedia. Any original sources are long gone. Are we just supposed to assume this is true? george 02:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't really have time to work on this article myself right now, but if anyone's interested in putting in some time, I found an article on LookSmart Find Articles that talks quite a bit about this sighting. [3] It's from the August 1994 issue of Omni. Apparently, 'Fast Walker' is or at one time was the official military code for an unidentified object that might be a missle. -- Vary | Talk 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Omni magazine article makes this more notable/verifiable than loads of other things we have articles on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Omni got to the point at one time where they would accept just about any story. It was like if the Weekly World News took itself seriously. Many UFO and paranormal stories went through there, but nothing is outstanding about this one in particular (especially as it wasn't even given a full article). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the single website cited does not even remotely meet WP:RS, which leaves this one article in Omni, which cites one single "researcher" as pushing this theory. If this article is kept, it will basically need rewriting from the ground up to reflect the real facts, which are that (1) there is no evidence whatsoever that this event ever occurred (the "evidence" is a single supposedly leaked printout), and (2) if it did occur, as the Omni article points out, it is trivially explained as an SR-71 flight. Really, this might merit a paragraph in a general article on UFO conspiracy theories, but that's about the limit.
  And please, stop using the "this is more notable than other stuff we have articles on" line. We should be striving to ensure that Wikipedia's contents are of a consistently high standard. — Haeleth Talk 11:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The website is not a reliable source. The article does not come close to meeting WP:V. I am now going to make my personal evaluation of whether this is a notable alleged UFO incident. I am going to do two things. I am going to search Google Books and I am going to search the New York Times via my public library's database. If it is mentioned in either I will vote to keep. I do not know yet what the results. will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Your search - "fast walker" ufo - did not match any documents. Proquest search of full text of New York Times, 1851-present to: "Searching for ("fast walker") AND (ufo) did not find any documents."[reply]
• Delete. Not an important alleged UFO incident even if it were to be properly sourced. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if expanded --Xyrael T 14:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Vary B.ellis 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems that, while it's not as well known as, say, the Roswell incident, it is fairly unique in that the supposed UFO was picked up by a satillite, a machine, not eye-witnesses. It still could have been anything, wasn't necessarily a alien spacecraft, but it is different than other UFO "sightings" and therefore merits a mention.
• Keep. WP is not paper, and it's exactly for articles like these that people come here. Notable enough. — 199 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not paper, nor is it for everything. NN incident without verification or references. per nom, copyvio. Tychocat 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Haeleth and Dbpsmith. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Master

Not notable - hasn't even been released yet according to template on page. Reads like an advertisement. Morgan Wick 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the gamecruft! A completely, utterly non-notable mod. "Zombie Master"+"Half-Life 2" gets less than 70 unique Google hits. The thing hasn't even been released yet- in fact, it's in alpha, which means it isn't even close to release! The article is also an advertisement, of course. -- Kicking222 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete since there's no notability asserted, besides the fact the mod hasn't even been released yet. Gotta love that the design team is made up of forum-ish names like "qckbeam" and "Pi|Mu|Rho." Aplomado ^talk 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Forum-ish names? Names like Aplomado you mean? This isn't the internet or anything where anonymity is allowed. Has less than 70 unique Google hits? I didn't know that was wiki's standard for deleting things now. If you actually looked at their page you would see they have done lots of work and I don't think they should be repayed by wiki deleting their article because someone didn't think the mod was popular enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1dra (talk • contribs)
  • Well, actually that is Wikipedia's standard for deleting things. Give me one good reason why this mod is notable, and I'll reconsider my vote. Aplomado ^talk 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - aim for the brain! Artw 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn mod. -- Vary | Talk 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable modification. --Starionwolf 03:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it gets released then perhaps it can have an article--Brother William 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. GassyGuy 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, etc... Please also see No more room in hell. Wickethewok 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable software WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, game mods such as this are not notable. Jammo (SM247) 04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. *drew 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we didn't ask for, or condone this article. Make it go away. --PiMuRho 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hell, it's crazy, I'm developing it, and I'm voting for a deletion of this. An overzealous fan seems to have transposed stuff from our description and created an article out of it. If we ever became notable, and it was worth writing about, then I'd be happy to let a page exist. So, yeah, deletable under non-notable, and it's also kinda crufty and not all that encyclopaedic. --Angry Lawyer 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I don't know if it's possible to get any more of a confirmation of non-notability than a developer of the program saying such. fuzzy510 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yeah, I'm a friend of Lawyer's and I edited it a little from what it was - which was totally surreal - but we were debating what to do with it. As it happened you lovely people did the job. :D. --Sulkdodds 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. It's a game mod... there are extraordinary situations in which one of these things becomes worthy of note in an encylopedia, but this isn't it. - Motor (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable game mod, hasn't even been released. Note the k3wl list of creator d00d handles. JIP | Talk 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou mean like all the k3wl d00d handles on this very page? --PiMuRho 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bare in mind that we "k3wl creator d00ds" didn't create this page, therefore didn't affix our names to it, and we same "d00ds" are supporting the deletion of this article. So yeah, be a little nicer. --Angry Lawyer 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again after authors transferring content to Valve Developer Community wiki. --HiddenInPlainSight 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but whilst I'm on the side of deletion for this, what makes this any more or less notable than any other modification in the community, considering it has had magazine coverage, interviews and working demonstrations to the public? Mods like No More Room in Hell and Black Mesa Source are certainly no more notable than Zombie Master is. --86.128.14.79 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Mesa: Source was kept (even over my objections), due to it actually nearing finished state and it was also picking up mentions from (dead-tree) game press and commendations from Valve, IIRC, which, in my book, certainly makes it a bit more notable than a mod that describes itself as "alpha". And it was actually deleted before on exact same grounds that this mod is being considered for deletion for... Does Zombie Master get this sort of press yet? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, considering it has apparently made no or little progress since then, do you think that might be perhaps a lie on the behalf of those might want to keep it in Wikipedia? Secondly, Alpha fits the bill very nicely for how BMS was presenting itself to you guys. In addition, whilst Zombie Master hasn't been mentioned by Valve, I don't really think that's overly relevant, since that seems to be semi-linked to the amount of screenshots of rendered models a team can produce. A German magazine has picked up on Zombie Master and wrote a little piece on it with an accompanying screenshot. So er, what's the difference between the two? --86.128.14.79 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think having media mentions etc. is a be-all, end-all reason to keep; a mod that's released and gets media mentions is much better than a mod that's not. Media mentions would be a "mitigating circumstance". =) BM:S's vote ended with No Consensus. If someone renominated that thing, say, 6 months after the previous AfD, and stressed hard enough that there's not been much progress, you'd probably soon see a smouldering crater where an article used to be. At best, it'd be a case for merge. WP can be lenient what comes to promises, but not exactly lenient what comes to late promises. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, so ultimately this comes down to the owner of the thing they want to promote wanting or not wanting their article enough to buy themselves some more time? Interesting, but I think this is a pretty good sign of how WP has some weird beauracracy issues. Anyway, delete this, buy colour me not too happy that other, similarly worthy modifications are allowed to stay based on very little else other than some rather biased words. --86.128.14.79 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definately not notable Feath 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete wd --Xyrael T 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete vaporware/NN B.ellis 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I agree with the deletion - vaporware? Hardly. --PiMuRho 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreleased = nope, not yet worthy of an article of its own, sorry. Welcome back if it's actually ever released for real. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This looks pretty unanimous (thankfully). How long until this page is sent into oblivion? And should I go and find all the pages that link to this soon-nonexistant page and remove the linkage? Because otherwise they'll be pointing at a "create this page" bit, and it'll probably end up getting recreated in an even cruftier form. --193.114.208.194 07:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, wasn't logged in... --Angry Lawyer 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion is up for 5 days after it's opened; some time after that (minutes, hours, days, probably not weeks though =), an admin will come along, close the discussion and make a judgment on what to do based on it. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. As for what links here, that's pretty easy, see here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable mod. Falls well beyond requirements that are needed for own article.--Auger Martel 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like it will be notable if it's ever released, but right now, not so much. Ace of Sevens 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily Deleted This article has been speedily flurgled as nonsense.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flergle

Neologism, word made up in school one day. -- Koffieyahoo 00:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, doesn't even have a real definition. Morgan Wick 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Wow... Not only a neologism, it doesn't have a definition! Its as close to nonsense as you can with an attempted neologism. Kevin_b_er 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I was on the fence between normal and speedy, but Kevin's vote tipped the scales. -- Kicking222 01:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and so tagged. NawlinWiki 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This article is doomed for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 01:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion - I agree that it's doomed for deletion but I don't see that it's patent nonsense. - Richardcavell 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's pretty stupid, but I don't think that it counts as patent nonsense because it is not incoherent. -- Kjkolb 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite posibility that it doesn't count as patent nonsense. Artw 02:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Vary | Talk 02:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Someone's pathetic dorm room joke probably wasn't even notable to them. References anyone? I thought not. george 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Words You Just Made Up and Didn't Even Bother to Think of a Definition For. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 03:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please Flergel. --Starionwolf 03:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only no definition but no references! --Brother William 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this neologism. --Coredesat 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetab Solutions Holding

Spam page for non-notable web development company Artw 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obvious spam. A grand total of 2 Ghits. Aplomado ^talk 01:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Slam Dunk Delete I didn't know Wikipedia was accepting advertising? This article brought to you by... george 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn company. Not only does it only have two google hits, as Aplomada said, they're both to a spanish-language employment site, where the company is listed, but does not currently have any positions available. -- Vary | Talk 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 03:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above if no solutions are found. --Starionwolf 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an advert for a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertisement, spam. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 04:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, is this some kind of hoax or fly-by-night setup? I was preparing to try to save this article as it claimed to have Fortune 500 companies in its clientele, then I went to [4] and saw that they repeated the same claim there without listing any of their clients' names, which makes me strongly doubt their claim. Kimchi.sg 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advert. Wild claims, no names, no sources supplied. Bye. - Motor (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above, advert. Trm3 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Advertisement, spam, no notability and zero references. --Auger Martel 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

905 board

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Looks like webforum vanity. Original research, doesn't meet WP:WEB, etc etc. Doesn't have its own domain name so an Alexa rank is impossible to determine. —Lamentation :( 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nom says it all (including the etc etc part). -- Kicking222 01:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just like to note that the 905 board is not only used by members of the immediate music scene in the Southern Ontario area. The board has garnered enough attention that it is frequented by music fans from places all over Canada such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and Halifax. Additionally, users from the UK also make use of the forum.16:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Jeff K

• The site and board have played an important part in the creation of many bands that are important to the post-punk music movement. That movement is an important part of the music scene today, as can be seen by massive record sales by bands such as Fall Out Boy.

The 905 music scene could be the next Seattle or Orange County as far as popular music is concerned.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SnaX (talk • contribs)

When that happens, feel free to write an article. Aplomado ^talk 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When that happens, someone will edit this entry to include the continuing influence of the 905 board, community and music. SnaX 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Could be" are the key words here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As of today, not notable. Fan1967 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why it is you people think you are capable of deciding what is and is not notable? Are you some kind of masters of the various cultures and movements of the present day? There are millions of people that listen to the bands Silverstein, Alexisonfire and Boys Night Out. Thousands who idolozie them, latch onto the cultures of these bands and consider them a serious part of who they are. Surely as masters of culture you've all been to high schools lately? You've seen the way emo / punk is becoming the mainstream in todays youth? An entire generation is growing up on this new type of music, and a large majority of it is coming from Southern Ontario; specifically, the 905 music scene. But I wouldn't expect you guys to know anything about that. And I'm almost certain you don't.

So what possible reason do you have passing judgement here?24.36.179.32 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm from Southern Ontario, I worked in a college radio station, I know many people in the S. Ontario scene, and I vote strong delete. Simply not noteworthy enough. BoojiBoy 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chances are no one from our community would want to listen to your station. That's not meant to discredit you or your station, just a statement of fact pointing out that you live in a different musical world than the community this entry is about SnaX 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've worked with many of the bands you've named and interviewed a member of one of them. I still say delete. BoojiBoy 23:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jeeeeez why do people need to advertise their stupid forums here. Aplomado ^talk 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Artw 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• this is not vanity or advertising. the 905 board has been(at least in part) the breading ground for some of Canada's largest underground, & mainstream musical acts. To deny the 905 board community's entry into the history books would be an outrage. Besides, isn't the persuit to add point of reference where reference is lacking the whole goal of Wikipedia? Or is "the Man" still writing history? xo Chuck aka "the air of a new age" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.141 (talk • contribs)
  • Look, don't complain to us for nominating the article for deletion when there's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject of this article is notable. If it truly is the breeding ground for some of Canada's largest underground and mainstream musical acts, surely you can cite this using reliable third-party sources to prove this. Otherwise, we're just taking the word of an anonymous internet user. Aplomado ^talk 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Did someone post a response to the AfD discussion at the top of this section? That's a violation of Wiki-etiquette. I wish the people behind this board the best of luck, but it is not NOW notable. Interlingua ^talk 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I looked at the article and five bands were listed, now I'm not a scenester or anything but in my opinion five bands does not make a "scene" much less a "seattle sound" like phenominon. Deathawk 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Believe it or not, wikipedia is not just an American site. In Canada, where the 905 scene and board are located, 5 bands is a lot. we are a country of 30 million, and we consider Canadian success and success in the US very important to our (Canadian) music scene. All of these bands sell well in the US and tour regularly, and more are on the way. just because it's not top-40 spit out by the big record companies to sell pepsi doesn't mean it's not relevant to anyone. There are many people who use wikipedia outside of the people who frequent the "articles for deletion" section. If you want to help us use proper citations and wiki-conduct (or whatever you call it!) to improve the entry, please do.

I kind of thought the whole point of wikipedia was to be on the cutting edge of pop-culture (as well as academia and other areas)?

the wiki entry provides new x-linking with all the bands and personalities on wiki already...which is the whole idea behind the internet.

Tim Berners-Lee is rolling over in his grave somewhere.

SnaX 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe snax should have mentioned finger 11... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.161.138 (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty certain that Wikipedia, and the internet, will survive. Artw 02:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I kind of thought the whole point of wikipedia was to be on the cutting edge of pop-culture". You thought wrong. Fan1967 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable per WP:WEB. --Starionwolf 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NOR, vanity. --Coredesat 04:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:VAIN. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WEB, insufficient internet profile. Jammo (SM247) 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... per nom. Why do people do this? It's because Wikipedia content is valuable on google searches, especially since it is mirrored by plenty of other sites... oh and vanity. - Motor (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bad formatting and grammatical errors. and i think i'll cry 'bloody vanity' as well, per above/nom. --Paaerduag 10:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. Doesn't even have its own domain name! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above reasons. --Xyrael T 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't fulfill WP:WEB currently. Wikipedia would look pretty bad if it had an article on every web forum that exists. Amazinglarry 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the fence on this one. I would say keep because it has had an influance, and anything influential is worth knowing about, but it does fail to meet WP:WEB criteria, seeing as it's never (apparently) even had so much as a newspaper article that says, "hey, if you want to know what bands are playing when, check this website" written about it. So, that said, very weak delete ONUnicorn 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the actual helpful advice and comments beyond "delete, breaks infraction code 38240:ALPHA" or something equally insider. The simple answer to the newspaper question is that the board IS a source of information. People don't check newspapers to tell them to check the board...they just...check the board. Like many influential internet sites, it's beyond just one purpose. it's a community, a source of information and more. That said, there have been many articles that talk about bands forming due to the board, shows the board has put on, articles about me (Mark Johnston, the foudner), etc. these were all in local papers, that don't have internet articles, only the physical medium. since we are based in small(er) communities (rather than Toronto for example), we don't have many of those "underground" or subculture media sources. most of our users find us by word-of-mouth or smaller things like zines and band links. SnaX 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Sheesh! This fails on sooo many levels wrt wiki standards. (Aside to Mr SnaX, your report of the death of Tim Berners-Lee is greatly exaggerated!). The article lacks verifiable sources, it fails to establish the notability of its subject other than the conflation in the mind of the article's author. The article also fails to establish the importance of its subject outside a very tight geographical area with a small population. Wikipedia may proclaim itself to be many things but it is not a billboard. Eddie.willers 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just hoping the mention of Berners-Lee would manage to scare off some egg-heads who thought they had easy pickings! The reason we lack verifiable sources is because there aren't any. This is a word-of-mouth and in-cd-booklets and in-a-zine-that-only-400-people-get kind of thing. It doesn't show up in the New York Times or on The Insider. Does that mean it's less important than the new J-Lo album? I'd argue no. So much of what become popular music is from scenes and communities exactly like this one. The relevance can be seen Canada-wide, as shown by this recent post by one of our members. "it just completely blows my mind. i'm 1,900 kilometers away from burlington and some dude comes up the stairs of my work, points and says "HEY! YOU'RE BOOZEY THE CLOWN!" SnaX 23:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • KEEP. When asked about the history of a succesful band like silverstein, one has but to point to the 905 board. This is evident in their DVD and CDs where they thank the 905 board for the formation of their band. Silverstein has had a high degree of success in the US and plays the WARPED TOURS regularly, a concert that goes on in the US every year. Silverstein is just one of many bands that has its history linked to the 905 board. Other bands include Finger 11, TFB, Jersey, etc. The 905 board is a community of people with similar interests. Just in the way that communities and groups have their own post on the wikipedia, does not the 905 board have a right to have a similar post? Our group of members is 3000 strong, a lot bigger than many other groups on this website. -- westpointfan.

• Strong Keep. It's regional, but I've been hearing about the 905 Board from people around here for years and years. I wouldn't expect anyone to have heard of it outside this geographical region, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. - Rainwarrior 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thread on the board. Can we speedy this? BoojiBoy 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the thread, or just see it? we're talking about the process, and about wikipedia in general. That's actually what you do on a message board. SnaX 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the thread. I think it's interesting that you explicity say that you consider Wikipedia an experiment in democracy, when WP:NOT dedicates a whole paragraph to explaining that "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy". That doesn't indicate that you have a very strong sense of what Wikipedia is all about at all. Why do people show up with a one-day-old account and feel that they know better than everyone else on wikipedia what kinds of articles it should accept? I just don't get the logic there. For what it's worth, some people in the thread do seem to have the right idea, that an article on the music scene the forum covers (rather than the forum itself) would be a far better idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just slightly curious as to what radio station BoojiBoy works for, because I worked for a radio station in Ottawa, ON, where they not only had a great collection of the indepedently released CDs from many 905 bands, many of the DJs were very familiar with the 905 Board and likened it to their equally influential punkottawa.com.
  • I never said I hadn't heard of it. But the fact I've heard of it doesn't mean that it passes WP:WEB. BoojiBoy 01:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boojiboy... what are your reasons for it not passing? you say its not noteworthy... yet you've heard of it. you've yet to address any of the arguments presented for keeping this article. i would be very interested to what your reasons are that it needs to be deleted.

oh and boojiboy if you had really worked with many of the bands that were mentioned, you would know about their strong roots formulated from the 905 board and would have a healthy respect for the community that they are a part of.

• I know about their roots. But let's review WP:WEB, shall we?
  • 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No internet message board can meet this due to the constantly-changing content inherent to a message board.
  • 2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. Nope.
  • 3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Not that either.

That's why I have voted to delete. BoojiBoy 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To the person who stated it's nothing like the Seattle scene because they only posted 5 bands, I say this: Name more than 5 bands that were huge from Seattle in the early 90's. It was more the huge local scene, the coming together of people and the collaboration of different musical tastes that sparked the scene that eventually created a genre of music known as grunge. The few bands that made it big were just lucky enough to be known as the founders.

Looking at this bit of history it’s apparent that the 905 board is reliving this exact situation. There are plenty of bands that have made international success thanks to the 905 board and the scene here is so tightly knit that new talent is constantly being brought together because of this board, it’s almost an exact repeat of the Seattle scene at the beginning stages. The 905 is the birthplace of the hardcore scene and will be put in history for that in the future and to remove this now is only temporarily silencing the inevitable. Keep this page, its integral to a small part of history. It’s not going to change lives but it’s defiantly made a lot of peoples better. Let the page stay. - --r0ssr0ss 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am blown away by all the "vanity" comments made by wiki users with their own little wiki pages. All of you posting "vanity!!! delete!!!" with your little blue names make me laugh. I love wikipedia, and value your efforts to keep it current and alive, but to suggest that you deserve a wiki entry, when a community of 3000+ who have had an influential hand in guiding the southern Ontario (and Canadian as a whole) music scene makes me throw up my hands in frustration. It seems more like an stuffy old room you'd find hidden away at some university filled with graying academics past their prime, than a relevant new style of encyclopedia and experiment in democracy.

As for the calls of NOR, I find it hard to believe that just because a newspaper or magazine doesn't mention something, it is instantly cited as worthless. All kinds of people list us on their blogs, myspaces, band webpages, zines (that's an independent magazine made by a person or group of people).

This is part of a music subculture, not the mainstream media. Does that mean it's not influential? If you think that, you really are out of the loop. SnaX 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While the 905 board has spear headed musical movements, most importantly GRADE, these people jsut want proof before ppl site it. Grade DID start Screamo, thats the truth.That is the angle, but out of the 905 there are way more than 5 bands succeeding that use this board right now:

• • The Reason - Smallman records
  • Finger Eleven ( gold record)
  • Idle Sons - EMI
  • Boys Night Out - Ferret
  • Alexisonfire - Distort and affiliates all over the world ( gold records)
  • Silverstein - Victory Records
  • Tommy Swick - Universal
  • The Video Dead - Stereo Dynamite /EMI/Stay Gold/Universal
  • The Creepshow - Stereo Dynamite/EMI
  • Jersey - EMI/Fueld By Ramen
  • The Fullblast - BBR/Universal
  • City and Colour (gold records)
  • Billy Talent

-In contribution to the argument that the 905 boards appearance on Wikipedia is 'vanity', I'd like to state that as someone who isn't a resident of Southern Ontario, nor Canada but London England that the board itself is nothing but a resource. Its appearance on Wikipedia doesn’t act as only a statement for those engaged in the Southern Ontario scene but countless others. I know a substantial number of fans of the aforementioned bands who have expressed need to know about the 905 scene and the board itself is vital to that knowledge. If the relevance of the bands who have come from this scene are being debated in terms of musical viability the commercial sales of a handful who have been birthed and aided by and from the 905 have surpassed 100,000 records. A number of the bands mentioned above have achieved success and acclaim worldwide and noting the relevance of the 905 board could be compared debating the chronicling and relevance of Malcolm McLarens SEX shop (birth place of the Sex Pistols etc) in terms of genre definition, for infact a genre was undeniable spurned from the area, and has affected the musical world and subsequent generations. In addition to this, as a member of the recording industry and the press, I happen to know several people in England who are also members of the recording industry and the press who have used the board for not only search of new artists, indications as to youth culture interest progressions. The inclusion of the history of the 905 board on Wikipedia can do nothing but aide work of these people, as it is futile to make use of knowledge gained from a subject without knowing its history. Only those who can argue otherwise can deny the fact that as Wikipedia is a resource for cultural and intellectual research the 905 boards appearance on it can afford to go amiss. -Zara

• Delete Advertisement for a non-notable board. Fails to meet the requirements for WP:WEB as well.--Auger Martel 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Jgamekeeper 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local interest only. No sign of notability. The article doesn't really even claim it. Ace of Sevens 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luwayne Glass

Hoax. Nothing on Google except this page and its mirrors. "Emerged from the ruff" with "over 100 demos" of electronic music in 1916? Released 17 albums "in the 1920s"? There weren't albums in the 1920s, just 78s. This should be deleted along with the separate pages that the same author is creating for "Glass"' "works":

• Mzunguko wa Nyota
• Nguzo za Uislamu
• Enchini ya Moshi
• Kingama siku
• Sinza (Lima Dunia)
• Sinza (CHEYO)
• Body (album)
• Mwenye genge
• Ania: vikombe vya simu (double LP)
  

NawlinWiki 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Creator User:Dreamcrusher5 has now moved the page to Luwayne Glass discography with the comment (moved Luwayne Glass to Luwayne Glass discography: He has an extensive discography, many of which i am finding as i look through my vinyls and 8-tracks. I know it seems like its false information, but it isnt.). Sorry dude, you have to do better than that. NawlinWiki 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At worst, it's a hoax. At best, it's non-notable. Aplomado ^talk 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has to be a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRollerskate (talk • contribs)
• Delete as big-time hoax. Aside from the fact that 'Zimbabwe' as a political entity did not exist until 1980, that it's former incarnation as 'Southern Rhodesia' was an English-speaking country (so why would anyone create an artistic work in French?) etc. etc. Eddie.willers 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax or really, really nn. Also replaced AFD tag which was removed by User:Dreamcrusher5, the article's creator. Since Dreamcrusher also moved the article, this discussion now points to a redirect. I've never seen an article moved while on AFD before, so I'm not sure if the link should be fixed or left as is. -- Vary | Talk 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete verifiably false as per Eddie.willers. Danny Lilithborne 03:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:HOAX article for reasons given above.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:HOAX. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Evidence of WP:Complete Bollocks. If the first true 'electronic musical instrument' was the theremin of 1919, how was such music produced in Africa in 1916? If the first 'electric' disk recordings date from 1925, how was it possible to produce 100 'demos', in Africa, on acoustic equipment? Why do some folk think they can get away with bullshit like this? Eddie.willers 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 05:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:HOAX, no evidence of this person at all. Jammo (SM247) 05:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the lot and speedy any pages he creates related to this that aren't already listed here. Hoax. - Motor (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as hoax, per nomination. Normally I hate mass noms, but in such an obvious case of WP:BALLS, I think it is wholly appropriate.--Isotope23 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Skyraider 01:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable/hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-18 05:35Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJ DiScala

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this person except his relationships with notable people. Relationship to notable people does not automatically guarantee notability. Additions to this page might change my mind. --Danielrocks123 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Additionally, user Alextwa has repeatedly removed the AfD template from the page. Luna Santin 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total fluff and badly written. No notability. Interlingua ^talk 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an nn-bio. User:Alextwa also made a complete mess of the Jamie-Lynn Sigler article over the course of 20 or so edits, so I decided to be a little bold and simply revert the entire article back to before his/her edits. This person really needs to be warned about a few things. -- Kicking222 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable biography. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 05:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being the roomate of a b-list star doesn't make you notable...per above. Trm3 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless expanded. --Xyrael T 14:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Alextwa has wrecked the Jamie-Lynn Sigler article again... Nathan Beach 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Skyraider 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect. Sango123 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Złotoryja

Flag is already in Złotoryja main entry and therefore nothing to merge. BlueValour 01:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The material is notable but totally redundant as, per BlueValour, all the info and image already exist. Interlingua ^talk 01:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Aplomado ^talk 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above--Jusjih 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Interlingua. --Starionwolf 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless there's any additional information about the flag not covered under the Złotoryja article. --Brother William 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. --Coredesat 04:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. After all Flag of Złotoryja is merged into the Złotoryja article, there is no harm in having a redirect. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Metamagician3000 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Porcerelli

Article does not assert the subject's importance, and the user who created it has a history of vandalism. RedRollerskate 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He's just another Ph.D. Google pulls up meager results. Aplomado ^talk 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., as well. Em-jay-es 06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, the awards seems to be genuine. He's a real guy, despite the IP being one used for vandalism... apsa news release. I usually default to delete unless notability is clearly established and sources are supplied... but the guy has awards, and seems to be verifiable (though the article needs to cite its sources). I suppose it comes down to the notablity of his awards and his research. How important is the "Career Research Award" from the American Psychoanalytic Association (an article which does not cite its sources and only links to the website)? Having recently seen several flash animators get keep votes for nothing more than a few hours work with an animation package, a newgrounds account and a couple of fans with wikipedia accounts, I'm reluctant to flush someone with a record of serious clinical work. So how does he really do on Wikipedia:Notability (academics), particularly the awards bit. - Motor (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have got to be 10 billion awards in existence. We got awards in Little League for finishing in last place. Think of every organization that ever existed and every award they had in every department. I've won awards myself, that doesn't make me notable. Aplomado ^talk 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, it depends on the notability of the American Psychoanalytic Association. A career research award from a major reputable organisation would push him into the keep column. I'd just like some more information on them (as I said, their Wikipedia article is unsourced) before I move from a weak keep to a delete. I've seen too many complete non-entities granted a keep on their biographies by a vote-counting admin thanks to a few fans with wikipedia accounts and enough Wiki-knowledge to say "passes WP:BIO" without explaining why. The guy isn't a fraud and has, what seems to be a solid academic record (at least)... I'd like to give him a chance first. That's all. - Motor (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Motor is making some good points. I'm not ready to withdraw the nomination yet, but he has made me think. I've got some chores to finish this afternoon, but once I'm done I'll do some diggin on the American Psychoanalyic Association and its notability (or lack thereof). RedRollerskate 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Basically just about average notability for a professor. I tend to be sympathetic to documenting academics, but this is a hair shy of general notability. FWIW, I recognize that some less notable bios with more of a "web" focus get kept (and shouldn't), but AfD isn't a quid pro quo, nor is the process entirely logically consistent. LotLE×talk 05:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that it was a quid pro quo. Just that he has verifiable info and an actual career rather than just a few fans. Until I find some more information on a "career research award" he received I'm staying on a weak keep. If the organisation turns out not to be all that notable, I'll change my vote to delete. - Motor (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, the American Psychoanalytic Association is definitely highly notable. But these types of awards from notable professional organizations are pretty minor. If Porcerelli had given an APA keynote or something, I'd vote keep on that alone. And I quite agree that it's foolish to keep those articles that just amount to a small, cultish fanbase... I'm sure Procerelli is a perfectly fine therapist and teacher, who in the end has done more of significance than someone who made a few web pages. But still shy of the "above average contribution to his field" type test. LotLE×talk 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reads like a CV --Astrokey44 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Bill (who is cool!) 03:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:BIO.--Auger Martel 07:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Proto///type 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian porn

This article alters history for purposes of promotion (see link near end). Appears to be hoax/advert. Delete Yanksox 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a hoax article (what gave you that idea??), and if you ignore the link at the bottom it is also not avertising/promoting in anyway. Mathmo 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but delete the reference to the commercial website. Porn is a huge industry and and even bigger presence on the Internet. Most of the article was written NPOV and exceeds the standards of many early stubs. Some of the language is a little too POV, but I think it makes a valuable start to the construction of a social history of a notable topic. Interlingua ^talk 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, though, the article lacks sources, it appears that it is manipulating history just to make a promo. I don't think this article could serve a useful purpose anytime in the forseeable future. Yanksox 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "manipulating history"? I see none of that, and if you do then point it out and it can be corrected. Mathmo 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend reviewing creators contributions. Yanksox 02:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To summarise the article: there is porn in Russia, and it features Russians. Not a lot to save there. Artw 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, porn makes you! —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, funny! Anyway... there is much more than just "there is porn in russia", due to it's unique economic conditions and racial make up. Mathmo 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to European pornography which contains a section on Russia. But really, I wouldn't mind an article here one day, like Pornography in Japan. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Artw. --Coredesat 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR. Topic is valid abakharev 04:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove spam from article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and complete rewrite, pornography is notable nowadays, removing the spam sections of the article will be good. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, in it's current state article is useless, howewer topic is definitely valid and important. MaxSem 07:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pathetic in its present state. KNewman 07:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adequately covered in the European article. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsaveable, and advert for the website is distinctly unsavoury. Moreschi 10:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ~Strong Delete, not an article, opens discussing Czech, Hungary, which doesn't make sense considering this is supposed to be Russian. Advert text link. Trm3 10:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• same auther who is spamming (the link in this article) is up for deletion here Real Sex In Russia- which further says this is a definite delete as I voted above: Trm3 10:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or possibly redirect to the pan-European article which already covers this topic. — Haeleth Talk 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Just traffic boosting. For those wishing the topic to be represented, it would be at pornography in Russia, and it would discuss laws, history, and trends. N.b. it wouldn't be "porn." Finally, the imaginary article that does things right is not good enough to allow keeping a linkspammer's substub at this location. Geogre 12:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - topic is valid but content has no merit. Pornography in Russia would be a more apropo title. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bad name, uncited sources, possible OR. Adambiswanger1 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Without any sourcing, I can't trust that any of this info is true. The topic is valid, but I think it should start over and be properly done. The whole thing seems to be original research designed to advertise that one website. Grandmasterka 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of this is objective and salvageable. - Richardcavell 03:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The article amounts to nothing more than statement that the noun phrase means exactly what you would think it would from combining the adjective with the noun. LotLE×talk 05:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per CanadianCeaser. Its too short for a stand alone article when European Porn covers the topic just as well. But a real article could be written eventually. JeffBurdges 11:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per the first keep vote, russia is a site of major porn industry. And as such as a massive impact upon the industry, most undoubtedly worthy of an article. Mathmo 06:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Grandmasterka; there's an article in the topic, but this is not it and never will be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep The condition being that it is expanded, renamed Pornography in Russia (as per savidans suggestion) and wikified. Failing that a redirect as suggested above by CanadianCaesar. skorpion 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research and a lack of references.--Auger Martel 07:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs expansion, but is a legitimate topic. Ace of Sevens 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Proto||type 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brightwood

Doesn't pass guidelines in WP:MUSIC. The album cited was released unsigned according to Google. Crystallina 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Jusjih 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This an amazingly clear CSD A7 candidate. There's absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. The article does not mentoin any significant touring or list any well-known members. The article admits to the fact that the band has released only one album- an EP, no less- that was self-released, and they're not signed to a label. With no claim of notability at all, this can be speedied easily. -- Kicking222 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for failing CSD A7. --Coredesat 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Kicking222. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, nn. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be expanded, which seems unlikely. --Paaerduag 10:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, obvious CSD A7 candidate. {{db-band}} added. - Motor (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Sex In Russia

Pure spam. Artw 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom--Jusjih 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yanksox 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 07:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this spam! MaxSem 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, spam is not in the speedy delete criteria. -- Kjkolb 09:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know:( MaxSem 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete same author is trying to spamm this link in another article that is up for deletion here Russian porn. Trm3 10:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The author's contributions show that he/she has also spammed Reality porn and European pornography. Invitatious 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Spam has been a speedy criterion, unless things have changed ("an article consisting solely of an external link"). However, this article is a clear delete in any case, as there is a documentary/pornography series called Real Sex that sells its product to HBO, and this article title would be about that show's experiences in Russia. It ain't. Geogre 12:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom B.ellis 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, spamtastic. Grandmasterka 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Oh, Dear Lord, whatwikipediaisnotlinkspamadvertisment vanispamcruftwikipediaisnotfreewebspace godicantbelievepornowebsitestakethemselvessoseriously getitoutofthisencyclopedia. - Richardcavell 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 15:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is claimed this was one of the largest increasing Alex ranking during the past few months. If this is so perhaps we should not be quite so quick to delete it? Plus it seems to have an excellent start to an article there. Also I'd like to know under exactly what criteria is this being put up for deletion. I'd like this stated exactly, rather than just generically refered to it breaking "something". Also evidence of it breaking whatever this is. Mathmo 06:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, it doesn't fit notability guidelines in the slightest bit, and also it's a complete violation of WP:NOT, mainly spam, advert, and promotion. Yanksox ^(talk) 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; spamvertising. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. skorpion 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A large increase in visitors is common wiht newish sites. It does not make a site notable by itself. Ace of Sevens 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hudson Jr

Hoax - nothing on Google or IMDB, not in the (extensive) cast lists on WP for the cited TV shows NawlinWiki 02:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Morgan Wick 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete I can't verify the claims either. --Starionwolf 03:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V and WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 07:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and incredible shortness. --Xyrael T 16:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. skorpion 10:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V and most likely falls under WP:HOAX as well.--Auger Martel 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull and Serpent

Non-notable collegiate secret society. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unverifiable. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V. --Coredesat 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable group, as this article makes no assertion of notability.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 35 Ghits when used in conjunction with 'Wesleyan', top two are this page and Mystical 7, which should also be removed. Not notable Jammo (SM247) 05:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Jammo. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystical 7. - Motor (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Moderately notable B.ellis 14:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Secrecy shall prevail. Equendil Talk 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMC-International

Delete Advertising. Librarianofages 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google brings up an awful lot of HMC Internationals, and theres no indication that the one in the Article is the most notable, or that any are particularly notable at all. Artw 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't seem to be notable. --Coredesat 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 07:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Cristobal

Where are all these hoaxes coming from?? The only Ghits I found for this person, supposedly a Korean War vet and 1956 Olympic boxer born in 1929, were [5] and [6], which show that he is 19 years old and graduated from LK Santos High School in 2003. NawlinWiki 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its a vanity page. george 02:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity, fails WP:HOAX and WP:BIO. --Coredesat 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blogger vanity page. No sources supplied. - Motor (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. Lai Chinese Antique

DELETE don't believe it meets WP:CORP, reads like advertising. Librarianofages 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any English pages about C.C. Lai Chinese Antique Limited. --Starionwolf 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Coredesat. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. --Xyrael T 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Take Off

Neologism -- Koffieyahoo 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Artw 02:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. ForestH2
• Delete Take it off the namespace. I can't verify the claims. --Starionwolf 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-verifiable and non-notable. Jammo (SM247) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Invitatious 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nice idea, but neologism. --Xyrael T 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Konecky

Delete Non-notable writer, non-widely read, small body of work 1980 Ghits. Librarianofages 02:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant and notable writer. Published author of several books. Listed in Jewish Women in America, An Historical Encyclopedia, Routledge, 1997. TruthbringerToronto 04:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto. --Coredesat 04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto, also. It is valuable to have articles on obscure, yet important, writers. Em-jay-es 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Further to the above, Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online has an article on her which suggests that she is notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper TruthbringerToronto and Capitalistroadster. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as above. --Xyrael T 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course. Sorry for the pile-on, but I wish people weren't so AFD trigger-happy. — 199 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Mary Cunningham Agee. I've tagged the appropriate articles - go nuts! Proto///type 15:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cunningham

Article doesn't answer question 'who is this person' or 'why is this person worthy of note'. Article is confusing and lacks context. Antonrojo 03:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Mary Cunningham Agee; hopefully it can be NPOViewed on the way. Ziggurat 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Ziggurat. She was involved in a big news story back in 1982, although I can't remember exactly what it was about, even after reading these articles. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Ziggurat. --Coredesat 04:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete this doesn't warrant an article, not notable, just becuase she may have been involved in a scandal in the 80's doesn't give here notability. Trm3 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - scandals do create notability, but no reason to have two separate articles on one person. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. --Xyrael T 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mary Cunningham Agee and redirect (I recall her under the name Mary Cunningham). Noteworthy individual. Fg2 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete - WP:BAND is the guideline to go by here, and as per most of the below, consensus seems to be that this article currently don't pass it. Proto///type 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad

• Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND notability guidelines. — Mike • 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Nevertheless, since you are citing notability guidelines, I would like to point out again that the band Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (in this case, actually, BOTH). Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was marked for speedy deletion once, I made the neccessary changes (Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media, etc.), and have satisfied specific criteria as listed in notability guidelines. These nominations are from one Wiki user whom I got into a scuffle over a different article on, and now he's apparently targeting all my contributions. Parsssseltongue 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Notability has been met, as listed above, rendering your nomination inappropriate. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • response If the community decides that way, or fails to render a consensus vote of delete, then so be it. I still feel the group has notability problems sufficient enough that a community review is warranted. — Mike • 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the taste of baby in the morning! How do you prepare it? I prefer mine blackened; a good charcoal grilling works well, too. _{If anyone reading this can't tell that it is tounge-in-cheek, then you need to read the article on sarcasm, right away.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • response Just because it's sarcasm doesn't make it any more useful in a discussion about deletion of this article, and does not exactly help the user's case that he's acting in good faith. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, because courtesy got me so far with Par(s^4)eltongue, didn't it [responses included "I'm offended," "you're petty," "go away, i don't wanna a-talk to you no more" (I paraphrase on that last one)]. And, of course, evidently Par(s^4)eltongue believes sarcasm is in bad faith, but that his use of bile (snake bile?) is entirely in good faith. — Mike • 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 678 G-hits. Morgan Wick 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wikipedia's article on the Google test states the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up is Perhaps a few hundred, that search result(s) from Google are highly biased towards popular culture (so a subculture or radio friendly artist may not be reflected, but that does not neccessarily refute notability, does it?). Most importantly, The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. Since notability is the issue here per the nomination, your reasons for marking this article for deletion are still unclear. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure which way to go on this one; if it fails WP:BAND, then it's probably got to go. How notable is 678 G-hits, anyway? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well first Wick is counting total hits, you could also say, they get ~116 unique hits[7] which may be enough to say that this is a gray area. For a good read look at WP:GT. You may find it better to make notablility decisions based on something other than the google test though. -MrFizyx 06:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. I had a popular college band too once, and we also played a lot of basements and college bars, but that didn't make us notable. The sources don't really convince me either - college newpaper... Trm3 11:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nowhere does this article or sources mention "college bars." Basement tours are mentioned to assert claim of artist being a DIY band, a style for which it has become the most prominent representative in its region, therefore fulfilling a notability guideline. Also, though a university-published perodical is a source in the article, so is the Arizona Republic, which is more of the (for lack of a better term) "real newspaper" that you're looking for. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per arguments above. --Xyrael T 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it seems to me that notability has been met.Antmoney85 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, in that their tours seem confined to just one geographic region of the United States, the labels they have records on do not seem notable, and the publications cited are all based in Phoenix. --Joelmills 02:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wish someone had made entries such as this one for all the banks in Southern California circa 1965. This band is easily above the rheshold for inclusion IMO. snug 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that their popularity is confined to Phoenix should not indicate lack of notability. Pheonix is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the United States and is rapidly growing. Some entertaining population comparisons can be found here. -MrFizyx 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. According to United States metropolitan area I'm plain wrong about that ranking for the metro region. The Pheonix article, however, suggests that it is now likely the fifth largest U.S. city (it may have passed Philly), In any case, it ain't Terre Haute. -MrFizyx 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per trm3. Wickethewok 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to satisfy WP:BAND guidelines. Just doesn't seem to be notable enough for own article.--Auger Martel 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sadly. Having checked the links, I think I might try to find their music as it seems my kinda thang, but the references provided do not convince me that WP:BAND / WP:MUSIC is met. I'd add; notability solely in Phoenix, or for that matter London, Tokyo or New Yawk alone, doesn't necessarily cut it. Colonel Tom 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus Proto///type 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Foster Hubbard

• Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND notability guidelines. (The "three albums" are EPs, not full-length, and the label producing same do not appear to be major label/major indie.) Singer's website is MySpace. — Mike • 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Nevertheless, since you are citing notability guidelines, I would like to point out again that the artist Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; Has won or placed in a major music competition; Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style/technique in a particular music genre; Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. There was a MySpace link on the Wikipedia article, but it has been removed. Official site is still on there, and is NOT a MySpace page (though MySpace indicates official site is under reconstruction).Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Musician's official site offers photograph and two links. One is to musician's MySpace page. One is to musician's e-mail address. — Mike • 16:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • response I point you again towards the phrase "under reconstruction." And since when is not liking a subject's website part of Wikipedia guidelines? Parsssseltongue 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment I felt that a MySpace profile as his website was a good metric for the notability of the individual. And kindly calm down. — Mike • 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do not edit other user's comments. Not a personal attack, and if you think so, let someone else decide that. Again, the website and the MySpace profile are two different entities, so your argument here is not valid. Discussion and disagreement does not equal not calm. Parsssseltongue 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment {{RPA}}'s in common usage on AfD and elsewhere, thanks, and kindly remain civil and stop the personal attacks. — Mike • 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • response Yes, the website and the MySpace profile are two different entities. The use of a MySpace profile as his sole website containing actual content is demonstrative of non-notability, in my opinion. Obviously, you disagree, but that's my viewpoint, at least. — Mike • 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your insistence that I am not "calm" or that I am personally attacking you does not make it more true. I am refuting your grounds for nomination and the ill logic you are using to justify deletion. Notwithstanding the fact that it is clear the site is under reconstruction (which many sites will be from time to time, whether from a notable corporation or totally non-notable entity... rendering this point useless as a sign of notability), I still have proven notability criteria in other areas. Let's both agree to let others carry on this discussion now, and end our commenting on the matter of these AfDs you have initiated. Parsssseltongue 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Deal. If you'll let what you've written here stand, I'll let what I've written here stand. No hard feelings from my end. — Mike • 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The use of the "myspace" page page may be temporary. Archieves of brodiehubbard.com show that the site has historically been used to announce shows, record releases, etc. It also shows a long term presence on the web. -MrFizyx 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mike (good name, BTW), I removed your speedy tag, as I feel there's definitely a claim of notability in the article (plus, we might as well just let the AfD go down). With that said, I'm still going with delete because the claims in the article are highly insufficient. -- Kicking222 03:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have satisfied specific criteria as listed in notability guidelines (Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city; Has won or placed in a major music competition; Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style/technique in a particular music genre; Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture). Concerns about "claims" can be aired on talk page or with "citation needed" tags. These nominations are from one Wiki user whom I got into a scuffle over a different article on, and now he's apparently targeting all my contributions. Parsssseltongue 03:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • response Notability has been met, as listed above, rendering your nomination inappropriate. Even further changes have been made to said article to assert notability. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • response If the community decides that way, or fails to render a consensus vote of delete, then so be it. I still feel the group has notability problems sufficient enough that a community review is warranted. — Mike • 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 257 G-hits. Morgan Wick 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wikipedia's article on the Google test states the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up is Perhaps a few hundred, that search result(s) from Google are highly biased towards popular culture (so a subculture or radio friendly artist may not be reflected, but that does not neccessarily refute notability, does it?). Most importantly, The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. Since notability is the issue here per the nomination, your reasons for marking this article for deletion are still unclear. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. A verifible nomination and performace in the "2006 Arizona Ska Punk Awards" may be a stretch to meet WP:MUSIC's "Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for new comers," but it does distinguish him from many of the generic myspace page holders. Also, can his relationship to Stephen Foster and Elbert Hubbard be verified? This wouldn't be so much notable as just interesting. -MrFizyx 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I know of no published geneaology charts or such online that could verify this! I know it's not an untrue claim, I just don't know how to cite it. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Said relationships don't necessarily need to be documented in an online source, as long as it's in some existing source that you can then appropriately cite (see citing sources style guide. But if no such source — online or offline — exists, then it would be (by definition) an unverifiable item, and thus would not belong. — Mike • 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete not notable, the only source listed is a college paper that even says he is a local musician. definitely not local by my book. Trm3 11:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A musician or band may be local to an area, but notability has been met, as listed above, and further changes have been made to said article to assert notability. Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Parsssseltongue 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has some notability but just not enough to warrant own articles. The sufficient measures to meet WP:MUSIC are also dicey to say the least.--Auger Martel 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - claims of notability just barely meet the guidelines, but they do meet them. MikeWazowski 22:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily verified in reliable secondary sources which are available as links, above notability threshold in my estimation. snug 22:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw indie rock

• Delete. Neologism. — Mike • 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with great speed Two unique Google hits, one of which is WP, and the other stating that the neologism was created by the musician in above AfD to only pertain to the band in the AfD above that. -- Kicking222 03:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; this looks like a neologism. joturner 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was targeted for deletion by a Wiki user who is targeting all my contributions. As the guidelines say, if you dislike something about an article, EXPAND on it. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean others won't. Parsssseltongue 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete So you think this is a WP:STALK? Let me give you some numbers, then (the same type Kicking provided in fact). "Outlaw indie rock" gets TEN G-hits, SIX of which are from Wikipedia; the remaining FOUR are represented by ONE website before you "repeat the search with the omitted results included". One man's neologism. Morgan Wick 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Coredesat 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete, my own google search did turn up a couple of other artists to which this description was applied, but not enough to seem like a coherent movement or scene yet. -MrFizyx 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outlaw indie" rock turns up 23 G-hits, 6 unique. Morgan Wick 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as neologism. --Xyrael T 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as neologism. LotLE×talk 06:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapmaster

There is nothing noteworthy about the subject. The article simply mentions an arbitrary blogger. joturner 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, just delete it now Technically, it's not a speedy deletion candidate, because this claims to be an Internet phenomenon. But have you actually clicked on the MySpace link? The dude has 17 friends, and his profile has been viewed less than 300 times. He's just trying to get his junk out to the masses, and WP is not a freeweb service. -- Kicking222 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Myspacecruft, as above. Artw 03:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Myspacepimpspam ~ trialsanderrors 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not notable. Trm3 11:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. --Xyrael T 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete Delete crutfolicious B.ellis 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I think this is fits into db-bio.skorpion 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Author delete request I made this when devastatingly drunk. Friend comes up to me, goes "Hey I found your Rapmaster on Wikipedia". I wondered who considered me famous enough to make a page about me, and was dismayed to discover it was actually me, and upon checking the date, it was the night of an open bar party. Dispose of it. --Scarfo 23:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Non-rail vehicles (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends). Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algy the Blue Bus

lack of context. Character comes from an almost insignificant series related to the original, and does not hold anywhere near enough information or context to warrant a full article. (copied prod nomination, but it appears from another contributor that this should go to afd.) Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume this is intended to part of The Railway Series, like Thomas the Tank Engine; if so, it should redirect to that article. Kafziel 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve or Merge. Looks like the character appears only in the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends annuals, os it should merge there.
• Merge, per above. --Coredesat 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, Minor character, I think the best target is Non-rail vehicles (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was really surprised to see that this discussion is still going on. According to the guidelines, an AfD isn't necessary at all; if a minor character has his own page, it's okay to merge it with a larger article without taking any other steps. I agree with Sjakkalle that the best place for it is Non-rail vehicles (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends). Kafziel 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Xyrael T 16:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sorry, socks! Proto///type 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Neotokyo

Reads like a user's manual; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. No claims of notability. Morgan Wick 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable or official game mod for Half-Life 2. --Starionwolf 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Hetar 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but remove all but the first paragraph. WP:NOT crystal ball or how-to manual. But, if consensus is for delete, I will go along with that. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Also see No more room in hell. Wickethewok 04:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for crystal-balling and failing Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. --Coredesat 04:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per crystal ball comments.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GassyGuy 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT, nn. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after transferring content to Valve Developer Community wiki if necessary. --HiddenInPlainSight 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, naturally. I've removed all information that could be considered indiscriminate, unecessary, unsupportable, or unbiased. In the end, I support the communities decision. 2:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Xiliquiern
• Weak delete per above. --Xyrael T 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article, although I've only seen that word in the tagline of Akira. --Slgrandson 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Article was edited to comply... if it gets deleted now may as well delete all unoffical mods for all games.NitenMuratta 19:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome - to Wikipedia. I for one am fine with deleting all unofficial game mods that don't have any sort of particular notability about them. Wickethewok 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question For future reference, it would be fantastic if you define exactly how much notability a mod requires to be admitted, and what the guidelines are for determining this "notability." --StukaAce 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• IMO - Probably some proof of substantial usage or press coverage is always good, too. Wickethewok 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question And how would "substantial" be defined? --StukaAce 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentUser has 5 edits, 4 here and 1 on Neotokyo.--Andeh 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Neotokyo was recently featured in Computer Gaming World in a full page article (link to a scan http://www.deviantart.com/view/29180173/), and has been in numerous other computer gaming magazines (both in print and on cover discs) in the past (PC Gamer UK, PC Zone etc). NitenMuratta 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would ask that many of the first replies be considered null in the face of very heavy article revision. Also, it seems that a crusade against game mods have cropped up in the past few days. I think that, if these articles are not welcome on the basis of notability (Neotokyo, as noted by NitenMuratta, has been featured in magazines, and on many (if not all) mod-related websites) there should be a strict notice concerning game mods or other 'in the works' projects (including those who have released public works before). Applying that same concept outside of gaming would cut down on indie bands who have only released EPs and are not signed, obscure artists whose paintings have never been featured prominently at official institutions, and many other similar circumstances This does not make it noteable outside the field of "gamers", but, as comparison neither are many articles on wikipedia because many people all over the world have varying interests (reference Bowen Bridge). There are literally thousands of articles like that which are important only to the people that are concerned with them. I have no interest in such things (bridges), and would consider them AfD worthy. However, a bridge enthusiast may think otherwise. It is out of respect for other people's interests that I find them to be an integral part of Wikipedia's character. The beauty I find in Wikipedia is that it has a little bit about everything...I'd like to think it would stay that way, even concerning the hobby of gaming and mods. Xiliquiern 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be folly to consider the first replies null. I, for one, stand by my vote. GassyGuy 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As do I. I try not to judge based on what the article is at the time, but whether the subject itself is notable. Thus, any content changes are not entirely relevant to my vote. Wickethewok 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "very heavy article revision" appears to be the addition of more mods "under development". As additional vaporware does not add to notability of the original vaporware, my recommendation remains the same. Tychocat 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- per Xiliquiern Noob cannon lol 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Xiliquiern brings up an excellent point. --IU2002 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree as well. -Bizarro1
  • User has only edited this AfD debate and the No more room in hell debate. Morgan Wick 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn game, speculative development mentioned, advertisement for upcoming reputed releases. Tychocat 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue that an official wikipedia banner made especially for games in development would mean that games in development are acceptable material for wikipedia (view the banner below the AfD on the Neotokyo page as reference...or Red Steel, Spore (video game), or Duke Nukem Forever a game that has been in development for almost 10 years. This post was made purely for informational purposes only. Advertisement is out of the question as the material is presented in an unbiased and unforceful manner. Any advertisement is done through a plethora of websites devoted to just that - mod news sites, and gaming magazines. Neotokyo has used both. Xiliquiern 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the first sentence: There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company that has been anticipated by the entire gaming community, like the three you linked to, and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game. I'm not saying the latter is completely the case for this game, but it's somewhere. Morgan Wick 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems to have had a decent amount of media coverage, and its presence isn't objectionable. Awa64 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Auger Martel 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Crystal ballism doesn't apply as this is already available for Unreal Tournament 2004. It seems to be notable within that community. Ace of Sevens 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Xiliquiern's statements. Mod's are as much of games as commercial games. statements such as "There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company...and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game" are unsupported. Just because a game is not produced by a large company provided with a large budget doesn't make it different from anything else. Mods are in line with open source software such as unix, and would you even consider unix to be unfit for wikipedia just becasue it is availible at no charge? And if you had any background, or even a smigion of knowledge on the status of current modification communities you would know that a bunch of friends in a garage died many years ago. to get any noteriety a modification must be built by either many skilled people, or one highly trained person. I give you black mesa and Minerva:metastasis as examples. Black mesa consists of a world wide team of skilled users. Metastasis consists of a single person with a talent for story writing and level design. Both have recived more praise and media then a fair amount of published games. Would you think of them as less then games you have to pay for? M_Gargantua 21:23, 19 June 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.255.222 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Admiral

Fancruft. Entirely speculative Star-Trek rank Artw 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but the information is very good and could be merged into another article. Which article, you ask? I know nothing about StarTrek, unfortunetly Adambiswanger1 04:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'Many Star Trek fans speculate that...' '...has appeared [apparently only] in several unofficial publications...' '...the title was never deemed official...' Fancruft. Jammo (SM247) 05:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 'According to some sources' Which sources? Information already covered in Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia -- uruloki 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and User:Uruloki. JIP | Talk 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as if an article just for a fictional rank in Star Trek wasn't excessively trekcrufty enough... there's this: "The rank was never spoken of in a live action production but has appeared in several unofficial publications regarding the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation."... sweet Jebus on a tricycle, save us from this. - Motor (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per original nomination. — Mike • 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or Transwookie trekkie wiki to Memory Alpha, if they find it acceptable — which I doubt.). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; Trekcruft. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Starfleet ranks and insignia. It's already mentioned there, so all that's really needed is to stick a few more facts in. Bryan 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Rooney

Page appears to be a hoax. Google searches for "branden rooney fencing"[8] and for "european cup fencing" [9] show no results along the lines of what the article describes; the subject does not appear to be a famous fencer, and his most prominent award does not appear to be a famous one. Further, the DAB page for European Cup makes no mention of fencing. It's in my book as a hoax. Luna Santin 03:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I did similar searches (when it was first made) and nothing came up, most likely a hoax. Yanksox 03:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You actually edit-conflicted me while I was trying to prod it! I did the same Google searches with the same results. Note that the username of the creator is very similar to the subject's name. Also, fencing makes no mention of a "European Cup." --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup, completely unverifiable. Not a one source, let alone two; no results to assume good faith on. Teke 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Anonymous IP user added a source, but the source makes no mention of either a European Cup, or our friend Mr. Rooney. Luna Santin 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I proded it and added a {{citation needed}} tag because I did those same google searches, too. Looks like a hoax. -- Scientizzle 04:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not verifiable, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn or hoax Adambiswanger1 04:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn and hoax. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete per above. Trm3 11:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete please it looks like a hoax to me too Yuckfoo 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As others have stated, seems to a WP:HOAX--Auger Martel 08:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code X Radio

NN Internet radio station with no immediate non-promotional Google hits. Has not been around long enough to be significant; crystal ball. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no coherent google results, notability non-existant. WP:NOT, crystal ball (nom) and promotion. You might want to add a link to the page on here. Yanksox 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I made a mistake with the template when I first listed it. It's fixed now. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 03:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A7, no claims of notability. I fixed it. Morgan Wick 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7. --Coredesat 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above Adambiswanger1 04:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. TigerShark 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfolder

Non-notable 3 month old image hosting service. Not in top 100,000 websites [10]. Very minimal google prescence, ends at 160 [11] some of which seem to be link repositories. If and when this site establishes any web notability the article can be recreated like the rest of the sites like this. Crossmr 00:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and also delete Casero Inc. Skyfolder has a pretty poor Alexa ranking of around 300,000, but Casero's ranking is around 4,400,000. Neither article asserts any notability. -- Kicking222 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- unimportant website. Reyk _YO! 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vulcher 00:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Crossmr 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
• Delete the unimportaint website. --Starionwolf 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, for now. Jammo (SM247) 05:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable website. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. --Xyrael T 16:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and improve Eluchil404 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia White

Reposted? No claims for notability; no list of published papers; no books; zip. Just a personal website; school website; and a teaching award Rklawton 04:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really sad. Administrators should just write "Lydia White" on google's search page to understand how important she is. Plus, I have no connection with her; check my IP, you will see that I am from a totally different country even.

I strongly criticize the admins. And I strongly believe that whoever deleted the page must be someone who is envious of this famous researcher. You deleted the Einstein of an area!!!!!!!!!!!

Why hasn't the author or editors made any of these claims and backed them up with sources? Rklawton 04:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm sorry but the one award received seems pretty insignificant. I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:BIO and I don't see any significant, independent, and reliable sources. --Hetar 04:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm going to eat crow on this. The original author did a terrible job asserting/illustrating notability, and I did a terrible job Googling the subject. She's actually a leader in her field, rates an article, and certainly rates better editors. I've added two of her books to the article as evidence. Rklawton 04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there such a thing as Speedy Keep? Artw 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that she is cited but not linked on the Second language acquisition page. Artw 16:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Lydia White, Professor (James McGill Professor). Cambridge University Press textbook author. Way notable. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - the subject is notable, the entry is weak and needs much work (it's basically a stub). Em-jay-es 06:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rklawton, but yes, the article needs a great deal of work. --Coredesat 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the arguments above for keeping sounded good, but didn't hold water when I checked them out for myself. Just becuase the university she works for writes an article about her, doesn't make her notable. And if we had articles for all professors that wirte text books (many of mine did write at least a few, which is a great money making stunt (my book is required for my class) doesn't mean she is notable. Trm3 11:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "university she works for" are you talking about? The link in the references section in the article is to the University of Illinois; she works for McGill University in Canada. — Haeleth Talk 11:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Head of a department at a major university? Holder of a named professorship? Notable, period. — Haeleth Talk 11:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to cleanup: Random J. Professor is involved here. Of course holding a chair is wonderful and sets a person ahead of other professors, but only if the article is about the work or about a truly interesting and notable life. If the article is a boast or so poorly written that we think it's A7, exactly what good have we done our readers? "Mohammed Ali was a boxer" wouldn't be worth keeping, and neither would "Mohammed Ali is the head of the Ali Foundation." The article needs fixin'. Geogre 11:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haeleth. Seems to be a significant figure, has written several books, holds an important chair. Judging from the tenor of some opinions, the page I read may have been heavily edited from what was proposed for deletion, in which case this may be moot. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per rklawton B.ellis 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Cleanup per above. --Xyrael T 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Definitely meets "professor test", but article itself isn't very good. LotLE×talk 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup as per above. --Strothra 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her resume is posted elsewhere. Tychocat 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep anyone who has a festschrift written in their honor is clearly notable in their field. Mak (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely!!! She is the creator of all the theory in that area. I am a linguistics student myself, and believe me, in her area (SLA), she is the most notable together with Stephen Krashen. And modern ideas of SLA are represented by L. White, not by S. Krashen. Happylinguist (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep also because the article is very original and moderately nice right now. But yeah, the original author did a horrible job, and actually that's why we have been discussing here. Otherwise, she is definitely very very notable. Happylinguist (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say she's "definitely very very notable," but just notable. She meets the author test anyway. --Strothra 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napalm Cream

Delete per neologism. The page even says that it is ficticious. --Danielrocks123 04:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism. Ziggurat 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. You could probably prod these.--Chaser T 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as joke. "explosive speed" Adambiswanger1 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unfunny joke.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Richardcavell 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like stealth spam, basically. --Calton | Talk 04:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I love the smell of deletion in the morning Non-notable fictitious substance. Jammo (SM247) 05:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Coredesat 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete midge. Danny Lilithborne 08:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 16:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Neologism. — Mike • 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Academic Challenger.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke-Drugger

Delete. This page so much as admits to being a neologism. --Danielrocks123 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per this. Yanksox 04:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. —Khoikhoi 04:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Danielrocks should have just prodded the article. Of course then the prod would have been removed by author... Morgan Wick 04:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per aeropagitica. Jammo (SM247) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the AFD and it was also nominated for speedy deletion, so I deleted it a s a speedy. If anyone objects to this they can restore it or ask me to. Academic Challenger 05:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Alex Bakharev (A7). — TheKMan^talk 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II IB Class of 2006

I had placed a db-bio template, but they removed it. In any case, this article does not assert notability in any way, shape, or form. It's unencyclopedic in both subject matter and style. Luna Santin 04:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy D Bio w/ no assertion of notability. -Goldom (t) (Review) 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. The article doesn't even say what city or country this school is located in! Utterly nn. 23skidoo 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Better Believe It

Delete This article was created to describe a personal blog. It includes links to the site counter and other assorted information. The page does not meet criteria of Wikipedia Notability Criteria, appears to be vanity. I don't believe a personal weblog is relevant to WP. Alphachimp ^talk 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• YOU BETTER DELETE IT! 6 Ghits, painfully non-notable and only one blog on Blogspot. Jammo (SM247) 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable blog of a non-notable person, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--blue520 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable/spam.--Andeh 06:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I love Jammo (SM247)'s quote! DELETE Em-jay-es 06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Coredesat 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dattebayo. Danny Lilithborne 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB or WP:BIO.--Isotope23 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, so completely non-notable a blog, that I almost fell asleep reading the article. It was only an unflinching dedication to properly examining material on AFD that kept me conscious. I gave that time so that casual Wikipedia editors would be spared the unspeakable tedium of running across it. Do not make my sacrifice a waste. Per WP:WEB and WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Xyrael T 17:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. It is a well-written article, and it does no harm. It is not a vanity article, since no superlatives are used and careful attention was given to detail and objectivity. The article was written in response to a growing number of visitors to the weblog. While it is true that it might only be one weblog on Blogger, it does seem to be a popular one. My question is this: will keeping the article (e.g. not deleting it per the requests of Alphachimp et al., somehow inhibit Wikipedia's servers? If not, then I see it as serving two purposes. On the one hand, it informs the Wikipedia populace of an example of a personal weblog. As well, it encourages support and participation in the sharing of information, which is the purpose of Wikipedia.

Alphachimp, that's not cool, man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.24.176 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would have posted the AFD notice no matter who wrote it. It might help to check out WP:NN for some guidelines on notability. I'm sorry for the hassle, but WP is not a place for personal vanity/personal blogs WP:NOT. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity. It's not well-written when 1/3 the prose has nothing to do with the blog itself. The author is trying so hard to come up with something to say about the blog it needs to go into explanations of Blogger and Adsense to fill space. hateless 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. —Khoikhoi 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure vanity articlle. Fails to meet sufficient guidelines for WP:WEB as well.--Auger Martel 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ackerson theory

speculative content, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, uncylopedic, looks copied and pasted directly from somewhere Andeh 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pure nonsense. obviously copied and pasted. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Here is the profane source of the offending gibberish Jammo (SM247) 05:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Based off of Theories by Eagle 117 and opogjijijp" Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense Chrisny2 06:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Coredesat 07:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete using a big editting gun. --Charlesknight 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regrettably, this doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion as complete gibberish. It's someone's theory about the Halo novels, or a response to other's theories about them. I forget. These godawful articles all blend together after a while. Anyway, WP:OR and basically, WP:BOLLOCKS. - Motor (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per aboev. --Xyrael T 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. —Khoikhoi 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense.--Auger Martel 08:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan's Divinity Claim

This article shows:

• No original reasearch, and bases itself on quotes taken from different Hindu scriptures, which constitute, along with unchecked translations, most of the article.
• POV in its title which states a claim as a fact.
• Verifiability issues, giving no references. -- Sfacets 06:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find the facts than you need to read them scriptures being they are not on wikipedia. -- Raj - सनातन धर्म 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however no sources are given. Merely entering whole sections of quoted text doesn't base the claims on fact. -- Sfacets 03:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes are the same ones used on the Swaminarayan page, so this should stand. -- 83.67.4.89 21:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot justify the lack of sources by their presence (no, actually there are no sources on that page either) in another article. Sfacets 04:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It reads like a sermon, and I really don't see what else can be written about it. I'm not one to say we ought to delete something in order to start over, but I really don't think this subject has any particular merit or significance - it's just a bunch of scripture quotes. Falcon 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article is a mess, in terms of POV and even basic organization. Em-jay-es 06:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the name is enough to keep it from a useful redirect. just a bunch of quotes per Falcon - Peripitus (Talk) 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and is horribly written. --Coredesat 07:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV article. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 09:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hopelessly POV, all material is duplicated on the main Bhagwan_Swaminarayan page in any case. Tevildo 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pov, nor. -999 (Talk) 15:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does what it says, it try's to claim Bhagwan Swaminarayans divinity with facts and quotes from scriptures so what is the problem? Raj - सनातन धर्म 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, which other commentors have cited as problems with this article.

• Delete, seems impossible to rescue from its nonneutral point-of-view and is additionally (almost) totally comprised of original research. Either of these is a problem, but both together equals "delete". -- Docether 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. --Xyrael T 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Maybe merge it into Bhagwan Swaminarayan? Frankchn 11:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Point (estate)

Non-notable subject, just being an old house isn't enough EdJones 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of 2007, the house will be a Wisconsin historic site open to the public (notability which the article asserts). I'm aware the main news link has expired, but it was recently in the NYT. [12] A $1.6 million renovation is underway and a professional staff is being hired. There's also an odd little sidebar in a connection to the bribery conviction of former State Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala, who doesn't have an article as yet. (Isn't being on the National Register of Historic Places notable as is? cf. list) --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, so that's what happened. I was just about to ask an administrator. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough to me. It's historic. --Alphachimp ^talk 05:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Dhartung. Em-jay-es 06:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability asserted and per Dhartung. --Coredesat 07:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 09:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per dhartung B.ellis 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above, if expanded. --Xyrael T 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Golfcam 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as being listed on the National Register of Historic Places is reason enough for this "old house." Sulfur 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Proto///type 15:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Bracey

Prodded as non-notable, but it's debatable, so I'm moving it here. Bonnie Bracey is a high school teacher, but one that has received interesting national-level attention, having served on a presidential committee and having won national awards. No vote from me. Mangojuice^talk 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable academic. Fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO standards. --Strothra 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out: WP:PROFTEST is a set of guidelines about when academics are notable for their academic accomplishments. This is clearly not the reason to have an article on Bonnie Bracey, so I think it's a bit orthogonal. WP:BIO does work though. Mangojuice^talk 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked this in a long time. I wasn't saying that the article should be deleted solely on Proftest. The article lists her as an American educator so I was just saying that she didn't meet those standards of an academic. She also fails to meet WP:BIO in addition to that. --Strothra 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field' - that's Bonnie Bracey; she's quite active in Education/Technology/Digital Divide related issues and commands a lot of respect for what she has done, what she is doing, and what she will continue to do. Perhaps it's not demonstrated in the article well enough; that can be addressed. Oddly enough, by deleting her entry the Wikipedia would be working directly against what she is working for. There's a bit of irony, there. :-) --TaranRampersad 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think her career makes her notable. TruthbringerToronto 05:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bonnie is a former high school teacher. She's currently a fellow at the George Lucas Education Foundation and the Thornburg Center for Professional Development, two of the most respected education technology think-tanks in the world. In the primary and secondary education communities, she's very well known. And based on my own research over the last decade or so, I would credit her with popularizing the term "digital divide" in education circles, going back more than 10 years ago. Acarvin 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bonnie Bracey is notable in academia and Digital Divide related circles, and by the very nature of the things which she deals with she is not as visible on the internet, but she is noteworthy and held in high regard throughout the United States and International education communities. As Andy Carvin notes, Bonnie is distinguished and continues to be noteworthy. If this entry is deleted and thus discouraged from growing - she'll probably end up here anyway. --TaranRampersad 19:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as per above. ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. --Coredesat 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above B.ellis 15:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per above. --Xyrael T 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Per Acarvin and TaranRampersad, among others. — Mike • 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just a question: What does "delete per above" mean in this context? All but one of the votes are "keep", and the one delete vote suggests we use a guideline that isn't applicable in this case. Can people not come up with their own reasons? — 199 19:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To digital divide activists, Bonnie Bracey is a role model. I learned some things about her background from the article, and that was useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborah909 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A7) – Gurch 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Wrestling

Local Wrestling is not notable 24.61.252.133 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The organization would have to be doing (or have done in the past) something innovative or noteworthy. This one is apparently not. Shall we keep this, and also write an article on every bar in Europe? Falcon 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a speedy A7 - Peripitus (Talk) 06:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no notability. --Coredesat 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, db-corp tag added. - Motor (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Furukawa Ray

Appears to be a vanity article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this looks like spam, and I have seen articles on more notable subjects deleted. See WP:BIO. Falcon 06:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seeing as the creator of the article is Kenray. Vanity, and fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete per above, no real sources listed, and article basically only plugs her own websites. Trm3 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, discog doesn't list her. google returns nothing but forum posts with hits in the 600-700 range. WP:VANITY per Coredesat. - Motor (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. --Xyrael T 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VANITY. —Khoikhoi 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vainity article with no real notability or avenue for constructive references.--Auger Martel 08:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Wickning1 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Jouvion

AfD tag added by Joan-of-arc. Properly listing now. — TheKMan^talk 04:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least potentially notable. The article needs a list of films, documentaries and publications. I was able to find his 1993 book in the Library of Congress catalog. TruthbringerToronto 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the added publications make it a keeper now. it should not be incumbent on the reader to speculate notability. the article should provide sufficient detail and referencing to establish notability. perhaps someone with knowledge of the subject can step forward during this discussion and augment the article. without such timely upgrading the article should be deleted Joan-of-arc 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Joan-of-arc 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - very odd as although the author is clearly non-notable, the book probably is. Peripitus (Talk) 06:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - changing vote per expansion by Dlyons493. Article shows he's a notable enough author now - Peripitus (Talk) 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if expanded. --Xyrael T 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's quite a prolific author, apparently mainly of coffee-table type books. I've added some of them to the article. Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]