The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion. It was originally deleted here, and was then protected from recreation due to repeated recreations, including changing the guidlines then claiming that it fit. But it's back. Previously, the website, seen here had an Alexa rank of 2.5 million, it is now off the radar with no rank and 90 Google hits. Its sole claim of notability is that it was once mentioned in a "Tech News" (CNET?) article in 2002. This is meaningless, it's like being mentioned in a local paper, and I doubt that the story was centred on this webcomic. (note that the reviews linked are not from professional sources, but in fact reader reviews) This is less notable than the Philip Sandifer incident and no way near as popular as Encyclopedia Dramatica. We should be applying the same standards to webcomics as we do to usual websites. - Hahnchen00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the 3rd nomination for this article. It has been deleted twice before at here and here. If this discussion concludes as a delete, I strongly suggest it be protected from recreation. It might not be vanity, but somehow, I think the way this article professes the subject's deep love of his girlfriend in spite of the great difficulties due to distance, hint at it. Also it mentions of the authors' lack of "passion for fame and attention". Let's help this non-notable internet noncelebrity (just read the article and see what important notable things he's done) achieve this by deleting this article. - Hahnchen00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another webcomic on the Comic Genesis free web host, found here. "Scroll Dynasty" manages to attract 30 Google hits and is not mentioned in Comic Genesis' Alexa Report. (even if it were, it probably wouldn't be notable, verifiable or popular anyway). There's nothing between this an a myspace personal. - Hahnchen00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indifferent Low notability on Comicgenesis, more than likely unheard of outside comicgenesis. 0.18% of ComicGenesis traffic, 737/7866Notable ComicGenesis comics by traffic appear only in the Top 25 or Next 26-50Kisai04:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mega man fan fiction webcomic, found here. A search for "Stage Select" "When Masters Attack" generates 50 Google hits, none from which could be classified as a good source and an Alexa rank of 1 million. This is not a website worth noting in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory for the same reasons its not a phone book. - Hahnchen00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It didn't have 50 Google hits. When I clicked the link that was given it said there were 1,250. As far as I can tell, the argument here isn't about hits at all, but rather a visceral aversion to webcomic articles. I judge this by the rather ambiguous "Death To Webcomics" post.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
On my universtiy student paper, runs 2 comics. They're not notable, were the comics on your college paper notable? I doubt it. They're not going to become any more notable if they're put onto Angelfire and branded a webcomic, are they? Heck, is anything on Angelfire notable? - Hahnchen00:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following page has been existence since December 2005, and the top of the page notes "This is a temporary page to host a rough draft of the merger of articles Alternative Metal and Nu Metal". However, in almost a year nothing has been merged, and seems to be nothing more than a waste of space. Some would also dispute that nu metal and alternative metal are two seperate genres, and a merger wouldn't be justified. Dmiles2100:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles for alt metal and nu metal should be separate. If there's anything new here that should be merged to the separate articles, that should be done. But there's no reason to have a single article about two different genres. — NMChico2402:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's a draft doing in the main namespace? I also object to the article title, but that's a different story. Are alternative metal and nu metal really interchangeable terms? Well, delete if the merge is complete, I guess. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sorry, a lot of jargon in there. Basically, the subject of the article isn't well-known enough to be included in Wikipedia (see WP:WEB for inclusion criteria for websites), and it's not able to be speedily deleted, so we have to go through this process. --Mr. LeftyTalk to me!00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I found that the Sithlord4 who asked about jargon in there was the creator of this article and an admin on RP Land. This now is also a vanity article that also has WP:WEB issues. This was prodded, but the aforementioned Sithlord deprodded it, leading to this AfD. His contributions are all related to Rp Land, except for the Mystic Ruins edit. He also once blanked a page (see his talk), but his contribs don't say so. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 01:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the user who caught the blanking, I can assure you that his contribs do say so. It's his second edit to this very page, in fact. There's probably a better template to have used than the vanilla "don't blank pages" boilerplate, but that was the only one I could find at the time. BigHaz07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No vote: The article now looks significantly better, and is in the spirit of the other sub-country politics articles mentioned below, in that a better distinction is made as to the politics of Wallonia both within and distinct from the country itself. --Kinut/c18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to compress articles. There's a lot that can be said about this topic. The idea to merge this is strongly biased, confer Politics of Abkhazia, Politics of British Columbia, Politics of Assam, Politics of Toowoomba, Queensland and so forth. Any state that has a separate (which is in this case very separate) government, with its own parliament and secretaries, deserves its own Politics article. I agree that this may not be obvious if you don't know the topic, so here's my telling you. The article just needs decent cleanup and considerable expansion. --Thunderhead13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is strong precedent for this sort of article, I removed the self-referential opening, the article just needs clean-up and expansion. ONUnicorn19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now expanded (and will be expanded further); note that the article was considerably revised since the above opinions were posted so that merge may no longer be a valid option. Angus McLellan(Talk)12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Neutral. To call these facts indiscriminate seems like nationalistic bias not allowed by WP:NPOV. The information should remain on Wikipedia on one page or another, maybe in the Kazakhstan page, maybe on this page. But it is not indiscriminate. SliceNYC00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kazakhstan. By itself, a "communications" article is a fine subject for an article, and an individual article is great if we can get plenty of content on it, but this article amounts to a table of information. While encyclopedic, such an item is more useful in the context of a main article. Sjakkalle(Check!)06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this information isn't quite indiscriminate, it's almost certainly a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook as IIRC it mirrors exactly the format used there. MLA09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep, improve and do not merge. Every country has such an article. They were all created by a bot and many have been vastly improved since they were started. That this one hasn't been improved yet is merely a manifestation of systemic bias, but we should keep waiting. Calling this indiscriminate is utter nonsense. Piccadilly10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rewrite as noted by MLA, this information is a direct copy-paste job from the CIA world factbook in 2001, and as such the information, as well as being copied verbatim, is hugely out of date (3 years is quite a long time in communications infrastructure life). It needs updating, rewriting and merging. 81.159.65.145 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Martinp2310:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) no signed in[reply]
Hmmm On the one hand, this information would mean a lot more if it were on the same pages with other countries, for comparison's sake. On the other hand, merging all of the countries onto one page would make a huge, huge page that is difficult to navigate. Let's not kill off good information, but is there maybe a better way to display it? Jacqui★21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: since the contents of the two articles were once here before being spun off, does this page need to exist, if nothing else, for the history, per the GFDL? --Kinut/c01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer needed now that Barbara and Jenna each have their own articles. If the GFDL requires that the history be kept, turn it into a redirect to Bush family, but only if needed by GFDL. --Metropolitan9004:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly redundant. Consider redirect only if people think users will actually search for "Barbara and Jenna Bush" collectively instead of just "Barbara Bush" or "Jenna Bush" alone. My guess? Will never be typed into the search box, and thus no redirect necessary. --CPAScott15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that it's going to be of any help. (Wondering why everyone is using the word redundant when you could just say unnecessary and still get the same meaning =]). --Nishkid6416:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, did anyone saying delete actually READ the page? It's a disambiguation page pointing at the two seperate articles. Whoever first created articles on the "first twins" created ONE article, which was then (rightfully) split into one on each sister. As is unfortunately true of most twins, a great many people think of them collectively, and when looking for information on them would natrually do a collective search. Checking the "What links here" gives us 53 pages including (tellingly, if you ask me) Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Popular pages. To delete this disambiguation page would be a mistake, leaving stranded anyone looking for information about the Bush twins. At the VERY LEAST it should become a redirect pointing at SOMETHING where people can find what they are looking for. Otherwise it would be left open for the creation of redundant articles. (P.S. Redunant and unnecessary aren't exactly the same). ONUnicorn20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should never have been created as one article in the first place. The edit history should be saved, so make it a redirect to Bush family, rather than either one of them. Bush twins is a redirect here, btw. --Dhartung | Talk20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me, I think it is high time we broke out the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into seperate pages. They're not infants any more; they've each made significant achievements on their own, and are now on top of a multi-billion dollar empire thanks to their numerous product lines marketed by Wal-Mart. GW can only dream that his daughters will ever achieve such success. RFerreira21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep - the advertising for the company was slapped onto an existing article. I've removed the addition of the company spam. -- Whpq01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the article is a pretty poor stub at the moment, but should remain for expansion: there is plenty to be said on the subject, and Wiki has a series of "Gay Rights in [Country X]" which is intended to be comprehensive. It's certainly not "vanity" as it doesn't promote any non-notable person or organization. It's just skimpy in its present form. DanB DanD02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have to say that the "complete self-serving trash" comment strikes me as a tad inappropriate. I would urge the nominator to strike that and reword it to sound a bit more in keeping with wikiquette. — NMChico2403:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand The article is a stub, but there are tons of stubs on Wikipedia. The only reason to delete a stub is if there's no possibility to expand the article, or if the article's subject obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I think just about anyone would argue that this subject can definitely be expanded, and a quick search will turn up many related articles for other countries. As for belonging here, the subject of gay rights is unarguably a large and devisive issue for many countries. Brazil is one of the largest countries in the world, and the largest of its continent, so the issue of gay rights there is most certainly a notable issue. That being said, this article definitely needs a lot of work. — NMChico2402:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, part of a series, one man's trash is another man's article waiting to be expanded. Please explain "self-serving". Courtney's characterizations are disturbing, in that not only is it more than one sentence, has nothing at all about it that can be called vanity, and is well-sourced. User:Zoe|(talk)03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NMChico24 and Zoe. This stub has clear possibility for expansion and is actually very well sourced in its own right right now. Merging it as a wait-and-see isn't the best way to approach this, as it involves shuffling content over and then shuffling it back when the (inevitable) expansion occurs, while removing valid categorisation in the meantime. Ziggurat03:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Merging this article to Human rights in Brazil would not eliminate any repetition or make Wikipedia easier to navigate. It would only mess up existing organization by removing the useful "Gay Rights in South America" navigation bar and taking the article out of the "Gay Rights by Country" category. --Celithemis04:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, I agree, this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic, and other countries probably need specific articles of this nature. -- The Anome12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stub is not a valid criterion for deletion, page is linked to by several other pages, has great potential for expansion, et al. WilyD13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - obviously expandable, a topic of wide interest, seeing it belongs to Category:Gay rights by country. Historical information would be welcome, and a discussion of cultural attitudes in the various regions of Brazil also valuable, as well as what mood prevails in those municipalities where anti-gay discrimination is not banned by local statutes; but stubbiness is not a grounds for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion above about the detrimental effects of a merge versus just adding a stub notice to this, could you give a little explanation as to why this is preferable? Ziggurat20:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectHuman rights in Brazil -- for now. It's clear the small amount of information here doesn't yet need its own page; however, the noted use of "Gay Rights in X" (where X=country) means a redirect is appropriate. Hopefully there will come a time when the content on gay rights in Brazil is much larger, and then that information could be moved back to Gay rights in Brazil. Jacqui★21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be a bad-faith nomination because an article the nominator created was nominated for deletion for, among other things, appearing to be vanity. --Icarus(Hi!)03:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Not nearly notable enough to earn the article; there are thousands of contestants that have reached round three. --Wafulz02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Hey all. I am the author of this article and a member of BTF. I work hard to raise funds for poor kids' education. I am not native Turkish speaker but doing Ph.D. in Economics. Now, can anybody tell me what is wrong with using the web site materials? "Turkiye" means "Turkey" in Turkish. Please take my article out of delete process. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogulsev (talk • contribs)
Keep, rewrite, rename to "Bridge to Turkiye Fund." The author spelled the name wrong, and the article is basically copied from here. The operation is international in scope, which meets criteria proposed under WP:ORG. --Wafulz02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree to, rename, rewrite, cite IF someone does it, but I'm not for keeping articles on speculation of improvement.Retracted see below. With no idependent references it fails. If it is copied directly from the site, then its a likely copyvio.--Crossmr02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The subject of a distinctive "jargon" in a major religious group is significant. While the page may presently contain little other than common words, the social role of this jargon could be an important encyclopedic subject, quite apart from a simple "list of definitions" The term outside wiki: [http://www.moodymagazine.com/articles.php?action=view_article&id=91http://www.arin.net/whois/
Weakest Keep On the surface appears to be a silly neologism, and I'm still not convinced it has much importance. It does appear to be utilised by a lot of different websites, though, and DanB DanD was able to site further usage. — NMChico2403:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is more than a mere list of words with definitions. True, it lists examples, but it also discusses religious culture associated with the jargon, sociological implications and influence on popular culture. Also see the counterexamples to your arguments listed by DanB DanD above. Rohirok17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's going to use this search term, and frankly I feel the neologism "Christianese" has a very distinct POV. That said, there are certainly words used specifically by certain religious sects. Why not merge that information to articles (or sub-articles?) about those particular religions?Jacqui★21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's a slur on Christians, it isn't. As a matter of fact, the word is itself Christianese: it arose among evangelicals who feared their proselytizing was ineffective because they "speak a different language" from the people they're talking to. Anyway, the titles of many articles--the names of advocacy organizations and so on--express a PoV. DanB DanD06:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary. Think about this as if this were a language. Chinese, a language of several dialects in China, has an article that redirects to the elements of that culture, the people, etc. It does not simply list words and meanings. Yet, this is worse because it defines english words, and english words that already have articles in a Christian category. C56C08:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is an example[5] from the Church Marketing Sucks blog. It's more than a neologism. The entry needs a clean up/destubbing, but it belongs in Wikipedia and with the name Christianese. Carter16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (reitterating previous vote to Keep)[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.
Delete Once the horse wins a couple of major titles and gets some real coverage, then perhaps an article would be appropriate. — NMChico2404:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let me address some of the above opinions advocating for deletion.
“Non-notable” and “not won anything major”: Xcellent is the winner of the New Zealand Derby, which is New Zealand's most prestigious three year old race. The horse is notable for this alone, and deserving of an article. But the horse has also won the Kelt Capital Stakes which is New Zealand's richest thoroughbred horse race. And the horse has won a total of four Group 1 races from just 9 races contested.
I wonder if the horse had been a Kentucky Derby or Epsom Derby winner if it would be up for deletion. I think not.
User:Riana_dzasta “it came third” - It ran third in the 2005 Melbourne Cup behind Makybe Diva – which was the only horse in its 125 year history to win THREE Melbourne Cups, and is one of Australia’s greatest ever staying mares.
User:Glenn – you may be a kiwi, but you are sadly lacking in your knowledge of New Zealand thoroughbred racing.
User:Galopin who is a Japanese wikipedian and a very knowledgeable horse racing contributor recognises Xcellent as a notable New Zealand racehorse.
I wonder if any of the people calling for deletion bothered to Google “horse Xcellent”. If they did they would have got 33,000 hits. Not-Notable? The horse certainly was the subject of a enormous interest from the Australian racing public when it crossed the Tasman Sea for the 2005 Melbourne Spring Racing Carnival.
I small number of wikipedians are making great efforts to increase the number of articles on thoroughbred racing around the world and their efforts will not be helped if we have to constantly defend articles on our chosen subject. The article is a stub, and needs expanding, but I strongly believe that it should not be deleted. - Cuddy Wifter02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. ghits almost entirely pull Wikipedia and mirrors. Has this person actually done anything notable besides being born/married into incredibly diluted royalty? — NMChico2404:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see more references, but aside from that, I believe that the noble title automatically infers notability. Being within the top thousand of the royal class (pardon the pun) counts. ;) --Elonka08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the decision is to delete, my recommendation is that the information at least be merged into James Hubert Ramsay, 17th Earl of Dalhousie, or the previous Earl, Simon Ramsay, 16th Earl of Dalhousie, since it appears that there is already precedent to have a bio on each of the Earls, per Earl of Dalhousie (even if their wives are not seen worthy of bios). However, I still believe that Maralyn Ramsay satisfies the notability requirement on her own because of her other blood connections (including being in line to the throne by her own right, not just that of her husband). This may even be a case where the wife is more notable than the husband, though I'll admit that I'm not currently conversant enough on the details of these two individuals to make that determination myself (except it is telling that a Wikipedia article on the wife appeared before an article on the husband). --Elonka21:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there was a reasonable rationale for including UK peers by default so long as they could sit in the House of Lords, not that most of them cared to do so. That made them more or less comparable with Senators in the US/France/&c. However, that's no longer the case. That doesn't retroactively make them nn, but it does mean that there is a good deal less reason to include peers and their families now than there was a decade ago. In this specific case it does seem odd to have an article on the wife rather than the husband, who probably qualified in that he was a peer in the period when they could sit in the upper chamber. My own view is that neither of them is of any great importance, probably less important than local council leaders, most of whom we delete without much fuss at AFD. I used to rent an apartment from a Count, and had French lessons from the grandson of Duke; I suspect that they'd be amazed to learn that their ancestry made them notable. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we have generally considered Irish peers since 1801 and Scottish peers between 1707 and 1958 as automatically notable, despite the fact that, like today's hereditary peers, they only served in the house of lords if they were elected as representative peers. john k10:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that peeresses are fair game, especially when combined with two peeress cousins and a spot in the line of succession to the British throne, as well as descent from the Russian Imperial Family. There are a few very notable connections with this lady. Charles00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn, yes someonemay be interested in her, but there's no indication that she's done anything but marry and procreate -- something that several billion other people have done -- the fact that she is distantly related to some famous people does not make her notable. Carlossuarez4606:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep., I think. I think any peer or peeress has generally been considered to qualify as a priori notable. I'm not sure that being descended from the Electress Sophia makes you notable on its own, although there really aren't that many such people - a few thousand, perhaps? john k15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A peeress is notable. Just because nobles and geneology is not interesting to some people does not mean other people are interested in it as well. Morhange18:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a Ramsay, I don't think she is sufficiently notable for an individual page; therefore, I suggest retaining the information currently provided and merging that information into an appropriate article. Adraeus04:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hey she's even closer to the throne - 660th now :-) If her title had been in her own right that would be fine but she has it as the wife of a peer and nothing seemingly achieved to make her notable in her own right. BlueValour04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she seems to present at Clan events such as Games etc. and further research might find her as a patron of an organisation(?) Craigy (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously prod'ed and deleted uncontested, but recreated, which requires a full AFD. Basically, an allegedly planned series on Disney, with no sources except an unverified TV rumor site entry [6], created by the same author. Google comes up with nothing except that site and Wikipedia. May or may not be a total hoax, but certainly unverifiable. Author has been involved in a number of such unverifiable articles in the past. Fan-196702:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We AFD'ed and prod'ed a whole bunch of these back in July, as well as some others from the same author that were more obvious hoaxes. Recreating this one may have been author's way of sticking his foot back in the water to see if he could get away with it. Fan-196705:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That entry shows as having been created on that site by a user named "MCcoupe7", while this article was created by User:MCcoupe7. And a check of the schedule shows no such program aired last night. Gee, what a surprise! Fan-196720:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal balling in its current state, and provides no useful info. If someone chooses to recreate it with useful and up-to-date content, they may. (|--UlTiMuS( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It is too bad we haven't hard coded some way to require base references before accepting a new article. RFerreira21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't necessarily help, in a case like this, where another site allows unverified information, and then an article here cites that other hoax entry as a source. Even TV.com and IMDB have been known to have hoax info. Fan-196721:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: "Article was de-prod'd with no edit summary" is not a valid ground for deletion. Removal of prod tag merely signifies that the deletion is contested and it must be put up for a vote. Rohirok17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I am aware of that. However, I have also seen it noted in many nominations whether or not there was a prod and if it had been contested, and it was, so I included the info to save other editors the time of checking the article history. I believe the other reasons I listed were quite valid. — RevRagnarokTalkContrib17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete All Is it really necessary for this site to chronicle the geneology for every person with the slightest hint of royal blood? A recently reported study indicates that the common ancestor for every person currently on the planet probably lived less than 3,000 years ago. So we might just as well chronicle the royal lineage of everyone. — NMChico2404:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Verifiable. In Wikipedia's fashion of thoroughness, we could as well have articles on the first 200/250 people in line for the British throne. --Thunderhead13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my opinion to merge into a single article for all people in the line of succession that details more how and why they're in that line. That would handle the relevant information in a better way than separate articles. --Thunderhead11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creating a redirect is asking for somebody to re-create the article. Claims that somebody is in the line of succession to the British throne beyond the first 39 places on the British monarchy website are not verifiable and original research. Is there any evidence that this person is a Protestant, which they have to be to be in the line of succession? PatGallacher14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, I could have sworn I redirected this once upon a time. Then again, I think the one I did had an X and was written terribly. In either case, how is this in any way notable, relevant, or the least bit worth mentioning? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a Naruto community article or some sort. If one does not exist, delete per lack of context. (|--UlTiMuS( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanficcruft. I think this pairing is quite popular amongst a certain sort of fan, but I agree with the nom. If anyone can find anything vaguely resembling a WP:RS, trim and merge to a suitable Naruto-related article instead (if one can be found). - makomk20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was prodded and deleted 17 July but recreated. Accordingly, it's a contested prod. The subject of the article is a non-notable student event, a regional Model United Nations held in Northern Virginia as a warm-up before other Model UNs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A university-hosted, nationwide, annual MUN would be notable. An MFMUN is just a practice. I've done 'em before. --M@rēino23:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This information can already be found in the parent article. It seems unnecessary to have an article sorting the title holders by age. — NMChico2404:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also protect the page (if it does get deleted). I remember seeing this page before August 2 (when it was started), and it got deleted then too. RobJ198118:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem that notable to me, but if there are other lists like this then post links and I might change my vote, though I think I agree with Lid that only the oldest/youngest are really relevant (and that is on the title's entry, presumably) -- Davetron500021:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are also scheduled for deletion. Wouldn't it be simpler to just put a birthdate or age column in the table on the championship's entry ypage? -- Davetron500014:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it redunant? This is the only page where all the champions are listed rather than just the oldest and youngest. TJ Spyke22:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the age articles should be removed. What's the point of useless trivia? I can understand list of champions by length, because that's somewhat notable.. But age? Give me a break. What's next, champions by height? weight? It's redundant because there is lists of champions already, and there doesn't need to be a near identical list (with the exception of some small detail like age). RobJ198123:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable elementary school. Editor who removed prod cited WP:SCHOOLS—which includes a list of criteria to establish a school's importance, none of which are asserted in this article. Accordingly, delete as non-notable organization. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, important part of education in its local community, no need to betray users who wish to find out about it. Kappa03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a phonebook." There's nothing in this article right now beyond a directory listing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno evidence of any notability. And I doubt if anyone is going to feel betrayed. Prodding schools may be fairly pointless but it's not misconduct. Dlyons493Talk11:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are any school articles that should be deleted, it's articles like this. Articles like this, in the form of "Springfield Elementary is an elementary school in Springfield", serve no purpose and are almost totally uninformative. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is only a directory entry plus links to external sites, and WP:NOT policy requires us not to be a directory nor a repository of weblinks. GRBerry14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of verifiable information available about this school, please feel free to assist me in my expansion of this article. Silensor18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment big improvement, well done! I still wouldn't keep it myself, but it's good to see someone actually expanding it rather than voting keep and doing nothing :-). Dlyons493Talk
It's irresponsible to encourage people waste their time expanding articles when the topic is allegedly "non-notable". Kappa15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school is not quite yet 50 years old, but it does meet the qualifications 1 and 3 of WP:SCHOOL with multiple non-trivial works covering the subject and significant awards and commendations. Give the horse a rest, its been beaten enough. RFerreira21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Article does not assert the importance of the individual, in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only listed as author low on the list on a couple of articles. Does not seem to have individually done anything noteworthy. Leuko02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally posted as a speedy because "not notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I tend to agree, but that's not a speedy. – ClockworkSoul03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
nn company, first person, advertising. Was PRODded. As I was about to add a prod2 to it, I got an edit conflict as the article's creator removed the PROD. User:Zoe|(talk)03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete tenth in line is the furthest you can be from the throne to be counted as notable, when that is the only argument, according to Wiki rules. J Milburn13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Germany is a democracy; Prussia no longer exists as a political entity, and Vicky is not notable for anything else in her existence. Carlossuarez4606:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The website clearly directs to the MMORPG page and not the movie. The game is in development and just because it isn't released to the public does not mean it doesn't exist. --Zeno McDohl(talk)03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against writing an article when the game does exist. No beta, no newsletter, no notability as yet. -- nae'blis03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Newsletter updates HAVE been published, including one this month. The article was incorrect in that regard, I updated it. -- Vandelay12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. - the article's undergone some improvements in sourcing, but I still think it's preliminary. Not enough to block a speedy keep though, if Zoe withdraws. -- nae'blis21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is/will be an official game release related to a blockbuster movie franchise. Certainly notable, even if unreleased. Rohirok04:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at the crystal ball policy, this clearly crosses the threshold into keepability. Information is well-sourced from official sources and/or press, and it would be notable once released. Captainktainer * Talk09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has an entire (and fairly large) category of articles devoted to "Computer and video games under development". It has a similarly large category called "2007 computer and video games". (Refer to the bottom of the article to see the links). This deserves to stay as much as any of the others in those categories. -- Vandelay12:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contended merge to Air conditioning where the information in the article is already present. Current article is a duplicate, has an unencyclopedic tone and is an unnecessary fork. Delete --Peta03:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Whatever is in the Air conditioning article is a copy of what was here, and not the other way around. I believe Portable ir onditioners are a special type of air conditioners that deserve their own article.--AAAAA10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very Weak Delete — Almost no hits in search engines, but if anyone can show an ounce of notability I'm opening to changing my vote mboverload@04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enough already! Perhaps this should have been done as one big AfD. Maybe leave a redirect behind ot the line of succession article but even that doesn't seem worth the effort. StuffOfInterest13:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable grandchildren of monarchs (this seems reasonable, right?); merge the children into Cathrine's article. Ardric4722:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric4722:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete All I think we need to combine all these silly distant relatives of distant relatives of distant relatives of the British throne articles into one gigantoid AFD and purge the lot. — NMChico2404:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem with having one big AfD is that there's someone in the list that some editor thinks is vaguely notable and the whole discussion gets so complex that no concensus can be reached. Dlyons493Talk11:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She got married and divorced and is now living with Aage Hvinden. She ran a restaurant for a couple of years. Doesn't add up to notability IMHO. Dlyons493Talk
Comment—Perhaps some people "voted" based on their position in the British line of succession. That information is overshadowed by their relations to the Norwegian royal family. Ardric4722:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Total lack of sources. There was a 1972 Mexican horror movie ([7]) released in English as Night Of A 1000 Cats (I've reverted that article to verifiable information only). No plans seem to exist for any remake or sequel to the remake. Fan-196704:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Was originally tagged as a speedy, but doesn't fit criteria. Original reason was patent nonsense (which it isn't), but it does look like some rather obscure Trekcruft. Notability? – ClockworkSoul03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a speedy delete, but technically A8 covers commercial content (do Google ad banners count?). It was featured in a _single episode_ of Voyager, however, so it'd still be deleted. ColourBurst04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no such actress listed at imdb, nor is the supposed movie she stars in listed. The article was written by an editor who has created several other hoaxish articles. User:Zoe|(talk)03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (no consensus). Not the easiest of decisions here with 12d/5k which is frequently sufficiently strong for consensus, but I have registered that there have been significant attempts at improving the article during the course of the discussion. One of the arguments presented (unverifiability) appears to have been countered and I gather that a Google search which someone referred to does give some independent media mentions, e.g. this one. I am uncertain about notability here, but I will call this a no consensus based on new evidence surfacing over the course of the discussion. Sjakkalle(Check!)15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Opabinia regalis, surely we'll be the first to write about it when something exciting happens to these reckless fellas. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 09:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am more than willing to take any advice I can get. Also, I am searching high and low for a good Wikkipedia Text Editor. Derek C15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Derek Cormier's new refs. xxxchurch is well known enough for their book to be notable, at least in some Christian circles. Book is selling on Zambooie [[8]], perhaps it's an indie pub? It would explain why it isn't in as many references. SuperJerms16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've just wikified the article, so its in better shape now, and I've tagged it for cleanup. With Derek's references, it can be considered notable enough, and there are other less referenced book articles out there. --Draicone(talk)06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Considering that this article was created by an editor with a history of creating fake movie articles, and that one of the winners {Martin Hernandez) apparently doesn't really exist, this entire article is suspect. Are there really such awards? No sources. User:Zoe|(talk)03:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Stop wasting time. The number of school articles blossomed regardless, so all you are achieving is to hobble wikipedia and enage in conflict for the sake of it. Piccadilly10:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dromana is hardly notable let alone its primary school. Piccadilly precendent is not binding and since since schools consistently rarely show notability beyond being schools they will continue to come up in AFD. ViridaeTalk12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. No assertion of notability made, and no information here beyond what would be found in a directory listing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory entry and since this is a primary school I don't see this grow beyond this while at the same time citing reputable sources. -- Koffieyahoo01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact that people say it can be expanded, but don't actually expand it, suggests to me that that there are no verifiable sources. If and when some are found, the article can be recreated. Dlyons493Talk15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just suggests that it isn't their obligation to do so. Millions of needed edits are not made for all sorts of reasons, including the amount of time that is wasted due to school deletionism. Calsicol17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with Dromana, Victoria), should be sufficiently verifiable. For those who cited WP:SCHOOLS, they should note that (1) this school does meet the criteria since it's over 50 years old, (2) this is currently just a proposal, not a guideline or a criteria and (3) it doesn't mention any criteria under which articles should be deleted unless they don't meet Wikipedia's content policies, and no evidence has been presented that this school doesn't. JYolkowski // talk21:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable school. This is one of my semi-local schools, so I'm willing to help edit it. I just noticed that the principal information is incorrect. Ray Robertson is the current acting principal, Ray Hocking left last year. Going now to correct. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and established school. Also old enough to have plenty of potential for expansion so merge is not appropriate. Kappa19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Self-promotional (see creator's username and record company), debut album comes out this fall, not famous yet. We are not a promotional vehicle. -- nae'blis03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Artist's label created the page, yes. But, as far as the debut album coming out this fall, I didn't know that such promotional information is prohibited, and to prevent the page from being deleted, the info was changed. To counter your suggestion that including a listing of Cory Phillips is somehow inappropriate because he is not famous yet to your specification, phillips is a very popular live musician in Los Angeles. And what difference does it make whether or not there is a commercial music product for sale to validate him to you? Does participation in the capitalist system only validate a public figure on Wikipedia? I did not think so. Thermalrecords06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Participation in the "capitalist system" isn't strictly necessary, but the bar for inclusion for most people is much higher without a major label/produced well-selling record. See WP:MUSIC for some of the suggestions: was he featured in multiple non-trivial published works (such as LA papers, music trade magazines of record, etc)? Was he ever in a notable band prior to his current "supergroup" (or was anyone else)? Has he won a major music award or competition, and do you have proof as it is reported in the press? Is he the most prominent representative of a notable style of music, and has this been reported as such? You have options, and you have at least four days to make your case...thanks for trimming the article already of the promotional material, and welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, and as noted below, if his record takes off and he does become more famous this fall, it's intensely likely a fan will come and write an article for you! -- nae'blis12:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable to who? Cory Phillips and his nine-piece band are notable to a lot of people in Los Angeles who regularly pay money to see them perform. Thermalrecords06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not true; lots of "real" bands take advantage of MySpace's music-embedding features; "Itzkoff also observes that MySpace’s much-celebrated music section is heavily weighted in favor of record labels rather than breakthrough musicians" -- nae'blis04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .... for now... looking at the amount of cross-site self promotion, I expect an entry back in here fairly soon, once he/they've busted their butts on a national tour (probably the easiest way to meet WP:MUSIC while furthering one's career, or looked at from another perspective, the easiest way to destroy a band. :-) ) Good luck to Cory and Thermal! Ronabop03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not even sure this Halo insult that has "just recently started to get popular" even deserves consideration as a transwiki. Daniel Case03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Delete. They're in the IMdB [9]. However, while we tend to accept any performer with IMdB credits, does merely being in the IMdB make a production company notable? Daniel Case04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:CORP, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The listing in IMDB is trivial, because all it does is list the movies which the company has been associated with. Also, that is one published work, where WP:CORP requires "multiple." Leuko04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know the above user already changed his vote, but I simply wanted to point out that IMDb is in no way a measure of significance, and that people are not even remotely guaranteed they have a WP article because they have an IMDb entry. I have an entry (for donating to The 1 Second Film)), while a friend of mine starred in an actual movie. Neither of us has a WP page, nor do either of us (but especially not me) deserve them... nor do people who played corpses on CSI or spoke one line in a film. -- Kicking22221:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has seen it all: speedy deletion declined, and is a contested prod. It's a one sentence article about a non-notable porn film with no citations whatsoever. MER-C04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete We're not wikinews, and this doesn't seem like an event that, at this moment, will hold bearing on the future. Nom's wording of 'no lasting signifigance' is a good way to put it, as right now it doesn't hold major signifigance. Kevin_b_er05:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is local news. Mention of the attack might be appropriate in an article dealing with race relations or crime in the region, but this doesn't merit its own article in an encyclopedia. Rohirok17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Minor news from 2005, not otherwise notable and with the amount of information given here doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Peta04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move In Iraq as well two Italian relief agency workers were kidnapped. This resulted in a rescue, whereby a Italian spy was killed by US forces. Maybe a new article could be created where all the kidnappings and killing of foreigners in Iraq/Afghanistan are listed, instead of having a separate article for each of them. --Ageo02000:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that this is notable at all. It was an unremarkable kidnapping and it ended in the best way possible. I hope there isn't a list somewhere of everyone who's ever been kidnapped. Mallanox18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previous version was a lengthy copyvio and tagged as such, so the author removed the copyrighted text (good) and turned the article into a nanostub about an unspecified "program" program with no distinguishable notability. Opabinia regalis04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm fuzzy on if a 'program' at a school can qualify for speedy delete on A7, but it doesn't appear to be all that great anyways, nor does it appear to assert its signifigance or importance. What's special about it? It appears to be an international summer program, one of probably many around the world. --Kevin_b_er06:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, if anything can possibly be cited, then this is just a hamburger served at a golf club. WP:NOT the menu for every location on the planet. --Kinut/c05:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but move to Wikibooks cookbook as an alternate hamburger recipe. It does sound interesting, but not appropriate for here. Jzeitler15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I love the site, I visit it often, and I've participated on the forums. However, it's does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia.
It fails two important guidelines. WP:WEB and WP:VAIN The site was created and heavily edited by the site creator who goes by the nickname Delphi. The site was featured in two mass-media publication, however, the seem part of the excluded content of WEB #1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."
The site also has a high Alexa rank. However, web ranking is not a criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia and shouldn't be considered. Also, a detailed search query of google shows that 90,000+ of the unique google hits belong to the page itself. [11]. A vanilla search of the site's name reveals that there are only 635 unique web entries.
The article is also somewhat of a link farm that may also be a violation of WP:EL.
Comment — I'm not sure about this one; it doesn't smell like vanity to me, despite getting created/edited by the site creator and even if it was, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is".
How exactly does it pass WP:V? How does it pass WP:WEB? "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Where are the reliable third party sources? The two sources given are "Trivial coverage...that simply report the internet address... [or contain] a brief summar[ies] of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses"? --Kunzite11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that since it has been featured on G4TV's Attack of the Show and in Rolling Stone Magazine it is good enough. Maybe not for you, but it's still a third party reference of notability of the site. And in no place does it say in the policy about how it should be featured by the third party. When said sources recognize it, it is automatically notable. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both of those are credible, and are reputable. Havok(T/C/c) 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the article doesn't even cite the sources, it just mentions that the site was mentioned in these publications. Secondly, there's WP:WEB, which contains the guidelines on which sources are acceptable for web sites. Wikipedia is also not a web directory. --Kunzite11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the policy which you try to justify this articles deltion with says "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)." Which talks about what not to put in said article, this article is just as viable as Something Awful, Newgrounds and 4chan to give you a few. Havok(T/C/c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. WP:WEB is the standard. Modthesims2 does not pass it. I think out of the examples you have given, two are most likely notable. (They get multiple, seemingly, non-trivial hits when I do LexisNexis searches.) 4chan doesn't, it's pretty much noted on the talk page, and it really should be nominated it for deletion. Modthesims2 gets no LexisNexis hits. Please explain to me how the Rolling Stone is non-trivial. If it were a two-page spread on the site.. I'd give it to you, I'd withdraw the nomination. It's a one sentence line about movie characters that were popular at the time the article was made who happened to make an appearance on the site. How is that notable for a wikipedia article? I'll end with the quote from the 4chan talk page --Kunzite03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They have still been mentioned on Attack of the Show. Which is more then can be said for other websites featured on Wikipedia. Havok(T/C/c) 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The TV show is still just a trivial mention. This deletion is about modthesims2:not about all of the other websites around wikipedia that need to be removed or whatnot. There is a lot of clean-up work to be done at wikipedia. --Kunzite12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These quotes are straight from Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."
"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."
Comment I dug up the Rolling Stone quote: "With the Oscars fast approaching, Brokeback fever spreads to the Web: America's favorite cowboys get pixetated as character mods for the Sims 2 video game, (modthesims2.com)" This is not even about the site, it's about Brokeback Mountain. Totally trivial. --Kunzite14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete\uninstall this article. The Rolling Stone mention was about a movie, and happened to mention the website address. No coverage of the actual website which is required to satisfy WP:WEB. I Tivo "Attack of the Show", and remember this episode. They mentioned this site in passing, it was not featured or given more that 30 seconds of air time. I have a computer mod that was mentioned on TechTV's (pre-G4) 'The Screen Savers' longer than that; and it was mentioned in various computer mod magazines...should that get an article as well? No. --Brian(How am I doing?)15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you feel it's notable, and you can established that notability then go right ahead. The fact that Attack of the Show mentioned it, is good enough. I can give you a list of sites that havn't been talked about on AotS if you want. Meaning, it's notable. Havok(T/C/c) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. However, it would be nice if the Sims 2 article had a section listing the various modder sites such as this one, and describing the modder community in more detail. But in itself, this article subject is trivial to anyone who doesn't play the game.207.34.120.7116:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia. While it does not have the same physical limitations as a printed encyclopedia, it isn't the universal vault of all obscure fan knowledge. While MTS2 is certainly not obscure in the Simming community, I'm not sure it's something of benefit to the general reading public. In addition, when the article was created by the website owner and approx. 25% of the edits were made by him, with another 25% or so being made by editors whose only contributions are in this article (realizing, of course, that some of these are may have been made by people who have since registered), I do wonder about WP:VAIN. While this is somewhat to be expected of an article of this nature, the only main namespace article linking to this one (other than redirects) is the The Sims 2 article. As far as the Rolling Stones, etc., reference is concerned, I agree that a single off-handed mention does not constitute notability - it constitutes fortuitous coincidence. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there was any significant increase in the hit count for MTS2 immediately following this mention? --Carl(talk|contribs)03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if it was created as WP:VAIN, I would say that that isn't a problem anymore. Even if it was mentioned in a sentence in Rolling Stones, it is better then most websites featured on Wikipedia. Also, it was linked to from Attack of the Show. Might have been for a brief moment, but again, it's more then most. Havok(T/C/c) 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do refer to the comment above: yes there are a lot of articles that need to be considered for deletion. However, this deletion is about MTS2: not the hundreds of other poorly-sourced, iffy articles on websites which need to be examined. "There are articles with more trivial sources than this one" is not a valid argument for keeping. Given the time and attention of dedicated editors and (hopefully) a new focus on quality over quantity by the wikipedia foundation, I hope they will be evaluated in due time and with due process. --Kunzite12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A line must be drawn; when a site has been mentioned in two very reliable sources, it deservs a mention. I myself am an inclusionist (but I am sure you are aware of that fact). If articles are deleted on the grounds that they are "poorly-sourced", "iffy articles" etc. and are just deleted without having the chance to be buildt upon and improved. It's going to be very hard to get anything up on WP. This site is huge, it has been mentioned, and it deserves an article, period. Havok(T/C/c) 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "hard" to "get stuff up" on wikipedia (i.e. there should be standards); especially when it's a fansite. Collocating and merging such things will not harm wikipedia. If the site's included in a link in the main Sims 2 article, there would be nothing lost. The problem is that you a mistaking two mentions of a URL in the mass media as "sources". Have you read the sentence in Rolling Stone that you're calling a source? It's not even about the site; it's about Brokeback Mountain. The TV "source" is equally trivial. Read WP:WEB which states the inclusion guidelines for media sources. You're also mistaken in your assertation that just because a "site is huge" that it deserves an article. A site's traffic does not matter. That's not mentioned anywhere in any inclusion guideline. --Kunzite18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentance in the magazine is concidered a trivial source. The article must be a full length feature on just the site, so the Rollingstone article has been voided as a source. What is next? One mention in passing (which since I have the show tivoed, I can tell you it was about the same coverage the Rollingstone article had) on a TV show. Not Multiple sources. One very shakey one and one that doesn't qualify per wikipedia's own policy. It fails a major wikipedia pillar...WP:V. It fails to follow the guideline of WP:WEB as well (multiple sources) --Brian(How am I doing?)23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as a neologism with little in the way of verifiability that I was able to track down. (I tagged this as a speedy, but the author removed the tag and commented, so I didn't bother redoing it.) Tony Fox(arf!)05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wiktionary will accept neologisms, however they still need to be verifiable. BS is still BS, no matter which project it's posted to. — NMChico2405:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, poorly written. Jaedza 06:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - seems to be self-promotional, fails notability guidelines. Only independent reference is a trivial IMDB listing, not the multiple, non-trivial references required by the guidelines. Only one GHit (IMDB). Leuko05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps people just didn't feel like taking the time to post on an AfD where there was no contesting the deletion? :-) Leuko18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete totally NN: the first legitimate Google hit on him is (guess what?) this WP article itself. (|--UlTiMuS( U • T • C | M • E ) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a search of an Australia and New Zealand database comes up with plenty of hits for Gary Burn, there is little related to this actor. However, should his acting career continue, we can have an article when there is more verifiable information available. Capitalistroadster22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I agree with Sinewaves, and although the version marked with AfD before wasn't at all notable, it now has great deal of information to prove otherwise now. DrWho4217:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally placed on CSD by User:Musaabdulrashid, but "This is an attempt to create a useless list of information that is notably displayed elseware" does not fit into any of the CSD categories, and so taking to AfD. I actually support this deletion as it'd probably be better off as a category. ColourBurst05:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another endless list. Categories are much more appropriate for this sort of thing, especially given its scope. — NMChico2405:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this had meaningful criteria for inclusion, it would have promise. It actually has some content about the documentaries, making it more valuable than the category. However, with no criteria for inclusion, it is potentially infinite and listcruft. GRBerry15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is, of course, not actually true. Entries still have to get past WP:V, so the potential is not infinite, nor is there any real potential for "listcruft". WP:LIST also covers reasons for having lists, which is more than just discussing the contents of the list. WilyD15:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
proposed deletion of entry for Local councillor for Portsmouth CC, former Deputy leader of West berks council and former candidate for European parliament for the South-east, for not passing the bar of notability. Ohconfucius05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to point number two in WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This is a city council member/leader. As a political figure, they do not hold a statewide/provincewide office. --Brian(How am I doing?)15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links given in the article don't cut it, unfortunately. The BBC article is not about him (it just quotes him), and the Yahoo link seems to be minutes of council proceedings, which aren't press coverage. If you eliminate all that, you're left with local news, which is not "significant press coverage". --Coredesattalk. ^_^23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Text makes no assertion of company's importance. Company website doesn't even work. User has only posted links and articles related to company. Garrepi05:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dont see how this meets WP:CORP. Company website is the place to go for information - WP is not a business directory. Things need to be put into context. Dlyons493Talk11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete If this article were to be remade, detailing assumptive historical meaning of coiner, someone who made coins, it could be quite interesting. As of now, however, it is attempting to promote a neologism. LinaMishima23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coining — By the way, Zana, you seem to be the one using Chewbacca Defense here. We are working together to find a solution. That's the point of sessions such as this. Ryu Kaze14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like a vanity article (created by User:Nick Pearson) Anons have been edit warring over this page as vanity or not. It has been deprodded at least once. This particular Nick Pearson appears to be completely overshadowed by an actor and also an olympic athelete, each of the same name. While it lasts, I encorage you to read his blog entry where he states such lovely things as:
"So my plea to you. Join Wikipedia, as it takes only a few moments, and post a comment on the discussion pages about how this page should stay on the website, not because it isn't self-serving or shamelessly promoting a radio show that no-one outside of Bathurst and Orange can listen to, but because people deserve to know as to the absolutely marvellous nature that is me."
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep — per bikeable. Volutary Simplicity does seem to be a popular book. [12] Also, I don't get why the nom refers to the 51,700 ghits as a reason for deletion. Dionyseus01:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet - "does seem to be a popular book". That definitely nails down it's notability! You are not very discerning if ghits and listings on Amazon.com does it for you. NLOleson12:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete a list is not an ojective decsion because the list serves as a stub like the example of the software split. It should be expanded with a concise comparison based upon usage statistics, and its role in modern business.The multiprotocol list is useful for research. The point that 2bit software/freeware is added wrecklessly can be addressed by a requirement that the new entry must have 2-5 verifiable outside links (ie: sorceforge), and that their entry is placed inot talk before it is added. I thinks this is a better solution than deletion.
This page serves no purpose other than to allow non-notable two-bit apps to appear alongside notable ones. It's a pointless list and you don't learn anything. Andymarczak06:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comparison in this case is purely spec-led. No opinions involved. Having seen this though, my opinion is now Delete Both, as I don't believe the Comparison page is any different to the Yellow Pages. Andymarczak12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing inherently POV about comparison. You can easily compare by sets of criteria that are not POV-laden. Comparing seems like a reasonable name for the article, because that's what it does (lists what features each client does or doesn't have). Also, I Strongly Disagree with the idea that this falls under Yellow Pages. Such a list is very useful and informative to users that are in search of instant messaging clients and/or services. [Comparison of instant messaging clients] is not simply a directory, but a well laid-out and deserving article. Ardent†∈15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ardent. I think splitting up the Comparison Article per NaturalBornKiller's suggestion would be a good idea, but in the mean time a simple redirect would be good.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
obscure band with equally obscure leader. "Xitizen Cain" scores 422 Ghits, and "Cyrus Scott" scores 599Ghits. 2 albums per Amazon Ohconfucius06:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Citizen Cain" scores 62.900, and the 422 ghits from "Xitizen Cain" link to the same albums, so the text seems to be accurate 23:53, 15 August 2006 (GMT+1) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.82.175.86 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It tends to corroborate that Xitizen Cain once was Citizen Cain, but that's all. Who are you?????? Ohconfucius
Keep. Band is listed in the All Music Guide and has at least 3 albums with labels. Cyclops which also sports Bjorn Lynne as one of its artist and S.I. on which I couldn't find any info unfortunately. Still, 3 albums with reputable label is enough reason to keep for me. - Mgm|(talk)08:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Sources or Delete. Please find independent references to the band, especially in the media. It shouldn't be that hard if they have three albums on a known label. Resemblance to the popular movie warrants Rename to Citizen Cain (band) if kept. Cdcon 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite Sources or Delete. Agree totally with the above. Wikipedia says that it is verifiability not truth that is mandatory for a Wikipedia article. GBYork18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'lyrics by Scott on the themes of human fallibility, war, history, politics and environmentalism' give me a break. Fortunately they fail all notability requirements. BlueValour20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unofficial mod, the game it is modding isn't even out yet, plus even the website establishes no notability with forums with no more than a dozen posts on it. Completely insignificant especially when you consider most announced mods never appear. Ben W Belltalk07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Consesnus sought for this rather obscure writer of Sci-fi books: 2 books ('Ash Ock' and 'anachronisms') out of print; Paratwa ranked #675,513; Liege killers ranked #867,362 per Amazon.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is "Wikipedia" Garbage data. Our company has contacted Wiki representatives in Florida and this reference has been sited as simple harassment. There is no reason for this reference and should NOT be considered reliable information.
the authour of the article had INVITED "graham" to show examples of BETTER articles _ but "graham" has chosen to make this a personal issue? we have NO idea what his agenda is. "graham" has REFUSED to send any EXAMPLES of the "the perfect article" for a BIO on this site. Can someone else show us a CONSTRUCTIVE, credible example? Go read Bill Bernbachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bernbach) article or Jay Chiat's... (on this site) Are those VANITY? OR are they BIOS of successful people - you've NEVER heard of or have no interest in hearing of? there are THOUSANDS that DO have interest in this information. (User:Not Allowed00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
now THATS a sound, straight forward reference comment. (it) no presumptions, no personal bias (apparently) .. and no bizarre jealousy. Merci, Dlyons493! we'll check it out. (User:Not Allowed01:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC))
Please do not accuse the nominator or any other users of having an "agenda", "personal bias" or "bizarre jealousy".[reply]
Delete. Inappropriate tone; written like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. WP:VANITY is not grounds for deletion, but it sure as heck doesn't help either. Kickaha Ota17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get only 79 google hits on his name, and most of them are things like letters and reviews that he has posted. There is a mention of him in the ad industry mag "'boards", but it is a one sentence "Not Allowed." sort of thing. Brianyoumans18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is not an slag dictionary, and if it was these terms would go on the tamil encyclopedia. If any of these terms notable (for illustrating the structure of the language for instance) they can be merged with Tamil language somehow-- Musaabdulrashid07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slang is an important part of colloquial language. They do not illustrate in any way the structure of the language. But that does not take away from its importance. Slangs reflect the people who use them and their way of interaction.
The only way I can see of connecting it with Tamil language is by providing a link from the latter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avan gopi (talk • contribs) 00:24, August 14, 2006 (UTC).
Delete. I can't see how this list isn't either original research or pulled from an existing source. Slang terms that are independently notable (lingam, for example) might make a good addition to the Tamil language article. --Graham08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten to cover the general topic of Tamil slang. Lists of words do not generally belong on Wikipedia. -- Visviva20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Does not appear to be a club playing at, or having played at, a sufficient level for which notability could be claimed or verified. -- Alias Flood20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Why does he need to be notable outside of his involvement with MAD magazine? Isn't that like saying that Barry Bonds needs notability outside of baseball? Dsreyn15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
15 August 2006 (UTC)
the subject and co-nominee Dead by Dawn horror film festival do not appear to be notable. Subject (1060 Ghits) is editor of a 'Red by Dawn' (Amazon Rank: #1,000,142) and founder of "Dead By Dawn Festival" (186Ghits).
Keep Founder of notable film-festival ("Dead by Dawn" festival gets 75,000+ Ghits). Barring that merge to Dead by Dawn. Failing that, I have transwikied to Film-Flam and also transwikied Dead by Dawn. (P.S. Where is the AfD entry for Dead by Dawn? The AfD link on that page leads here.) dryguy01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — I understand that the subject is somewhat notable due to the relationship to the Dead by Dawn festival, but I feel a simple mention in the Dead by Dawn would suffice. -- tariqabjotu04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems to be a wikipedia entry for the film "Cowards Bend the Knee" rather then "Cowards bend at the knees" the article isn't written in proper form, has several spelling errors, and there is already an entry for the article under the film's proper name.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this entry is challenged on the basis of WP:V or WP:HOAX. This listing for an Azerbaijani dance which forms part of the wedding ritual asserts notability based on its claim of being one of the oldest dances in the context of wedding ceremonies. Dances are an integral part of the wedding rituals in almost every culture, and this claim, therefore, needs to be properly demonstrated. Ohconfucius07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) See page bottom. Ohconfucius[reply]
Comment - where the hoax issue is concerned, the words are certainly cognate to the relevant Turkish infinitives ("asmak" and "kesmek"), so nobody's trying to pull the wool over our eyes by sneaking an obscenity in, since Azeri's close enough to Turkish for the words not to have changed enough. As for whether such a dance exists, I'll leave that to someone with slightly more knowledge in that field or abilities in that language. BigHaz10:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my challenge is on the premise of its claim to be "It is one of the oldest dances which is current in marriage". Apologies if it was misunderstood: I was not challenging the existence of the dance, nor that it has a very long history. An assertion to notability of the dance such as "It is a folkloric dance which dates back to the Xth century" would appear sufficient in this regard. With respect, I would content that the source of the translated document itself needs to be subject to the same credibility test. Ohconfucius05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was reasonably certain that that was what you were getting at. My comment about the language issue was to save anyone else the trouble of thinking "I wonder if we've inadvertently got an article with an offensive title?" BigHaz05:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have lots of dances on WP and even Category:Dance. If Azeris do the dance at their weddings, that's notable enough for WP. If you want to take issue with the claim of "oldest" AfD is not the place to hash that out. I think the nomination based on verifiability and hoax is no longer operative. Carlossuarez4606:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Precendent isn't binding upon AfD, but it is the rational I'm advancing here, yes. It's a very well established precendent that secondary schools are inherently worthy of articles - and as long as they get past WP:V, I'm not really aware of a criterion anywhere which is binding upon AfD, or even an official-like guideline. WilyD14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is not extensive, it does provide some background on the school. Plus, there is verifiable information, with a reference to a newspaper article (albeit a local) included. This school article clears the hurdle. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article contains no assertion of notability. Having articles on all schools violates the WP:NOT policy against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely you realise that isn't true. There's no requirement for an assertion of notability, and WP:NOT doesn't forbid an article on every highschool any more than it forbids an article on every country. WilyD15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The notability of this journal and co-nominee is challenged per WP:NN. It is the news journal of the Science Fiction Society of DePauw University, and the article apparently fails to assert its notability.
Keep Andrew M. Butler I've not yet investigated the journal fully, so I'm declining comment on it for now. However Andrew M. Butler has been nominated for a Hugo award, which clearly establishes him as a leading author in such matters, in my opinion LinaMishima23:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a reputable, established peer-reviewed publication. Not sure what the basis for this AfD is. Oh, and in the future please list separate AfDs separately. -- Visviva13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep — Let me start by saying that I've been in the nutrition industry for 10 years so this is kinda my thing. Ediets.com easily meets WP:WEB criteria for notability, that is "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation", at http://www.ediets.com/company/pressroom/awards.cfm you'll see its won "Forbes.com's Spring 2005 "Best of the Web" and a "Forbes Favorite" in the Diet and Nutrition category." for the third year, ""Standard of Excellence" WebAward in the 2004 WebAward Competition, which are produced by the Web Marketing Association", "PC Magazine selected eDiets.com its "Editors' Choice", "Nielsen//NetRatings has ranked eDiets.com as the #1 Most Trafficked Health, Fitness & Nutrition Site World Wide" etc. The company is publicly listed on the NASDAQ, and has an Alexa ranking of approx 3000. Hope this helps - Glen14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant believe I missed that (Ive tagged two other AfD candidates in the last hour or two for the exact same reason). I've blanked the article and tagged copyvio. I will try to sit down this morning and write at least a stub that isnt a commercial. I've left the AfD tag on the article, just in case for some reason it's found to survive deletion - then this AfD will remain relavant. - Glen15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Glen's rewrite. As an aside, I humbly express my utter shock that this article was only written in June... As the most popular dieting website (according to my sources), I cannot believe it wasn't created a long time ago. Srose(talk)20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Non notable local business that fails WP:CORP
Keep. This place was awesome and since I found out that there is one still in existance I'm planning an hour & a half road trip to go to the Campbellsville one! Druther's/Burger Queen Rocks!!! User: londonhistory11:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was not a local business, but a regional chain. Though it was absorbed into Dairy Queen, it was a distinct company from DQ, so merge and redirect is not appropriate. Article does need to be verified, however. Rohirok17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
the subject is not a recognised profession, and will share characteristics of the skill-sets for advertising with the employment characteristics of internship. Interns in almost every domain are basically inexperienced workers, thus multiplication of separate listings is not warranted. WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. In the case of this article, it also appears to be a school project for User:Cndylanders, thus WP:VAIN. Ohconfucius08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
the subject is a film actress who has had several roles in film. However, many of the parts are unnamed, and none of the roles appear to have any prominence. Would appear to fail WP:BIO. Ohconfucius09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep—It is indeed just a catalog listing—that it is short does not make it non-notable—a quick review of google indicates it has sufficient "throw" to make it a valid entry. But the author (or some other kind soul) needs to beef this article up. Williamborg (Bill)01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certain Billie Holiday recordings are public domain in certain jurisdictions, so you do in fact see them being re-issued often. Andrew Levine20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link at the bottom just allows you to send an email. How do you know that this label "reissues recordings from the likes of Billie Holiday" in any meaningful way? Lots of those budget CD labels do issue "willy-nilly" old radio broadcasts (or other poor quality stuff that is easy and cheap for them to get) of famous people. How is WP:V met for any of this information? GBYork20:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Vice Presidential Action Rangers was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Futurama (TV series - season 2)#Anthology of Interest I. 2 votes to merge and redirect, 1 vote to delete. Postdlf 07:02, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another Futurama VfD. Great episode, great joke (you haven't lived 'til you hear Al Gore say "Vice Presidential Action Rangers") but non-notable. I call it a Hawking-deletion. Ian Pugh 04:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't totally agree with that, but I suppose it works for the purposes of keeping episode guides on the site (which may be best for compromise on fancruft). Vote withdrawn. Ian Pugh 07:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete no redirect. Fancruft. --Improv 20:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. I agree with Netoholic. I know it isn't that note worthy but as long as it is in the Futurama article, it's fine. NeoJustin 17:47 Oct 23, 2004.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actually, yes, it does. WP:MUSIC has a criteria for multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. MTV.com works for me, among the others. PT(s-s-s-s)21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete this version as clear cut copyvio. This discussion however indicates that there's no consensus to not include an article on this person, however, so in other words, creating it as a non-copy-and-paste of a news story should be okay. W.marsh18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even junior boxing champions that have received zero media attention? Likewise, Omar has competed - at his highpoint - at the national (Australian) level, which does not satisfy WP:BIO's requirement that the sportsperson have competed at the highest level of their competition (ie, international). Since he's made no significant or lasting impact to his field, and has received absolutely no recognition from third parties, there's not much reason to include his article here. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see RandyWang's point perfectly, but what makes Omar notable is this – he is a Muslim boxer in a predominantly white field, and his religion is at odds with his impending success. There has actually been a fair amount of controversy in boxing circles in the past few days about the guy [my Google search got 401 hits for "omar shaick" boxing, by the way – what terms did you use?] I don't see any reason why there should be an article about him, unless this gets big. He isn't notable as a boxer, yet. He's notable for his refusal to get tested, and his religion. I'm going to abstain from voting on this one [after all that!!!] — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aren't you meant to be on enforced WikiBreak? :) You're right though, I seem to have used the wrong search terms: I get 479 for simply "Omar Shaick," but that still doesn't seem enough to demonstrate notability. As far as I can tell, the only significant thing he's done is refuse a drug test, but that's not really a particularly notable thing. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found out how to bypass it :) I still stand by my previous comment, though – I think he's at least slightly notable due to the fact that it's not just a normal refusal to get tested, it's for religious reasons. It's interesting how many articles on the web about the controversy display such blatant anti-Islamicism and racism [note: no bias here... I've been raised Hindu. OK, maybe a little :)]. That said, unless this hits the fan (which I doubt it will), there's not much need for a proper article about him. Aaargh, that sounds confusing! In summary – he is slightly notable (notorious?), but right now we don't need an article about him. Weak delete — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means that what I would like to see is this discussion closed as keep, but the page deleted through the procedure at WP:CP assuming it is in fact a copyvio. Such a verdict would cause recreations to be treated differently than a discussion closed as delete. JYolkowski // talk22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay didn't realise I would cause controversy over this. As the person who originally added the article I'm not going to vote. I have zero interest in boxing, never heard of the guy, but then again I can probably name about 2 or 3 boxers in the world. When I saw the article on the ABC News site I thaught that it was interesting enough to see what WP had to say. When I realised he had no article I thaught I'd add it. I more or less (if I remember correctly) wikified the news article. If this is a copyvio (copyright violation, I'm assuming) I appologise. I knew the article couldn't be just that story, but as I knew nothing else about him, I figured someone who did (and actually cares about boxing) could add more info. If it gets deleted for any reason, I won't lose any sleep over it, I really did add it in good faith. AussieDingo198311:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, nobody was assuming you did it in goodbad (whoops) faith. This page exists to determine whether the article should be included in any form, not because of the way you sourced your information. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. It's just a list of songs the lads did solo post-Beatles, fancrufted into an album. (Yes, I did just verb "fancruft.") Non-notable and confusing. -- Merope14:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It appears he may have caused a huge stir, if the article is to be believed. Unfortunately, Zambia's online presence is minimal, and the article cannot be substantiated. 0hits on the Zambian 8Ghits, of which 5 wiki. deleteOhconfucius06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
03:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
work 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
