Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 10

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

The result was keep, nominator tagged for deletion so I assume that's a withdrawal. This page will still be kept as a record, however. Chick Bowen 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape gods

RuneScape gods (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This article is complete fancruft about the fictional gods in RuneScape, no one outside of Runescape can possibly find this useful.-- Coasttocoast 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods

• Keep That is not the right link. The last afd is here, 2 months ago. Two months are way too short a gap to start a new afd. J.J.Sagnella 21:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Your reasoning is faulty, as you're assuming what people may or may not find useful. That is not an established policy. Please make nominations based on some kind of policy, not just what you don't like. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G12; copyvio of http://www.iskenderiye.com/wp_encyclopedia/?s=The+book+chronicles+the+history. _JD^talk 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"rulers of evil"

"rulers of evil" (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Original essay, book promotion, whatever the hell it is, it's NOT an encyclopedia article. Was prod'ed, but tag removed without comment by creator. Calton | Talk 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not an article. --File Éireann 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete textdump. Danny Lilithborne 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Braindump, non sources. scope_creep 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (edit conflict) crapflood of textdump. I can see why Calton is confused, I'm not sure what to call this, except soon to be gone, I hope. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only way to make this into an encyclopedia article would be to restart from scratch. Besides, there's already an article on Tupper Saussy that mentions this book, thus it's pretty much redundant, anyway. Tubezone 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Copyvio Delete direct paste from [1] with no assertion of right --Steve 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I invoked copyvio procedure --Steve 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, copyright violation. Jcam 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grouse Lodge

Grouse Lodge (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This is an advert for a recording studio. No real evidence of notability is given and the article is not in encyclopaedic form, it should go File Éireann 00:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its a badly written article and its probably an advert. scope_creep 01:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've trimmed the advertisement and added a reference. It's always a good idea to try a Google news search, just in case something is both advertisement and notable. - 152.91.9.144 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep" I'm willing to work on this one. I was just reading about this place the other day in a newspaper article. I have no connection to the subject of this article whatsoever and I can be helpful in overcoming the conflict of interest/ advertising/ POV problems. I'm in Alabama and it's in Ireland, so it's safe to say I'm far removed from the subject matter. OfficeGirl 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per OfficeGirl. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If nothing happens to it and it is nominated again, I will probably vote otherwise. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable enough. Atlantis Hawk 07:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article establishes notability, and Google confirms it (at least for Snow Patrol and Muse (band), which is good enough for me). Fram 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just because a band recorded somewhere does not make that location notable: it's just a fact. Had one of the band members died there, or had there been a pitched battle with the police, or were the studio the only one in the world built from solid gold it would be notable. This isn't notable. Bad enough that we have pubs and schools in Wikipedia, but please let's stop the rot now. WMMartin 17:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll give you some more WP:CORP meeting facts. The second Google hit looking for "Grouse lodge" recording studio gives me this[2]: "Grouse Lodge Recording Studios located in Rosemount, Co Westmeath owned by Paddy and Claire Dunning were awarded joint first place in the World Young Business Achievers Awards in Sofia, Bulgaria, on November 23rd last. In addition, they received the Award for Excellence in Entrepreneurial Management." If this award (and the persons presenting it and commenting on it) isn't enough, then what about this FoxNews article which does clearly more than a passing mention[3] (accidentally, result 3 on Google). I think I'll have to change my opinion to a strong keep after this... Fram 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now -- We'll see what OfficeGirl does. We can always kill it later. Deletionists FTW. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, it's possible to source and maintain this -- so why not? Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, bad layout and such but the article is notable enough (slightly for me to keep).--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 23:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORP as there are no sources used that are primarily about the studio. The one source used is clearly about Jackson. GRBerry 17:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't mix the article as it is with what is possible, and presented in this AfD. This is a discussion, so it is best if you first look at the comments of other people before making yp your mind. Please check the link I gave for the World Young Business Achievers Awards in Sofia, Bulgaria. This passes WP:CORP. Fram 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't know why I missed those. The award is one good coverage. The Fox News thing is again, primarily about Jackson. We need multiple coverage primarily about the studio to meet [[[WP:CORP]], so my opinion isn't changing.

• Keep. Current revision of the article appears to satisfy WP:CORP guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 22:46, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was Delete Redirect optional. ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperfur

Hyperfur (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Of the 80-odd unique Google hits off Wikipedia, none appear to eb reliable sources and many are unrelated. This seems to be a neologism with strictly limited currency. Guy 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to macrophilia, if anywhere. The definition is accurate enough, but it's not a particularly significant term even within the furry fandom, and I don't believe there is a good source for it. GreenReaper 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, if sources are presented, should be Merged into main article.scope_creep 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Doug Winger. I don't know if he technically started it or not, but it's certainly most commonly associated with him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to macrophilia. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to macrophilia Robovski 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Frivolous. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Dicdef neologism. I don't even see the term relevant to the furry fandom. Wikifur doesn't even use that term, but calls it "Hypertrophilia" or "Hyper-endowed". Anomo 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, furrycruft AND a neologism! Lankiveil 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was de-fucking-lete. DS 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of allusions to the word "fuck"

First of all, this list is extremely uncyclopedic, and I can't ever see it being useful. Secondly, it is also highly subjective, as what one person considers an allusion, someone else could be completely oblivious to. Basically, this "article" is a glaring WP:NOT violation, and fuckcruft. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The list could never be complete. The entries are not sourced. They're not even allusions! Fuckcruft indeed. --Charlene 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if this didn't violate WP:NOT,it'd violate WP:V, as no sources for "fuck allusions" probably exist". Mitaphane _talk 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lol @ fuckcruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, salt to taste - only on Wikipedia could you have a list like this. Now, let's wait for the inevitable Inclusionist to suggest this is a valuable learning resource. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 01:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It could be a good article if sources could be added, which would be easy to do. A bit of tidying would make it right. scope_creep 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Sources? Since when do people come out and say "WE'RE DISGUISING THE WORD FUCK SUCKAS!!!"? -Amarkov ^babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov, I got a laugh out of that comment. Authors and writers have been disguising sex words in literature for centuries. This list is has merit and has genuine knowledge contained in it. It would need to be expanded with historical references and sources. scope_creep 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't matter that they're doing it. What matters is that you can VERIFY that they are doing it. And you can not verify that the author is alluding to something without having them say so. -Amarkov ^babble 02:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, Scope, I wasn't serious with my comment about Inclusionists you know. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, you didn't honestly think that would happen? Odd. -Amarkov ^babble 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. <sarcasm>What a wonderful idea, a list of everything which might possibly be close to a certain swear word! We need the letter F there, too.</sarcasm> -Amarkov ^babble 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete (BTW, DYK this word is also an allusion to the word "fuck it!", so this list must be very incomplete :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic, somewhat subjective. It's mildly amusing, but that's not a good enough reason to have a list. See: Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Think of the reader. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_31#Category:Fuck. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would like to keep but have to agree with nominator †he Bread 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ideally, this could have promise, but in reality this can become too fraking uncontrolled and unwieldy to be worthwhile.-- danntm ^T _C 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List cruft, collection of anything and everything are not encyclopedic. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As HighInBC said, list cruft. -newkai t-c 05:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, and "fsck" stands for "filesystem check", thank you very much. JIP | Talk 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• D***** per above. MER-C 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete canonical listcruft. Guy 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impossible to get a difinitive list. Impossible to find references. Moderatelly obscene. Spinach Dip 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per [[WP:NOT] an indiscriminate collction of information, as incompleteable, and POV. This so WP:NOT that it ought to be on a WP:NOT at all, not ever, not under any circumstances. Pity it can't be speedied :(--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Why are people so obsessed with the word "fuck"? Why not "shit" or "damn" or "pumpernickel"?--TBCΦtalk? 20:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you just said pumpernickel! Oh no I said it too! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how my grandmother died, you insensitive clod! Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Hut 8.5 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- this kind of thing is incredibly common (they missed "F-bomb", too...), to the point where it's simply unmaintainable. If this were ever actually complete, it'd be freakin' huge. It might even develop its own gravitational field, then implode and kill us all. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imploding gravitational field?? That is how my grandmothers uncles father died! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it really is unneccesary for me to add my vote here, given there is already wide consensus, it's not every day that you get to say that something should get deleted because it constitutes 'fuckcruft' --The Way 23:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, this article is unneccessary and will never be complete. It comes across as someone wanting to show how much allusions they can list to the word ****.--^ॐ Seadog ^ॐ 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, slightly amusing, but not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Not just because it violates notability policy, I just really want to use the word "fuckcruft" doktorb _words^deeds 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wholly unencyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and scatter the ashes. Smacks of an article written entirely because someone wanted to type the word "fuck" on the Wikipedia as badly as Doktorb wanted to type "fuckcruft".Vafthrudnir 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was we're done here. Rather, delete. I am aware the deletion debate only opened several hours ago, but this many delete arguments in such a short span of time leads me to believe that there is no point in letting this go any longer. --Coredesat 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Tree Friends Deaths

List of Happy Tree Friends Deaths (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Ludicrously detailed (45K!) and unsourced list regarding a very minor cartoon series. Fancruft, essentially, comparable to List of jokes in According to Jim. Was prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not quite a very minor cartoon series - a possibly notable minor cartoon series, to be fair. But this is just listcruft/fancruft. Bwithh 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill it dead per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. Basically, this article is created by tallying up all the deaths and listing how they died. I doubt some reliable secondary source has done this. The deaths in Happy Tree Friends should go to. Mitaphane _talk 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut the tree down per nom. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is the worst article i've seen.scope_creep 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OPEN FIRE! Who cares enough to read this anyway? Shadow1 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, with salt for taste - It needs to die and stay dead. This is embarassing. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Impale, vaporize, mutilate, DELETE FROM EXISTANCE - Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Who knew Happy Trees could spawn list kudzu? Belongs on a fan site. Time to do some Wikipruning. Compost Tubezone 02:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Let other people's comments speak for themselves. But if you need my opinion, this is just utter cruft. WikiBot 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I admit, I actually found this useful coz I keep forgetting on which episode did X die in Y way. But cruft must go. --Húsönd 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and burn the remains. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Honestly, I was surprised someone even created an article like this. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)}
• Delete. This would be like a list of how Kenny dies in every episode of South Park... Uh... Please don't tell me we have that. -newkai t-c 05:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we do, List of Kenny's deaths... But I suppose South Park is more notable. -newkai t-c 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestries MUCK

Tapestries MUCK (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

148 unique Googles outside Wikipedia and forums, not that many inside the forums either. No evidence of significance, pretty close to an A7 speedy. Advertorial in tone, no reliable sources, apparent original research, and appears to be of no significance outside the furry community (which is pretty small). Guy 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources. "Tapestries MUCK" Mitaphane _talk 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The results come out a little differently when a slightly differently-phrased search is employed. Tapestries +muck Shimeru 08:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but a lot of those aren't it. On the other hand, like Albedo, it's often referred to just as "Tapestries" (or Tapes, or Taps). Probably a better search is Google Groups, where it garners a fair few more. GreenReaper 08:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, noticed that afterwards. Excluding Wikipedia and copied sites still gets 25,000, though, and even given the spurious ones, it's a better indication than the search for "Tapestries MUCK" is. Shimeru 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete fails to assert notability again on the furry fandom sites. scope_creep 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't A7. It's not a website. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, it's not really significant. Not a big deal at all. Only like the second-largest furry MU* in existence, that's all. =) Raises an extremely tricky question though: It's a MUD. We don't exactly have solid notability criteria for MUDs. And the problem is, only the biggest of the biggest of the MUDs ever get big mainstream recognition. I can personally remember one. BatMUD. MUDs are, and stay, as esoteric topic, where they are rarely mentioned anywhere by name, and even if they are, they're mentioned trivially. We have precious few sites that rank MUDs according to activity and popularity - and even they can't really be trusted, because the MUD users themselves may not vote for them. The MUD Connector claims the game has been in operation since 1991 and has 100+ players online at any given time. MUD Magic claims 200. Telnet to tapestries.fur.com 2069 and type "WHO" - I get 650 players are connected. (Max was 847). Cool, huh? Wired mention, though it's pretty much trivial. I have no vote one way or another - this MUCK may not be a significant topic in the grander scheme of things. But heck, it's a big MUCK among the (significantly large) group of people who are its main target group. I'm just lamenting the fact that this is a good example of a case that's been around forever, has had its impact, is important within the community... yet within Wikipedia, this is probably merge / external link worthy material at best. I hate it. It makes Wikipedia feel like an ordinary encyclopaedia that only covers the richness of the culture with boring scholarly let's-look-at-the-big-picture-from-the-orbit-and-ignore-details way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *squint* these folks have been in a real print magazine, they have been around forever, no might in world could delete their article, I suppose, and their weekly user peak is around 300 users. And here we're condemning a MUD that has peaks of 500-800 to hell just because there's been precious few print mentions or other mentions outside of the furry community. We have a little bit funny policies, no? Okay, don't listen to me, I'm just a random idiot... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And lastly, apologies to everyone for going off like this. I'm sorry if someone finds this sort of outbursts disruptive. (I'm sometimes stupid this way. Now kick me. I've earned it.) For whatever it's worth, yes, I'm an user of the MUCK, yet when I pull on my Wikipedia Admin hat, I have no problem if the article is deleted if that's what the community thinks; it's just that there's definitely something funny in Wikipedia's policies what comes to situations like this. And to make things worse, it's hard to pin down exactly what is so funny in this. The world, it seems, is a complex and frequently illogical place. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it's actually the largest, bigger even than FurryMUCK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, I sympathise. Really. The fact is, we have to have good sources, and there are none for this, as far as I can tell. WikiFur can cover it in all its glory because they don't have verifiability and neutrality policies to worry about, but we do - the largest furry MU* is also not that much of a claim; the furry community is not that big to start with and the subset that plays MU* games is (as noted above) in the hundreds or low thousands at most. Every day we delete web forums and online games with mroe users than this, for the very same reason: no substantive coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Directory listings, fan forums and nothing else. Guy 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, I agree on principle; I just disagree slightly with your assessment of the numbers.
  One thing to consider: Above, I'm speaking of concurrent users at a specific time, not total number of user accounts, so these numbers are not exactly comparable. Gaia Online's front page they have 13,541 users online. Suddenly looks pretty small. Also says there's 5,026,922 users total. Not so small any more. There's no numbers on the total user count in Tapestries, which is pretty nasty.
  Secondly, as I tried to hint above, Tapestries is a very large MU* compared to all other MU*s, not just compared to other furry MU*s.
  Basically, we're sitting on top of the exact thought experiments that the policies use (or used, last I checked): Sure, we have a big MU* here, everyone knows it's a big and important MU* that has had tons of impact, but we can't prove it's big and important through sources, so apparently it's not fit to be included in Wikipedia. (And bees can't fly, either, if you believe the sources.) Using thought experiments is kind of flimsy, so I propose we change these policies to use this as a living example of what we can't do. We need a good example of "criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". We need an example of truth that we can't include, enshrined forever in our policies. If we're to delete this, let's make an example out if it. It's entirely reasonable in my opinion.
  And again, sorry for going off like this. Yours truly, probably the single most troublesome editor in the past weeks, --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very frivolous. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Oh, man, I dunno about this one. Part of me wants to just say "Strong Keep, Duh, of course it's notable!" and leave it at that. If only things were that simple. On one hand, this is extremely notable within the online furry community, both widely-known and widely-played. On the other hand we have the fundamental problem of reliable sources: even with the many gaming magazines out there, few of them ever bother to cover the comings-and-goings of the MUCK world, and if they did they'd still probably stay away from the adult-oriented Tapestries. Finally, there's the issue of precedent-setting: articles about MU*s tend to attract more articles about MU*s, which the creators then vigorously defend because if there's even one MU* article on all of Wikipedia then they have a constitutional right to theirs too. To sum it all up, I'm torn. I'd love it if somebody showed up with some realiable sources os we could keep this, but if not, well, there's always WikiFur. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete-it is significant within the MUD community, but the lack of reliable sources would really prevent anything much being written, and information about it is certainly not widespread enough to fall under the "common knowledge" exemption of WP:V. Change to keep as sources have been found. Seraphimblade 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The largest, and among the oldest, mucks dedicated to its particular fandom. It's also one of the oldest and most populous adult-oriented mucks. It's apparently been featured in a Wired News article, a 1999 public radio international feature called Beyond Computers, a San Francisco Bay Guardian article from 1998. It was a link of the day at Sex & Games, published by the International Game Developers' Association -- and that's just from five minutes of searching. Its existence is quite verifiable, and the wealth of weblinks to it (about 25,000 Google hits for Tapestries +muck -wikipedia) should speak to its noteworthiness as an internet phenomenon. Shimeru 08:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case it will be trivially easy to remedy the sourcing problems, and you should do so please. Guy 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Haven't got time to rewrite the article right now, but I've added those four potential sources to the page. Shimeru 10:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a little rewrite, added some material, and found a few more sources. Turns out it features prominently in The Original TinySex FAQ. Could doubtless use more work by someone more familiar with it, but that should address sources, even if some of them are somewhat trivial. Shimeru 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly - I'm a deletionist, and I hate this kind of article...but Starblind has a point. We need to look, policy-wise, at WP:V and the idea of notability in cases like this. I don't like it, and I'm not 100% sure it's right, but keep for now. Maybe talk about it on the village pump?--Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd suggest bringing up Furcadia as well in that. Another long-running world with a dedicated following (heck, I remember when Second Life wasn't as busy as it), but which grew slowly, is deliberately specific to a certain genre and which has never gained significant news coverage. GreenReaper 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 14:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia L. Michelle

del nonnotable psychic. `'mikkanarxi 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, also only 4 ghits. [4] (not counting the wiki entry). --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She breaks the WP:BIO guidelines in the first sentance of the article. scope_creep 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO.--Húsönd 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the article says minor renown can't this be speedied for not asserting importance? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, however appearing on a TV show restricts it from speedy. MER-C 09:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Folantin 12:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, but article does assert notability, so you can't speedy. Moreschi 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree that minor renown denotes WP:BIO failure Computerjoe's talk 19:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Hut 8.5 20:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn psychic, with some POV thrown in for good measure. Using my powers of psychic prescience, I predict this article will never develop into anything worth keeping. Lankiveil 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. DS 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albedo Anthropomorphics

Around 80 unique Googles, of which none seem to be reliable sources. Claims to have been nomimated for an award, but not avery big one and it didn't win. Almost every site that Google links for this is a catalogue listing or some other trivial directory-style mention. Article is uncited. The subsidiary article on the main character is even more invisible. Also rolling in the creator, known "mainly" (for values of mainly which appear in this case to be only) for this. We appear to have a walled garden here, I wonder how many others there are? Guy 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All articles fail simple notability assertions and little sources to boot. scope_creep 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep extremely notable comic from a notable publisher (several of them, actually) and a 20+ year publishing history, which is an eternity by the standards of non-superhero comics. Albedo is also where Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo got started. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this comic and its creator, were largely responsible for starting a new subgenre of comics, the furry comic, which took the ostensibily children's and light entertainment form of the funny animal and turned it into something that could tell stories with an adult's sophistication. That in turn helped create furry fandom. Case in point, the major newsgroup alt.fan.furry was originally alt.fan.albedo. That alone should be enough to justify this series.--kchishol1970 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I'm sure they could be improved. I bought the first issues of Albedo at Anthrocon purely on its notability as a significant comic in the history of the furry fandom. The only other one I bought on that basis was Omaha the Cat Dancer. It is regarded as a significant comic for the reasons mentioned above. Also noted several times in the YARF! Chronology (penned by Fred Pattern (info), the compiler of Best in Show, and a leading authority on the fandom). GreenReaper 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The name of the comic is very frequently shortened to "Albedo", which is likely to be why you're not finding much in google. Here are some more details - I'm not sure they'd count as reliable sources, but they give an idea of the scope of the comic and RPG: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] GreenReaper 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Absolutely no discussion of removing these. Nomination entirely without merit. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep is not a valid !vote when delete !votes have been registered. Guy 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. Didn't notice Scope creeps vote up there. Thought that was the nominators vote continued, and scope creep some policy or guideline reference. So a simple but strong keep then. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Relatively famous comic book series that has spawned a licensed role-playing game. When doing searches be aware that it's rarely called Albedo Anthropomorphics, but usually just referred to as Albedo. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Albedo has other meanings too :-) Guy 09:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Try +Albedo +comic. Ben W Bell talk 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per all above. Shimeru 08:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Albedo was one of the first anthropomorphic comics to get a lot of play, through established publishers like Antarctic Press, and were (still are) key to the fandom. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Albedo and its creator did a lot to establish seriously-themed furry comics in the eighties.--BlueSquadronRaven 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep extremely notable comic from a notable publisher. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Major significant absolute keep! I see no reason for this particular article to be marked for deletion. Albedo is listed here as a “Furry comic book.” However, it is also a science fiction comic. There are many entries in Wikipedia for similar titles in these categories, Albedo is a significant work in the area of Comics – it was groundbreaking in opening the door to a whole new subgenre. Before Albedo was published, “Furry comic books” were only of funny animal variety. I see no one putting Superman, Akira (manga), Critters, Bucky O'Hare, The DNAgents, and the like up for deletion. There are often many times a search on the internet can come up with little or even no hits – that is no reason for an article to be dropped from this site. There are many articles here that cover minor or even insignificant items of note – but the articles are still valid and legitimate. -- Jason Palpatine 14:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Starblind. - Lex 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brickey Elementary

Brickey Elementary (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

To explain this context/confusion black hole...An elementary school. In Tennessee. With about 1000 students. With the wrong name. Notable? Not so per WP:SCHOOLS, which is a proposed guideline though. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Also fails WP:HASRIGHTNAME. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability is presented in the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 04:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a building, nothing more. Resolute 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It has a two year history of... Absolutely nothing. -newkai t-c 05:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SCHOOL, the most widely-accepted standard for evaluating such articles. Seems to have little prospect that this article will ever advance beyond this point. Alansohn 06:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if you discount WP:SCHOOL as just a proposed policy, there is nothing here that shows that this school is notable. It has only existed for two years, and being built to solve an overcrowding problem does not make something notable. In the event it is kept, it needs to be moved to a different title. --Coredesat 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't finished researching this school yet (getting close to bedtime) but one student did place first in a low level state gymnastic competition- I have added a note about that to the article. The only other mentions of the school that aren't directory entries or something similar seem to be [10] which might have some relevant data, it notes a "military theme" for last graduation and has a few other minor details which might be able to be incorporated into the article. This [11] discusses their accelerated reading program and may also have a few details if anyone really wants to sort it out. The only other interesting one is [12] where the mention is incidental (and unreliable in any event- they can't even spell - "Bible studies") but sounds like it might be a first amendment case waiting to happen (except given the location this sort of thing might be taken for granted and without more details it is hard to see precisely what they are doing. The description is consistent with completely legal behavior- I may just be a cynical evil liberal). Presumably if they get an interesting case about that then the school would become notable but that obviously hasn't happened yet. JoshuaZ 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• *Weak but almost normal delete Ok, mainly per some of the above comments and my own comments earlier. Despite researching I could find nothing notable about the school. The only reason why this is weak delete is that I don't know enough about gymnastics to tell whether the mentioned gymnastic result could be arguably notable or not. From my limited knowledge my impression is no, but I'm not completely sure- the most reasonable test for that - presence of non-trivial coverage, indicates a lack of notability in the gymnastic success. JoshuaZ 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to full delete per evidence/comments from Fram below. JoshuaZ 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the student who earned the gymnastic result is not notable enough to have their own article, which they are not, then what they did is not notable enough to earn the school an article either. --The Way 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oh, and just for completeness, the school is also mentioned in participating in some minor program here [13]. This does not alter notability. JoshuaZ 06:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge. The entire school was demolished and rebuilt, and but wikipedia readers in the area aren't supposed to be able to find this out? If merged, might want to omit some of the details, as well as JoshuaZ' signature. Kappa 07:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ooh, Don;t know how that fell in there. took it out. Thanks. Will respond to the other comments tommorow probably. Have a goodnight. JoshuaZ 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding on my earlier comment, could you explain how being demolished and rebuilt is an indication of notability? One of the local drug stores he got demolished and rebuilt too. JoshuaZ 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeating my question, can you tell me why wikipedia readers shouldn't be able to find out that an entire school in their area was demolished, rebuilt and renamed? Kappa 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, as The Way observed below, having schools demolished and rebuilt is common and not at all a notable event. If they want to find out about it they can find from local resources. Wikipedia is not the history of every little thing that random city government decided to do. JoshuaZ 04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So much for putting the sum total of human knowledge in my hand. Parasites. Kappa 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sum total of human knowledge? WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Shimeru 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likely an add. No notability whatsoever. Spinach Dip 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The gymnast mentioned was competing at a really low (well, the lowest) level, as evidenced by e.g. this[14] article about Level 4 gymnastics. Thta also explains why it only gets one local passing mention in an article and no more coverage. No other discerning qualities, so no reason to keep this one. Fram 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability must be established and this is well short. Montco 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep 1000 pupils is a lot for an elementary school, isn't it? Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, should be reasonably easy to find sources and rename the article. JYolkowski // talk 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's bad enough that we tend to keep every single high school, please don't make a precedent of keeping every single elementary school as well. This is non-notable and so what if it was demolished and rebuilt? Two different elementary schools in my hometown, both of which are just as non-notable, have had the same thing happen to them and I'd assume it's not very uncommon across the US, let alone across the world (especially in developing countries). I must point out, as I have a tendency to do, what kind of precedent keeping this would set. First of all we'd have to take every elementary school, not only in the US but worldwide, that fits is as notable as this school, meaning most elementary schools would be able to get articles. This is not something Wikipedia needs, it amounts (as does keeping high schools, but that's an entirely different topic of discussion) essentially to a detailed directory and Wikipedia is NOT supposed to function as a directory. Elementary Schoolcruft. --The Way 23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if there's anything here worth noting, it can be noted in the appropriate Knoxville article. Lankiveil 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Utterly non-notewrothy and unlikely to expand. Can be re-added in the future if it should happen to become noteworthy. Shimeru 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delere per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this should be notable to the community and surrounding areas Yuckfoo 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, many things are notable to a community, that doesn't make them notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. Second of all, do you have any evidence that this is at all notable to the community and surrounding areas? JoshuaZ 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then place a redirect to Knoxville, Tennessee as a possible search term. Yamaguchi先生 22:26, 14 November 2006
• Keep. With so many children in attendance at a K-5 school, notability is debatable. Silensor 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted and made into a shrubbery. Er, a redirect. DS 15:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film

I think it's debatable that we need an article for every character that is in Holy Grail, but this is even worse—an article for a character that isn't in Holy Grail. It's an article devoted to a five-second joke. Chowbok ☠ 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a listing of every joke character in comedic movies Mitaphane _talk 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This should be merged as trivia in linking article. Does not deserve a single page. scope_creep 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it works... its funny, and relivant to the movie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.237.44.164 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 November 2006.
• Delete, merge unnecessary, the content is duplicated in the main article and in Spamalot. hateless 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As great as Monty Python is, this is very obviously cruft. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sir not appearing in this encyclopedia, for not being a character in a movie, and having no other claim to fame. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A funny part of one of my favourite films of all time, but the very definition of a character who doesn't need his own article for (among other things) not being a character. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. SWAdair 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Deserves a mention but not his own article. JIP | Talk 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. MER-C 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - why merge trivia? -- Whpq 15:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per above --Dangherous 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, no need to merge: already mentioned at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Plot, and that's all he needs. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)}
• Redirect to the movie article, where he's mentioned and the picture is there also. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl. As a stand-alone article...sir, this article not pinin'! It's passed on! This article is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace, if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! It is an ex-article! (In other words, I think it should be deleted.)--TheOtherBob 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 23:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Sensible Party !votes Weak Keep with second choice Merge and Redirect to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The Silly Party suggests Redirect to Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Show, the Broadway version. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, would have said delete, but I've a soft spot for Python. Lankiveil 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect then use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch upon the offender... Sorry... Redirect to Very silly people, not silly walks SkierRMH 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (who also did not appear in the film) (retired)[reply]
• Redirect to film. -- nae'blis 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good start, and in both movie and play. Dark jedi requiem 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to movie. - Lex 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an entire Category:Monty Python and the Holy Grail which current has 20 articles. I think we should respect that body of work and not go cherry-picking individual articles to delete. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is probably responsible for more people not getting laid than any other movie in history, so it's pretty notable. And apparently a number of editors have worked on the articles, enough to make a whole category. So I don't see the harm in keeping it. Also, Ni. Herostratus 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mudambi

Ram Mudambi (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable professor. --Swpb 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep He's an established economics writer. Articles needs rewritten, tidied and linked. scope_creep 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep, and that's only if the article is rewritten, expanded, cleaned, wikified, linked, verified, and sourced, within the course of this AfD.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mudambi&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 309 Google Scholar hits Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the linked search on Google Scholar is for the search term "Ram". A Search for "Ram Mudambi" in quotes shows 220 hits, not 309. At this point, it seems apparent that the article will be kept, and I have tried to wikify it somewhat, but I still feel this debate should give an accurate picture of the subject's notability. --Swpb 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per ageoBakaman _Bakatalk 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "per ageo"? what arguement did ageo make in favor of keeping the article? The user merely listed the debate on a list of related debates, I fail to see how that is an arguement in favor of keeping the page. --Swpb 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but the article needs wikifyied by cleaning it up, expanding it and getting it better sources. If this isn't done by the end of the AfD in five days, I could support deletion. --The Way 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets requirements, the article needs some serious wikification though. Lankiveil 00:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep- Noted Writer in economics journals. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - enough hits to warrant him being here, but it's a very weak article Pete Fenelon 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 23:05, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Trash Records

D-Trash Records (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable record label. --Swpb 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomimation. scope_creep 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, D-Trash is notable within the electronic music community. Phoeron 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) — Phoeron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• Delete - D-Trash is NOT notable within the electronic music community.Nor are you. This article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 01:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phoeron.--Húsönd 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I'm not an expert in electronica, but it seems like this label has enough notability to be worth saving. Article could use more work, though. Chubbles1212 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Elaragirl. Resolute 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No demonstration of notability, only references are the homepage and a blog. Most of the releases are CDr which means homemade. I will change my vote if I see evidence of notoriety. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Canadian electronica isn't my field but the distro page at DHR quotes reviews of their full-scale releases in Kerrang and Terrorizer, very much two of the leading publications in the field and ones based outside their native Canada at that. It seems they pass WP:MUSIC by dint of either has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network or has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network as a Google search proves the assertion in the article regarding their regular appearances on the Brave New Waves programme to be true, as an example, see here. So, Keep it is, I guess. Ac@osr 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (sorry, small edit required, misspelt link Ac@osr 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• D-Trash Records is one of the main, if not the only labels these days releasing Digital Hardcore music to date and has been an integral part of that genre of music's history, since 1998, almost 10 years now. D-TRASH has received many reviews in major publications, either local Canadian publications like Chart Magazine (circulation in the ten thousands), Exclaim Magazine (circulation in the hundreds of thousands, where D-Trash Records has received a full page article on their history in 2002), but also international publications like KERRANG, INDUSTRIAL NATION, SIDE-LINE, Rock Sound. Our music is registered within the archives of the Canadian National Library and also has received regular airplay on the nationwide Canadian Broadcasting Corporation CBC with Schizoid being requested to perform multiple hour-long DJ sets exclusively for the program. Schizoid of D-Trash Records is clearly listed on All Music Guide, a reference point for many music information queries. D-Trash Records's CDs are listed for sale on Itunes international digital music store, something very hard to attain for supposed 'unnotables', as well as Amazon.com. D-Trash Records has a North American wide distribution deal with Caroline Records meaning that you can go into any HMV anywhere in North America and buy a CD. Delete this entry if you will, but I think you should delete ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE artist and label page having anything to do with breakcore or the digital hardcore genre if you're going to delete this entry. There are far more labels and artists who are 'unknowns' and 'unnotable' than this entry. This wikipedia entry is by no means a vanity entry meant for empty self-congratulation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schizoid666 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 November 2006.
• Delete unless notability established; the article currently offers no evidence of notability. The previous recommendation claims notability: if there is such evidence, please add it to the article, and if it checks out I'd support a keep. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep smaller label with an extensive release history. Distributed by the label that distributed acts like Atari Teenage Riot. Fits criteria 7, 11 of WP:MUSIC and I would argue as a small label with nearly 100 releases that they pass criteria 4 as well.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponderosa Elementary School

Ponderosa Elementary School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable school, no sources, fails WP:SCHOOL. One of a group that was a contested prod. Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 00:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability asserts. scope_creep
• Delete no assertion of notability. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge per WP:SCHOOlS. Has an encylopedic history, no need to deprive readers of it. Kappa 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of WP:SCHOOLS (which is only a PROPOSED guideline) warrants this being kept?
• Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 04:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn elementary school Jaranda wat's sup 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a building that fails to assert notability. Resolute 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is essentially an expanded phone book entry. -newkai t-c 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for reliable sources is a bit difficult using google because there are multiple such schools (including it seems two by this name in California). If kept, this should be moved and "Ponderosa Elementary School" turned into a disambig page. That said, the only press coverage I can find is the article already mentioned at the bottom of the page which simply mentions the school in the context of an incident that occured on a school bus (from a different school). Thus, we have trouble getting any significant verifiable information. This is even before we get to questions of notability. Not surprisingly, the school has no real claims of notability, with no notable alumns, no notable awards, no athletes or teams that have performed at a notable level or anything else that might pass for notability. JoshuaZ 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasoning in the deletes above. If no other WP:V sources found it noteworthy, why should we? Fram 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no schools are notable. :) Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable school, no reliable sources. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to assert notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, among others, the nom, Newkai, and Terence. -- Kicking222 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets content policies. Alternately, a merge to the community can be considered. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another elementary school with an article? Again, it's bad enough that precedent has made it so virtually all high schools get articles, having articles for all elementary schools as well would be far worse. An elementary school is not inherently notable, and this school has nothing special about it as far as I can tell. --The Way 23:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if anything is worth noting here, then note it in the appropriate location article. Lankiveil 00:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability. No use of independent sources to tell us anything about this school. (Maybe someone should found Wikischools, with a GFDL compliant license so that all similar articles can be transwikied there.) GRBerry 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please meets guidelines and policies and does have secondary sources too Yuckfoo 19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It doesn't meet the guidelines and policies, since the "seconday source" is a perfect example of a "passing mention", not a source about the school at all. Fram 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge and place a redirect to Spring Independent School District as suggested by WP:SCHOOLS and WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 22:28, 14 November 2006
• Keep. The relevant information has already been merged to the school district article, but eventually we are going to reach a point where it is necessary to break that data out again into seperate articles, which would logically be sepereate school articles. Silensor 00:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Yamaguchi.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Sana

Ayesha Sana (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:BIO, article is unwikified, unsourced, unreferenced, a two line blurb about .. someone. Shrieking Harpy...... ^Talk|Count 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failing WP:BIO it appears and also advise the author of the article to take a look at conflicts of interest (the author claimed Sana as a relative in some of the first edits to the article. Metros232 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that some notability has been established. The AfDed state of this article was almost empty and devoid of content but this is much improved. Metros232 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the key thing to learn from WP:COI is that if you want to make an article about a famous relative, you should never mention the fact. Kappa 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you read the interviews linked in the article, this person does not seem at all non-notable and probably does not fail WP:BIO. Although I understand there is probably a conflict of interest, the actress is notable and the article should be kept. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete breaks WP:BIO. Had a look at google India. No where to be seen. scope_creep 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps that's because she's Pakistani, not Indian. Regardless, I found some results on Google India. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:BIO. Maybe Scope should try googling the country she comes from. Kappa 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the world perspective of Wikipedia, she seems notable. It not matter which country the media/search engine is from. Needs sources, but is already tagged. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I'm a deletionist, I'll have to say tentative keep. While the article doesn't give the impression of a notable person, several websites I've found via Google show that she is as notable as the average actress who has been in several films. I'll give it a go at cleanup, sourcing, and expansion soon, and if that doesn't work out, I'll switch to supporting deletion. Picaroon9288 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  See below. Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep from the above arguments. I removed most of the tags because they were excessive (ie, we don't need wikify and cleanup tags for a one-line stub). --Wafulz 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I also am a deletionist, and put a db-bio on this article at the start, I then found enough to change my mind and remove the tag hoping the article would get better. But it still really needs to be filled out. I'd like to see this Afd end undecided, so that if someone comes along later and the article has not improved it can get speedy deleted wihout issues. --ArmadilloFromHell 06:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The main article is a rediculous 21 words long. If it were expanded and wiki-ized, I could see myself voting 'keep'. Spinach Dip 10:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Picaroon has that covered already. Also, being short is not a reason for deletion. --Wafulz 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, though an urgent expansion on the article is needed. Seems notable with the amount of Google hits I get. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Question what does Ayesha Sana have to do with India? Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Kappa 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Okay, I've done some cleanup and expansion. Keepable now. Picaroon9288 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough. Lankiveil 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep seems notable, and there might not be a whole lot on her in English. I mean, we have an article on Eric Roberts, for goodness sake. But it could use more expanding.Phyesalis 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it could've been much longer. But there was a dearth of reliable sources to be found, and I adhere closely to that guideline (Even the ones I did cite aren't as solid-looking as I hoped.) I leave it in the hands of Wikipedians who speak Urdu, because I don't know a single non-proper noun in that language. Picaroon9288 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you put a call out to Urdu speakers for contributions? Given all the insignificant U.S. actors covered, I think this article contributes to the cultural diversity of WP. Maybe you could add info about Lollywood, give the article more context? Phyesalis 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Just this year Dawn called her "one of (Pakistan's) busiest and most bankable models" [15] (link from article) -- Shunpiker 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. She is a moderately known actress in Pakistan though has no super fame. --Marwatt 17:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- notable bio.  Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's pretty notable, she's the only actress mentioned under 21st Century Cinema on the Cinema of Pakistan page:

    In July 2002, Javed Sheikh's Yeh Dil Aap Ka Huwa [1] (Urdu for This Heart is Yours) starring Moammar Rana and Ayesha Sana, was released and
    had grossed over Rs. 200 million (US $3.4 million) across Pakistan. However, the short period of successes in the industry could not keep the 
    cinemas afloat and the same industry that at one time produced more than a 100 films annually a decade ago now reduced to a merely 32 in the 
    year 2003 with only one partial success called Larki Panjaban (A Punjabi Girl).
    Phyesalis 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do all of those statements have sources? Picaroon9288 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be a notable actress in Pakistan. --Oakshade 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a notable Pakistani actress who easily meets our WP:BIO criteria. Yamaguchi先生 22:23, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoeron

The Phoeron (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable personality, fails WP:V, WP:BIO Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 01:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability assertion. Guys only been on the music scence for a year. scope_creep

I am notable enough. I have had reviews published in SOD Magazine, Terrorizer, and SpaceJunkies.net. And that's two years, Scope Creep. Phoeron 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I've had articles published at the Washington Post, for Time Magazine, and in two books of poetry I've published, but I feel it's the very height of surfeited self-fluffery to make an article about myself. The last person who should determine you are notable is you. Please provide independant sources asserting your notability.K thx bye. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk|Count 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Swpb 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Flagrant WP:COI, fails WP:BIO.--Húsönd 03:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Resolute 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vanity boosterism page. Robovski 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - self-admitted conflict of interest. MER-C 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm at least as notable as this fellow, which is to say, that he's not very notable at all. Lankiveil 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Delete - walks all over WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:V and notability - seems to be self-penned self-promotion. Pete Fenelon 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've taken the time to read over Wikipedia policy, and I have to agree now, that this article should be deleted for the reasons given above. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. Phoeron 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator, subject of article agrees to this as well so perhaps speedy delete. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was include. That this meets WP:WEB by being distributed in the Ottawa Herald wasn't disputed. I think merging is possible, and of couse tagging/rewriting or the article as appropriate should be done, but the topic seems to meet the applicable inclusion guideline. W.marsh 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Bunnies

Funny Bunnies (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Delete. A comic strip that appears in one newspaper (since May of this year) and has been a webcomic since a couple of days ago. A Google search for "Cyrus Oliver"+"Funny Bunnies" produces 1 Google hit, although the article's author claims to have found 88 hits. Searching for "Funny Bunnies"+comic only shows 2 relevant hits in the first 5 pages. ... discospinster _talk 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability assertion. Its a simple advert. Delete. scope_creep 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and a fan of the said comic strip. Personally, I joined in hopes of adding articles for the category of animated films, but daunted by the idea I decided to start with a simpler concept and, just recently viewing the Funny Bunnies website, considered it to be a good start. I did find 88 hits when searching Google, but the relevancy of them is debatable. Having no connection to the author of this strip other than an exchange of a few emails the past week, I have no problems with this Wikipedia article being deleted. Whether or not it will be is up to administration. Thank you for your time.

Kirisutokyoo

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maybe in a couple of years it will become notable, but it's not there just yet. Shimeru 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete give it time, will support its inclusion once it's in a few more newspapers. Lankiveil 00:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:WEB, which I belive would be the standard used here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into an article about the Ottawa Herald until it becomes otherwise notable or syndicated. Yamaguchi先生 22:48, 14 November 2006
• Delete – I was intrigued by the assertion this article met WP:WEB. Google says “bunny bunnies” without being limited to comics, gets only 35,000 general hits, of which only 767 are distinct. An examination of the 767 hits, which is pretty tiny in the WWW scheme of things, shows a lot of mention for an unrelated book of the same name. Alexa shows the webcomic’s site is not in their top 100,000 ranks, even allowing for the fact it doesn’t take a lot of visits to move up. However, neither Google nor Alexa are final arbiters of notability per WP:WEB. WP:WEB says the comic needs to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works; the content/website needs to have won some well-known and independent award; and, the content is distributed by a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. Of these three conditions, the third is clearly met by the Ottawa Herald. The comic however fails to show being the subject of any non-trivial published works, nor does the website or comic boast any well-known, independent awards. “funny bunnies”+”cyrus oliver” gets only three hits, two being the author’s website and the third being a Xanga page. I parenthetically note the article also fails the general WP:NOT. Tychocat 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB says that it meets the criteria if it meets any one of the listed. Even you admit it meets #3. If the article is violating WP:NOT, then some editing can be done to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steffan Browning

Steffan Browning (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This person isn't notable. Fails Wikipedia:BIO Stood for parliament on a minor party ticket, with very little likelihood of gaining election. This person is of minor interest in Green Party circles, but not generally. Self-promotion.

• Delete Fails all notability assertions. scope_creep 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. It isn't self promotion, the article was written along with articles about very many of the candidates in the New Zealand general election, 2005. Since he wasn't elected, and doesn't appear to have come to the public eye since, I agree with the deletion.-gadfium 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a candidate confers no inherent notability. Get elected first, or do something more notable than running a shop. Caknuck 05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GringoInChile 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If mere candidacy was sufficient, Wikipedia would be filled with tens of thousands of names of obscure and failed politicians, running for parliament, regional legislatures, and district commissions from Alberta to Zanzibar. This entry is comparable to the hundreds of backup dancers, actors without speaking parts, and other non-celebrities who have created self-referential and derivative entries about themselves, hoping that asserting their own fame will lead to its achievement. ArkansasRed 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn unelected politician. Come back when you get elected. Lankiveil 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miesiac

del some neopaganic speculations. "Mesiac" simply means moon or month in several Slavic languages. Of course, there is some mythology about Sun and Moon, but this article is hoppeless. While it is a rather harmless text, in view of the current drive for article quality it has to go. I could have suggested to move it under some resonable title, kinda Slavic Moon deities, but it sits he in unverified state for like 3 years now. `'mikkanarxi 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is still been developed. Give it some time to add sources etc and further wikification. scope_creep 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Developed? You must be kidding. Did you check the contributions in its history? Any`'mikkanarxi 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shit I never saw the contros going that far back. I still think we should keep it, If sources are found. scope_creep 02:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perhaps merge to a more general article, but only if this god(dess) has believers (verifiable ones!). Otherwise, Delete. --humblefool® 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as far as I know, there is nothing like this in the real Slavic mythology; the article does not cite sources, and therefore I suppose that it is realy a modern speculation and/or original research of the author.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Ioannes Pragensis I've never come across anything resembling this. Nuttah68 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March Hare Software

March Hare Software (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Not notable per WP:CORP RossPatterson 02:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 10:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable (A7) or as advertisement (G11) or just Delete per all that. Xtifr _tälk 11:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7 --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was:Speedily deleted - vanity. - Mike Rosoft 12:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rosenberg

Ryan Rosenberg (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Appears to be a vanity page. The article is about 10-year old Ryan Rosenberg, aka "Reeshan", and coincidentally, the user who created the page is also named Reeshan. Google searches turn up no information about him. Walkiped 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page per nom. Robovski 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (A7) Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Participation in film likely a hoax, Google search for "Ryan Rosenberg"+"The Dead Silence" renders this article as the only result.--Húsönd 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Blatant and pointless. Spinach Dip 10:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ec10

I do not think that a class nearly everyone has to take is actually notable CobaltBlueTony 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, a college course in of itself is nn notable.--Dakota 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every college in the country has an intro to economics course. Fan-1967 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Húsönd 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think a class specific to one single university is notable. You'd have to be a Harvard student to even know what "Ec10" means. JIP | Talk 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fan-1967. Individual college courses should not be considered notable enough to warrant articles in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 07:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adding trivial article after article after article about extremely minor American phenomena is IMO creating systemic bias. Would the creator of this article like to create similar articles for every introductory course in every university on Earth? --Charlene 08:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Oakshade 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Riverfront Hotel Windsor

Radisson Riverfront Hotel Windsor (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable hotel; the hole in the ground next to it may be a local political issue that deserves an article, but the hotel itself is just another Radisson. Brianyoumans 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom; it's nonsense. - CobaltBlueTony 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tenth, soon-to-be-11th tallest building in Windsor. Uh, no. Nor is a visible logo the same as a landmark. [16] --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikitravel. Nothing special about this hotel. --Oakshade 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can't transwiki to Wikitravel. --Coredesat 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A building which fails to assert significance. Resolute 05:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not really meet the notability criteria, nothing significant of the hotel. So what if the Radisson logo can be seen from Detroit? I can see Batam from Sentosa on a clear day. Nothing notable at all. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom -- Whpq 15:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing notable about this building, even under WP:LOCAL.--Isotope23 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep... I guess that's pretty clear! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike the Headless Chicken

Mike the Headless Chicken (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Lloyd Olsen (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article's legitimate reference was a broken link to the Guinness Book of World Records. I went to find the link manually through their page and through Google, with no luck. Indeed, searching for "headless chicken -mike" didn't turn up many results. Delete unless someone can turn up some legitimate evidence.

Note that I am also nominating Lloyd Olsen as it's pretty much an extension of this article. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The link to The Straight Dope article suggests that only 2/3rds of the chicken's head was cut off, but the pictures seem to show total decapitation. Is that an inconsistentcy or is my knowledge of poultry biology lacking? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are right, but you are thinking of the neck/head region as a human has as opposed to how a chicken has. The actual decapitation was across the very back of the head, leaving (very likely) the parts of the brain needed for more automatic processes. Imagine you are decapitated but with the blade falling down through the back of your head behind the ears.Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable (if extremely odd) cultural phenomenon. The Straight Dope article shows that Mike has been covered in Life magazine as well as a Garrison Keillor book. I do however support a merge of the Lloyd Olsen article into Mike's article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further research reveals a salon article celebrating Mike's holiday, and a documentary film availabe on DVD entitled Chick Flick: The Miracle Mike Story. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, cool. So the question I have then is whether this is a hoax or not. If it is, I understand that it'll still be notable considering what you discovered there. If not, then I stand astounded. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the Straight Dope column puts to rest any possibility that it was a hoax: as Cecil writes, "This sort of thing evidently occurs fairly often. When Dear Abby ran a column on it a while back she got clippings and eyewitness reports about headless-but-living chickens from all over the country." So not only isn't it fake, it's not even unique or all that uncommon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and besides that, Olsen charged 25 cents to see Mike and supposedly made $4500 a month for 18 months, quite a pretty penny in those days. By rough estimate, and counting paying customers only, that means at least 325,000 saw Mike up close and in person. There's a whole lot of eyewitnesses to Mike's realness out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool. That's good enough for me. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 04:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's enough reliable evidence that a festival in Mike's honour exists, whether the story is true or not. However, in my opinion either the story should not be stated as fact or some reference to its truth should be found. --HarrisX 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mike has appeared in a book by Karl Kruszelnicki, who is nice enough to include full references in said books. In particular, his story has appeared in Life magazine (22 October 1945), and he's had a book written about him (Teri Thomas, The Official Mike the Headless Chicken Book - A 1940s Tale of Two Men and a Chicken), so I don't think WP:V is in any trouble here. And if anyone can track down either of those sources, they can be used to bolster the article and probably provide some evidence as to the truth of Mike's existence. Confusing Manifestation 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weird but true, subject of several news items in it's day, rather notable. Robovski 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It is no hoax Konman72 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This article is not a hoax. Also, I Googled "Mike the Headless Chicken" and many results turned up relating to this chicken. - King Ivan 04:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the chicken and merge the farmer. Caknuck 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mike but verify first. Pcu123456789 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - of course - what a silly nomination - this is a really interesting piece. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mike has been researched and verified by many secondary sources, including Guinness, The Straight Dope, and Steve Silverman[17]. --Charlene 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the thing on Mike is true, it appeared in the Guinness and many other reliable places. The article is not a hoax, and a Google search tells it all, notable rooster. In the case of Lloyd, merge it to any appopriate article, or else delete it. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this article is clearly not a hoax as there are several reliable sources stating that it is true, so it should be kept. But merge Lloyd Olsen into this article. - # BROWNSAY SOMETHING!!! | 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC) 14:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mike, Redirect Lloyd. DCEdwards1966 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep -- for what it's worth now. I actually looked this article up a few months ago and it was extremely useful - mainly for the fact I didn't believe the story when it was mentioned on a TV programme. Bubba hotep 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Although this may be more of a reflection of what a sad bunch of people we are here in colorado, this story receives nearly annual coverage in major newspapers, and I believe there is now a festival 'Headless chicken days' MNewnham 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The Straight Dope has investigated the story and they reference a 1945 Life article about it. I have also heard about this and read Mike's story in more than one book (though I can't recall the titles, sorry). Even IF the story is not true the legend is common enough that it deserves an entry in Wikipedia. --six.oh.six 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Yes, what he said. I have certainly heard of the chicken as well, and even if it is a hoax, it is indeed a common cultural meme and should be kept. -Edlin2 22:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I hadn't heard of this before, but quite a good story, and a well-written article. Lankiveil 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Well-known oddity. Kinda like a particularly famous internet meme, except of course he was around quite some time before the internet. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per Edlin2 Armanalp 08:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Well-known story, strong support, endearing chicken. Shari 19:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It's a true story about an important popular culture phenomenon. *jb 23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — It's actually quite notable, and I've heard of this from numerous different sources. Poor chicken, though. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think at this point we can snowball this AFD. We've had a number of references added to the article and everything from Lloyd Olsen has already been merged. I think we're all in agreement here if we keep Mike and delete Lloyd? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've seen this on the news multiple times over the years, so it's definitely notable. Xuanwu 09:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not a Hoax and after all Wikipedia is an encylopedia so people will be looking at this article. Dep. Garcia 15:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and merge what's salvageable into RuneScape. Naconkantari 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape economy

RuneScape economy (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

There has not been enough written about this subject to make it verifiable, and I don't belive it is notable enough for inclusion anyway. The economy of a game does not deserve its own article. There was a previous AfD debate which reached no consensus, which I will find the link to. Amarkov ^babble 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article has had a previous AfD discussion (albeit bundled in with a bunch of other stuff), which can be found here. -Amarkov ^babble 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's very little here that isn't just boiled down general economic theory. --humblefool® 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete little of this is RuneScape-specific, and the general topic is better covered (and far better referenced) at Virtual economy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft, we don't need such a specific topic on RuneScape's economy. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Because this is a part of a series about different aspect of the game, we should judge them all together, I think. Why to delete "economy" and let "weaponry"?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because last time that was tried,it ended up in a big huge mess. See the previous AfD discussion I cited. -Amarkov ^babble 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just because one article was deleted for a certain reason doesn't mean it should be apply to all articles. I beleive that these discussions should be about the article itself rather then comparing it to other AfDs. --Pinkkeith 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape weaponry and RuneScape armour are being merged and redirected to RuneScape combat soon, rewritten to be much more encyclopedic. No need to worry about it much longer. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into RuneScape, there's plenty of space in there now. Was it this article or RuneScape community or both that were split from the main to keep the page size below 35kb? Meh. A good replacement could be, in the main article; a {{seealso}} to Virtual economy (per Starblind) and a short paragraph about how RS differs from other MMORPGs - ie, having a worryingly large arms trade, and trading fish. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems for too crufty for my liking. The Kinslayer 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to virtual economy. Garrett^Talk 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that redirect would not be useful. The article you wish to redirect it to is a general article about virtual economy while the current article is a specific discussion about the economy of one MMORG. Your suggestion would be the same as saying delete Economy of North America and redirect it to World economy. --Pinkkeith 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! I've changed my mind on this (see below). Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:CaptainVindaloo. --Pinkkeith 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to RuneScape with a {{seealso}} to virtual economy to identify the non-unique features of the economy. Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete - where this isn't elementary it's of no interest beyond players of the game. Belongs somewhere else. Pete Fenelon 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Much of the information is knowledge that even non-playing users would like to know about, so I do not feel that it should be deleted as funcruft. Mamyles^Talk 5:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to RuneScape and then redirect to RuneScape. Info is fair enough, but probably doesn't merit an article of its own. --Czj 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much fancruft to be useful

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Charak

Alex Charak (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

This 18 year old rookie soap star, who got there by winning an online reality contest, and was introduced into a soap at the end of September 2006. He has all of 80 unique Ghits. He's not notable, yet. Delete. Ohconfucius 02:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Soaps aren't my bag, but a recurring role on As the World Turns is pretty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This guy has a recurring role on a major television show, ATWT (he's been on six episodes, all in the fall of 2006), and therefore passes WP:BIO. If the role is eliminated, then we can revisit this. --Charlene 09:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, having a role on ATWT is notable. I do see an IMDB page, so in one way or another this guy is notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - recurring role on a TV series -- Whpq 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a name likely to be looked up by encyclopedia users. Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not particularly notable yet but as far as this article goes it's well written and causes no problems with WP:BIO.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rane Helms

Rane Helms (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Appears to be a vanity page. On the creator's user page, he claims to wrestle under the name of "Rane". The article says Rane Helms' official web page is www.mstsage.com, and that his myspace page is myspace.com/mstsage. So clearly the user who created the page is Rane Helms. Other than myspace pages, Google turned up no verifiable information on this person. Walkiped 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (A7) NN and blatant WP:COI.--Húsönd 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because you know HTML doesn't mean your group of friends is a wrestling federation. Caknuck 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. A completely useless vanity page. Spinach Dip 10:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, vanity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Community Church

New Life Community Church (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article on a local church that reads like a directory/advertisement (violating the policy on what Wikipedia is not) and that contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability. Claims to have been around for 75 years. I endorsed a prod by another user, it was removed with out adding anything I can see as a claim to notability. GRBerry 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are many churches with that name and this one is very nn. Delete per Wikipedia is not. meshach 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN church. Article does read a bit like an ad.--Húsönd 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. The most interesting thing in this article is the statement "After the trialing period the church is slowly regaining members". But it's not explained what "trialing" is. --Metropolitan90 07:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn church, advertisement, biased tone. Most local churches are non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, but only after free turkey dinner day. MNewnham 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing notable about this church. Lankiveil 01:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Speedy delete. NN, ad, biased, SkierRMH 07:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as the orig. PRODer DesertSky85451 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. NN, and only of very minor local interest Pete Fenelon 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability - how is it different than the millions of other churches in the world? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted as nonsense, and redirected to Haunted hayride. - Mike Rosoft 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted hay ride

Haunted hay ride (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

No ghits for this, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete current contents, Redirect to Haunted hayride. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt if this is even a real term. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Shave and redirect. How does this crap get all the way to Afd? --- RockMFR 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate as a redirect to Haunted hayride. --Coredesat 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then redirect per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm actually amazed that this isn't up for speedy deletion. A completely useless 20-word article. Spinach Dip 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would've happily speedy tagged it, but what would it fit under? It's not really nonsensical (the text is coherent, even if silly), and there's no "no assertion of notability" category for neologisms. WP:CSD specifically states that even obvious hoaxes aren't speedy candidates just due to the hoax factor. It also seems to provide enough context not to fit under {{db-blank}}, even if barely. As many of these as there are, I think "neologism that doesn't assert notability" should be a speedy criterion, but as of now it's not. If you know of one that does fit though, let me know, I see a lot of this stuff on NP patrol-usually the prod just gets left, but in this case it didn't. Seraphimblade 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't fit the criteria exactly, but it is partly nonsensical, un-notable, and has virtually no context. In my opinion, that should make it worthy of a speedy deletion. Spinach Dip 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying {{db-nonsense}}. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as having no meaningful content. So tagged. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this has now been added to WP:BJAODN. --- RockMFR 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted: no context - unsourced neologism. - Mike Rosoft 11:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apeist

Apeist (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

• Delete Dicdef or neologism. Ohconfucius 03:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense and probable hoax. I wanted to tag this for "Speedy", but none of the categories seem quite right. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with speciesism, if it is really a word. Chubbles1212 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the article. Nonsense. Chubbles1212 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a student of Biology, I can say this definition is complete BS. Spinach Dip 09:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furcadia

Furcadia (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Article does not assert notability. Fails WP:WEB and notability/verifiability guidelines. Anomo 04:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Furcadia is one of the furry community's largest well, community online. There are 2500 to 4000 members online at one given time (There are 4600 online right now). It has also been around since 1996. It's not as if Furcadia is relatively recent, or even rarely known. I'll help contribute to make the article better, but its more helpful if people HELP and add stuff to the article, than suggest deletion. Disinclination 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not based on number of people on the site, or length of time existing. It's based on the presence of multiple reliable secondary sources, which simply do not exist here. -Amarkov ^babble 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why don't you, or other people who wish to delete this article help out instead of voting it to be deleted? Disinclination 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • *wham* *wham* *wham* Now that I've finished banging my head on the desk...
    • The issue is not that the article should be rewritten. The issue is that the subject itself is not notable. I'm beginning to get really annoyed by people who seem to think that articles should never be deleted, just rewritten. -Amarkov ^babble 04:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, as I am reading the several links given about why this article should be deleted, how it is -not- notiable. Yes, there are several articles about furry and whatnot. And Furcadia is a massive community, not just a website. It is stated under history, and other sections about what makes Furcadia unique and notiable, as far as I can understand. Disinclination 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A furry website among many. No verification that this one's particularly notable. Fan-1967 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I'm amazed at that the assertion that this is non-notable. This is not a website. It's an MMO that's been running for the last nine years, and which has over 3,000 players online at this very moment. Finalist for the 9th IGDA awards, see associated coverage at GameSpy. Unrelated interview at GameDev.net. Its predecessor DragonSpires was mentioned in Wired magazine. Google results: about 232,000. GreenReaper 05:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always heard it wasn't good that basically it had no gameplay aspect at all. Then I looked and saw it had no media references. Greenreaper, those references of awards and interviews should have been in the article. Anomo 07:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gameplay is provided by scripts that execute on objects within the world. I guess the people who you heard that from never went to go and play in one of those areas, or just didn't like them. Like Second Life, it is not exactly a game so much as an online interaction space. People do tend to roleplay there, there's a system called Furre! based on the Pocket Universe RPG rules, and the popular webcomic Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures is based on it. And yes, they should have been in the article, and they weren't, but they can be now. GreenReaper 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An awful lot of furry related articles seemed to be getting nominated today. Robovski 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second the comment At any given time there are probably thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could reasonably be reviewed for deletion and it does look highly suspect when several of them from a related subject area get nominated at about the same time, at least when the articles in question have existed for many months (in some cases over a year) and were developed and maintained independently of one another. Mwalimu59 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's because no one has suggested it before. I did, and people took up on it. Perhaps it's long overdue. Furries aren't super-well known after all. Miltopia 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Popculturecruft. An MMO is not inherently notable, and very well may be the opposite. Not encyclopedia content. --Charlene 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there appear to be no non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources, so we cannot verify the neutrality of the article. Also appears to fail WP:WEB. Guy 09:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long-running MMO, has been covered per GreenReaper. Needs cleanup, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Perfectly verifiable. Shimeru 10:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedia content. Biased sources. The only people that would look it up on Wikipedia are the players themselves because its userbase is so minor. Karozoa 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm seeing plenty of reliable sources. Richard A. Bartle's book "Designing Virtual Worlds" (ISBN 0131018167) cites it as being among the first graphical worlds to allow player-created construction. Jeannie Novak's "Game Development Essentials: An Introduction" (ISBN 1401862713) shows its community-building features. It even gets a current Google News hit, although that doesn't look promising. I know it's had some magazine coverage as well, being one of the first large graphical free MMORPGs. Definitely notable, definitely verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is one of the remaining MMOs, I agree with Starblind, its verifiable and notable. If this has been nominated for deletion, why not its developer and its chairperson get sent for AFD as well? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received media attenttion, and it seems to have historical value for innovations in gaming. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Don't know much about furries, but I've heard of it, and it appears to have some significance in this minority community. WMMartin 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GreenReaper. This is verifiable and clearly a significant online community, so there appears to be no compelling reason for deletion. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, furcruft. Lankiveil 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep It is notable. There is much discussion in the tech world about getting women into designing and gaming. Over half of Furcadia's players are women. I'll look for some stuff to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep actually due to it's narrow targetted audience. Activity seems to be comparable to Habbo, if the top commenter is right with his/her numbers. I would know because I'm closing the pools as we speak. I think most of Wikipedia's furry-related articles need to go, but not this one. Miltopia 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Pretty sure this is notable, I've seen it talked about in quite a few places over the web. The Kinslayer 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Starblind's sources. Again, the criterion is verifiability, not whether the article currently has sources. — brighterorange (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Starblind. Also, the nominator doesn't make any comments why the user feels it isn't notable. I think Starblind made the best effort to estabilish notability. --Pinkkeith 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this game has received media and book coverage. I'm not a player and I'd heard of it. It seems notable enough to me, though could perhaps do with some of those references being added to the article. Polenth 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, has anyone else who has voted "Delete" here had their user page "modified"? Really mature, furries. Lankiveil 11:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • THAT'S going to get lots of keep votes... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without speculating on whether the person doing this is a furry fan or not (I haven't looked), I'll just say that if some individual is not following the rules they should be dealt with appropriately. --Mwalimu59 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's just you. I think I prefer it when they take the time to register accounts. GreenReaper 16:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's also this: User:Miltopia. Lankiveil 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • If he didn't want to "bring his personal baggage" to Wikipedia, he shouldn't have made a public post telling people to "plz help to keep the furfags down", and pointing to Wikipedia's deletion review. It's kinda hard to assume good faith after you see that. GreenReaper 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nom fails to assert valid reason for deletion. Also keep per Starblind's excellent arguments. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Delete. WP:WEB doesn't apply to this as Furcadia isn't a website. Besides, it's a mildly popular MMO with thousands of users logged on at any given time. Though I do think this article goes into unnecessary detail which would serve a much better purpose at WikiFur. --Donbert 04:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Going back and looking at WP:WEB, I realized it applies to "web-specific content," so it does indeed apply to Furcadia. --Donbert 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is a website. MMORPGs are still websites. And the number of people who play is irrelevant to whether or not there are multiple reliable secondary sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which there are, per Starblind. Shimeru 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MMORPGs are websites? MMORPG means "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". Simply because a game is online doesn't mean it's web-specific. Examples: World of Warcraft, Second Life, Guild Wars. -kotra 09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1. Debatable whether this is covered under WP:WEB. Note online-games/virtual worlds aren't mentioned as an example, 2. Notability and historical significance has been confirmed by the list of articles/websites/etc. quoted by GreenReaper and Starblind, 3. even if it is considered to be covered under WP:WEB, point 2 verifies its notability. Regardless on what people's views are on "furries", Furcadia is notable and hence the original recommendation to delete, is moot. --Rambutaan 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... You can't declare someone's opinion moot simply because you disagree, no matter how well-founded your disagreement is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why would WP:WEB apply to a MMOG that's not web-based? Because it has a website? It seems to me that the people who are citing WP:WEB might not know that Furcadia exists as a standalone client, not on the web. Notability? 60,000+ active players, being one of the early pioneers of the MMOSG genre, lasting 9+ years with no interruption and continuing to grow (no small feat for a video game), and even being a finalist for an award (albiet a minor one) combine to make it seem pretty notable, don't you think? As for verifiability, 3 or 4 good sources and a 3+ more okay sources is quite a bit better than most video game articles. If you think this article isn't well sourced, take a look here. Afd a few dozen video game articles with much fewer sources if it makes you feel good. ...Or, you could actually improve Wikipedia by helping to make articles better. (strike that, evidently Inclusionism is taboo) -kotra 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do we really need a page for every minor bit of "furry culture"? A few offhand mentions in a couple of books, no major awards to speak of, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, and a very loyal, but very small fanbase. Doesn't add up to notability to me. MichelleG 09:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per the above commenters. Is there a discrimination taking place against these people? It seems like it. Yamaguchi先生 22:39, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth - A novel about the Software Industry

Self-published by vanity press iUniverse, Inc., ranked 2,138,129 at Amazon for the paperback, no ranking for the hardback. Non-notable author whose homepage is at angelfire. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This book was published by Writers Workshop Kolkata, a small but prestigious publisher who published authors like Vikram Seth for the first time. Due to the limited distribution of Writers Workshop, this was republished.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanturner25 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 November 2006

• Delete - non-notable. Wait until it's a bestseller. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability for the book or the author. Wait until it's even a decent seller, or gets reviewed by notable publications. Fan-1967 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an Indian novel. Do we know whether or not it's a good seller in India, or are we basing "notability" on US notability? --Charlene 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The author is originally from India, but the bookseller links are purely American. No indications of any Indian publication or distribution. Fan-1967 15:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 32 ghits, nothing but booksellers. MER-C 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Nothing but prestigious. Bubba hotep 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, until this can be properly sourced. Not asking for a bestseller, but appropriate coverage by a third party would suffice. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Joshi

Apoorva Joshi (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

likely hoax:

• 151 unique Ghits, none relevant except the wikipedia article.
• "Apoorva Joshi" + reptile and "Apoorva Joshi" + veterinary scored only the wiki article
• Most of the people of that name, including the most prominent Head of Operations at the Indian Consulate of Congo, are male.
• nohits on National Geographic
• Worldcat search for Snakes of India showed no hits (out of 125) for that author; apoorva joshi zero hits.
• the article's author User:Manans is a single purpose account with no other edits.

Delete Ohconfucius 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some proof against nn is produced meshach 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cribananda 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Needs verifiability from independent sources. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -as per all.Nileena joseph 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nominator. --Marwatt 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator, probable hoax. Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Irey

Diana Irey (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Failed US house election canidate. Lost by a huge margin; she had 39% and Jack Murtha had 61%.[18] She got media attention in the election for attacking Murtha's character.[19] County commissioners are not notable. Arbusto 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed the percentage (was 22%, is now 39%), per the cited reference. The 22% figure is the winning margin of Murtha's, not Irey's percentage of the vote. I personally don't think that changes anything, and am voting (below) for redirecting to Murtha's page. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ...did you really just cite two sources about her and then immediately turn around and claim she isn't notable? -Amarkov ^babble 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single 435 house election will have coverage on the people who ran via election results, which includes independents of minor political parties. Should every single failed congressional canidate from all parties from all elections be included on wikipedia? Arbusto 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yes, if there are sources... -Amarkov ^babble 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean IF? Every single person of every single party is listed at CNN.com and each state election website. Every single canidate, by definition has been interviewed by a newspaper and has a mention at databased like CNN.com. Every failed house canidate is not notable. Arbusto 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was pretty clear about what I meant. In my opinion, something is notable if it has multiple reliable secondary sources about it. -Amarkov ^babble 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bar down my street has several reliable secondary sources about it because it sold to a minor and got its liquor license revoked, by your standards it deserves an article. Hell, my father owns a liquor store and its been in the newspapers and such on several occassions as well, so it apparently deserves an article as well. Fortunately, verifiability is not the only requirement for something or someone getting an article, it also needs to be notable which this person is not. Delete. --The Way 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete you are confusing verifiable which is what the sources give you, i.e she does exist and she did run, with notable, i.e. has she done anything other than just stand and engage the media during that standing. Specifically for politicians the guidelines state

• Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
• Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability

so she ran and failed (and what politician doesn't bad mouth the opposition) so non-notable--Steve (Slf67) ^talk 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steve. TJ Spyke 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If she's in stories about losing to Murtha, it's everything to do with Murtha and nothing to do with her, since the actual subject of said stories is, in fact, Murtha. --Calton | Talk 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent and WP:BIO. We remove articles on failed candidates for New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc. elections unless they're otherwise notable; American failed candidates should not be accorded special status. --Charlene 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of any notability once her concession speech was over. I expect we'll be seeing a lot of these now that the US elections are over, and any candidate whose only notability was the campaign should be removed. (I live in a district that is considered such a lock that, amazingly, no one ever even created an article for the Democrat who volunteered as this year's sacrificial lamb. One less to delete.) Fan-1967 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I'm going to incorporate a bit of information from the article into the Murtha article, and suggest redirecting the Irey article into that. John Broughton | Talk 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, at least for now. You guys are seriously suggesting that a House of Representatives candidate who got a non-trivial number of votes, and lost the election that happened only three days ago should be deleted? Like lots of marginally-notable recent news events, she should probably stick around for a few weeks or months at least. -- Plutor ^talk 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She received heavy media attention in her race to oust Murtha.--Tdl1060 16:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think I want to vote delete but will abstain for now. Her notability is primarily derived from her opponent rather than anything she did. All references to her relate to the race rather than the candidate. So she in and of herself is not notable as a candidate. I do not know if someone can establish any notable action as a county commissioner (which is a reasonably powerful job in PA since counties are governed by a tribunal ith minimal checks and balances). If so I could consider supporting a keep since the totality of her political career would push her over the top in my opinion. Montco 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Steve, failed political attempt. Nuttah68 22:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Her notability didn't disappear Wednesday morning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- she's been a county commissioner (an elected position) for 10 years, and was the youngest person and only woman ever to be elected so in that county; and for other reasons as stated above: look at the totality of her career, not just a single failed Congressional race. (Other odds 'n ends: over 250K g-hits; "Diana Irey came as close as anyone in the past 32 years to defeating Murtha" [20]); etc. -- Sholom 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, especially User:Plutor
• Keep. Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 14 November 2006
• Strong Keep. Notable and certainly verifiable. Note that the high-traffic election site www.electoral-vote.com started linking to our articles on both incumbents AND challengers for congressional seats this year; it's a sign that this coverage is EXPECTED by the world outside AfD. Unfocused 05:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't keep based on coverage you expect will soon be available. It can be recreated then, but it may well lack sources NOW. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage required to verify is included in comments above. The point I'm making is that the outside world already expects us to have at least basic coverage of all congressional challengers. Unfocused 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realize that was what you were saying. It's still not an argument for keeping, but the coverage required is indeed mentioned above. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outside world is our audience. If not for them, who are we writing for? This is certainly a valid argument for keeping because it is central to the mission of the project! Unfocused 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin McNevis

Benjamin McNevis (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Arrrgh, maties, another pirate story! Ho-ho-ho-ho-hoax and a bottle of rum, he sailed the internet blue with nary a ghit in sight. Also died of eating poisoned haggis. Tubezone 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrgh, matey! Walk the plank! Or delete. --- RockMFR 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Avast! Delete this article down to Davy Jones' Locker, arr!. Unverifiable hoax. --Coredesat 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yer be wantin' to delete this load o' bilgewater, mateys. --Charlene 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total nonsense. Spinach Dip 09:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Article should walk the plank ...and please BJAODN discussion afterwards. --Ouro 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete abject nonsense that is not even close to being historically accurate. Nuttah68 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The references to Ben Nevis, treasure maps and poisoned haggis scream hoax. AlmostReadytoFly 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Ben Nevis, a mighty mount she be. But this arrrrghticle, she blows! Scuttle her quick to the briny deep, I say! Tubezone 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Yarr, hoax ahoy! Lankiveil 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Delete - fancruft? children's stories? Not needed here. Pete Fenelon 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of viruses from Mega Man Battle Network

Barely populated and NN fancruft Steve (Slf67) ^talk 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just like the "List of how XXX dies"-type article nominated above. -newkai t-c 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though I love the MMBN series...... --- RockMFR 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless, incomplete and crufty list. MER-C 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 13:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, totally full of cruft. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -as per all. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Jordan

Ashley Jordan (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Not notable - Does not appear to meet WP:PORN BIO. IMDB lists 18 films] Ohconfucius 05:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Tutmosis 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lankiveil 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- no assertion of notability. Haikupoet 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree she does not fulfill the criteria of WP:PORN BIO. --Marwatt 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of British words not widely used in the United States

transwiki If it is not wiktionary then I am ballerina. Also, who says they are not widely used? How they are selected? (Why there is no "phocodontia" in this list? I don't think it is used very widely in the United States.) If it is said in a book, then such list is most probably a copyvio, because selection of a list is copyrightable, but never mind. This is just a category for wiktionary. `'mikkanarxi 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As some of the entries demonstrate, what is widely used is a matter of opinion. -Amarkov ^babble 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Note that the article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. It is probably worth reviewing the debate from then: here is a Wikilink :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British words not widely used in the United States. WLD 07:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but prune ruthlessly to remove words which are used in the US, but with different meanings. AlexTiefling 08:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but somebody should go through this and remove some of the bowdlerized definitions. For instance, balls-up has nothing to do with snow balling up in horses' hooves - it actually does come from testicles per three book references I have. The story given in the definition (at least before I deleted it) is a very well-known Victorian bowdlerization, probably propagated by the same people who say the "F" in "SNAFU" actually does mean "fouled". --Charlene 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - List is useful and much easier to read than the 'Different Meanings' article. (Also, "phocodontia" should be in List of English words that are not often used in the UK nor in the United States, however I'm not sure that there's much call for that list - it might be rather long! -- EdJogg 10:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful list, this is not really a dictionary list. This article needs to be cleaned up though. I don't see what's wrong with this list. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 14:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - dont see a reason to delete. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful, interesting, referenced somewhat. Edison 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and hope you can still get into your tutu. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way :-) `'mikkanarxi 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all keepers: There is nothing wrong with this list. Y'all people keep forgetting that there are many different places in wikimedia to store information. For example, images are preferrably stored in wikicommons, quotes are in wikiquote. There are also wikisource and wikibooks. For those who are young and don't know history, be it known that previously all this stuff was packed into wikipedia. Just the same, wiktionary is the palce for definitions of word usage (dicdefs). It has category, appendixes, WikiSaurus and perfectly valid storage of useful information. `'mikkanarxi 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. This is also an unmaintainable list with OR problems. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wiktionary Ozzykhan 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does Wiktionary have a way of keeping a list like this together, or of having the words in a category? A related list of items, or a list of words used differently in two dialects, is in no way a dictionary definition. I have never found useful info in Wiktionary because of the terseness and vagueness of the definitions. Putting each of these terms in a dictionary unlinked would defeat the purpose and make it impossible to find what terms differ between US and British usage. I suppose each term's definition could be mentioned in the related term's entry, but that would still lose the overall list. There is info in a list or category which is lost when the items are separated and scattered. Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Edison 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (At the risk of repeating arguments advanced in the first AFD debate) Wikipedia is an international project with both American editors (like me!) and British editors (like, um, well, I know there are some somewhere). If someone from someplace else uses a term you don't understand or uses a term you do understand in a way that seems nonsensical it is nice to not have to go away from Wikipedia to find an explanation. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, why wern't List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, American and British English spelling differences, and American and British English pronunciation differences included in the nomination? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite totally. As it stands the article is BS but not Wiktionary material. Half the words are not generally British but dialectal, some belong in List of words having different meanings in British and American English and others are covered by American and British English spelling differences. Nuttah68 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's an interesting list, even useful. Just not appropriate for the Wikipedia, as it violates WP:NOT since it's mostly a 'jargon guide'/dicdef. We routinely delete lists of words in other languages, just because this happens to be english doesn't mean it should get special treatment. This sort of information could be somewhat useful, perhaps, in the article on the English language itself, but not in this form. --The Way 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the most useful articles in Wikipedia. OK - potentially one of the ... (etc.) Snalwibma 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as irrecoverable OR. Cynical 20:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is an ongoing discussion here about a proposed merge and various other issues affecting this article. Matt 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
• Keep. It's a useful list, and while some of the entries might be dialectic, most are commonly known enough that probably 95% would be instantly understood by anyone in the UK, and quite possibly used, too. Never having been to Wiktionary, I don't know if that wikimedia project can cater for a list like this, but at the end of the day, what harm is it doing being here? Not sure I understand the OR accusations either - is knowing and recording the meanings of words OR? I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the words listed would be found in OED or Chambers. Would some sources/refs sort the OR objections? If you're really looking for lists of jargon to delete, go check out the internet slang list! Finally, as previously noted, the word "phocodontia" isn't in the list because it should go in the list "words that no-one uses at all, ever". Carre 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hula Popper

Hula Popper (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Neologism, possible WP:NFT fodder. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - random nonsense. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But keep a copy just for the term "seamen discharge". Lifeboats anyone? Bubba hotep 17:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great point! =) Seems like the author of the article has changed it though... Pity... –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may as well go then! ;) Bubba hotep 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete oh my. Neologism. Lankiveil 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Sounds more like something you'd find on the appetizer menu at T.G.I. Friday's than a sexual term. Wavy G 19:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want to order that item (let alone eat it) if it ever appeared on their menu now, would you? Bubba hotep 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After this? Oh, hell no. Actually, fried peppers stuffed with pineapple and bacon? That sounds pretty good... Just, uhh, hold the white sauce, please. Wavy G 23:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 22:36, November 14, 2006

Darren hart

Doesn't appear to assert any sort of notability, but already contested as a CSD and PROD, so brought here. My recommendation is to delete due to lack of WP:RS indicating that the subject meets the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, AMG turns up nothing, google finds numerous unrelated hits (including an unrelated musician from Texas who also isn't notable enough to turn up on AMG), but nothing about an Aussie musician. Looks like the article was created to promote the youtube video (which I admit I didn't have the courage to check out). At a guess, may be notable at the high-school he attends, but not beyond that. Xtifr _tälk 12:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete who? Lankiveil 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, even such a clearly bogus claim to notability prevents it from being speedied. Otherwise, I'd say speedy it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DONT DELETE, he is notable for his skills such outlined in the article. The information is true and i have personnaly witnessed his musical talent outline in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.199.225 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 12 November 2006.

We need reliable sources for such claims. Your claim counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. 24 unique Ghits for "Darren Hart" + Drummer, 97 unique Ghits for "Darren Hart" + Melbourne, nothing meaningful in the searches except for wiki article. Most of the cases being homonyms. Ohconfucius 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 22:36, 14 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xlibris

Xlibris (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)