Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Michael Berlin 2 Office 2.0 3 James Marcinkowski 4 Dick Couch 5 Roy Gum 6 WikIran 7 Dev Sibrawa 8 Clayton, Oregon 9 Garth Wintergreen, Matthew Hüygens-Villeneuve 10 Quadri- 11 Kansas Sampler 12 Wooden Wars 13 Quake and Kaik 14 Aarón González 15 Geremy Olkous 16 Gettin' Later 17 CHR Global (second nomination) 18 Comixpedia 19 In the Heavyskies 20 Vangelis (Buffyverse) 21 Akron Wiki 22 Backpacker (hip hop) 23 List of watch manufacturers 24 Nightstreak 25 Woodlands Civic Centre 26 Julia Morgan School for Girls 27 Elmhurst (Metra) 28 Lesley (color) 29 Deconstruction/Archive1 30 Hong Kong International School 31 Awksglokin 32 John boston 33 Hermann Simon 34 Fearsome 35 Michael Zimmerman 36 Communist Party of Warwick 37 Sindre Rørstadbotnen 38 Paul Stallberg 39 Mark Rodriguez 40 Airline destinations (2nd nomination) 41 Multiply 42 Fawaz Hussain 43 Music Box Tour 44 Ms. Kelly 45 KiwiLyrics 46 Eva Green M5 motorway controversy 47 International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong 48 Escondido Tutorial Service 49 Acoes 50 Zaytuna Institute 51 Illiana Christian High School 52 Pentium 5 53 Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School 54 PlayStation 3 55 Valentine Elementary School 56 Adim 57 Budasheer 58 Nonsensical Marketing 59 Coconut monkey 60 Mortal Kombat: Destroyer and Mortal Kombat: Destruction 61 Kutaism 62 Stefany Singh 63 Professional caregiver insurance risk 64 Age Midget 65 Transreal number line 66 Lump it 67 Adriana Mercury 68 Cruiserweight triple crown 69 Frinika 70 Vexed 71 FreeRIP 72 Greentreprenuers 73 Detective Kerry 74 Meng and Ecker 75 Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign 76 Amir Hassanpour 77 Shahrzad Mojab 78 David Britton 79 TLP Music UK 80 Charles Burlingame 81 Blockhead (cartoon) 82 Mikie Da Poet 83 Zvi Tohar 84 All-style Fighting Competition 85 Analysis Group 86 First game at Comerica Park 87 Paris Fall Fair 88 Villain (2007 film) 89 RFA Wave Knight 90 Jason Steele 91 Athletes_Against_Autism 92 Knox Kast Radio 93 Robin Kittrell 94 Chandra Sheehy 95 Waffles radio 96 A & J Show 97 GDrive 98 Vagina envy 99 One Accord 100 Ruthven House 101 Incia 102 Liam Atkin 103 United Wrestling Association 104 Mehran Keshe 105 God's Property 106 List of Imploded Structures 107 John R. Zeidler 108 Adi Hadzic 109 William David Allan 110 HijackThis 111 Satan claus 112 Walt Brown (writer) 113 Rayfield (band) 114 Tim Brickley 115 Filming mistakes from That's So Raven

[edit] Michael Berlin

Michael Berlin (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:PROF. The "Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills" is Berlin's private practice. Despite what one may infer from the article, his academic involvement is not impressive: 8 total papers (only 1 in the past 10 years) and only two on glaucoma (none in the past 10 years).[1] Not convinced that work on "Excimer Laser Trabeculostomy" is that notable enough per guidelines at WP:PROF. AED 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF, numerous cleanup tags on the article that do not appear to be solved anytime soon. Doesn't look like the organizations are particularly notable, though one has an article, but he doesn't appear notable enough within that. DoomsDay349 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete In light of the paltry number of citations in scholarly press, this guy appears to be a non-notable ophthamologist. If additional references can be provided to establish ntoability, I will of course change my vote. --Jayron32 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Sr13 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN WP:PROFSkierRMH 08:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the professor does not have enough notability (according to WP:PROF) to justify him an article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete May be notable, but doesn't cite sources. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office 2.0

Office 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be a neologism. If you notice that the article has one source, that's because there's one person behind the entire idea, organising conferences and all. Also see: WP:NOT crystal ball. --user:Qviri 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although, maybe it should be deleted. There are only 850000 non Wikipedia/COI ghits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I get 680 hits based on this link: [2]. This is the last page of the search showing the true amount of hits, with pages about OpenOffice.org and referencing Mr. Ghalimi personally filtered out. Or is my google-fu abandoning me here? Nevertheless, I'm not sure Google is a good way to decide this debate one way or the other. --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's good, except you filtered out the standard buisness nonsense, which includes the phase "Open office". You also filtered out all hits mentioning Ghalimi as the coiner. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. See http://www.office20con.com/profile.html?speaker=Ismael_Ghalimi. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Which part on the page linked tells us that this isn't a neologism coined and promoted by Mr. Ghalimi? --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was just coming back to add to it. The first link I posted confirms his association with the Office 2.0 conference. The Sponsor list confirms that this is a serious conference. A Google search for "Office 2.0" "Conference" generates 335,000 hits. A Google News search for "Office 2.0" finds several notable media reports from Wired News, PC Magazine, InfoWorld, ZDNet (quoting Microsoft's Ray Ozzie), and Forbes. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Concept seems to be well established, and I'm not sure where else the information would go, but it certainly belongs here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: quite an established IT concept talked about in the IT media all over the place seemingly these days. Ben W Bell talk 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much needed work, weakly notable. Sr13 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article could use a rewrite however, as stated by Ben above, strong IT influences can be regarded as some basis for notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cites a website for its source and has tons of google hits. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per avove †he Bread 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Couch

Dick Couch (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable author dockingman^talk 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as for his military service, he's a great guy and all but he isn't notable; only a Captain and no important medals, dunno if he even has a Purple Heart, let alone something big like a Naval Cross (or whatever the big Navy thing is). As for the books, none of them appear to be bestsellers, critically acclaimed, or anything. Totally non-notable person. DoomsDay349 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people) -- "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Also see the second paragraph of his biography (external link). SWAdair 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs editing, not deletion. Couch appears to be notable enough to me even if he wasn't an author. And is is Rear Admirals and higher for the Navy? --Hjal 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, claim of "multiple independent reviews or awards" made in earlier keep comment, but what source is this from? Seraphimblade 14:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--SUIT 22:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He wrote several nonfiction books and novels which were not included in the original article. I added some reviews. Clearly notable as author of numerous books published by major publishers and reviewed favorably.Edison 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a notable author. Amazon lists him and he's gotten good ratings.--aviper2k7 22:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per SWAdair. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep dosen't seem that non-notable. Atlantis Hawk 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He wrote several excelent books, which sold well.

[edit] WikIran

WikIran (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc. Heja Helweda 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - even if it can be verified, it needs two outside coverages per WP:WEB. MER-C 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wiki website that exists. Notable in Iran. For MER-C's comment: Would LyricWiki fail as well? Sr13 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikIran pales into insignificance when compared with LyricWiki. Merely existing isn't an assertion of notability and therefore cannot be used to argue for the keeping of this article. MER-C 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with MER-C here. WP:WEB is pretty clear. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable website in Iran, mentioned in the electronic and printed media. --ManiF 12:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Provides no links to third-party coverage. Sandstein 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB, with the emphasis on multiple and non-trivial (no indication that the Iranian.com reference was substantial). Demiurge 13:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Using this query, I found a reference on the front page of Iranian.com, full text is: "our wiki/Build encyclopedia on Iran & Iranians/wikiran.org". From the "our" it looks like this fails the "independent" part of the WP:WEB criteria as well. Demiurge 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important resource and referenced by Iranian.com. Lists over 500 articles and says it is "inspired by Wikipedia". WP:WEB is not a policy but guideline so we cannot say it is binding. Why delete now and then create again when you agree it is notable?? If this was on Wikia would you still delete? Keep and improve and let us be patient for "slashdot effect" :) Khorshid 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just so that people here know: WikIran's website will soon be transferred to a server provided by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as it continues to grow and expand. And unlike Heja's claim, it is a non-profit encyclopedia and it is referenced and mirrored by several other websites.--Zereshk 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its notability section has me convinced. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the sources is not independent (as I pointed out above), the other is simply a website directory which trivially includes the site[3]. (The article's claim that the "our" means "belonging to the Iranian community" seems more than a little dubious to me, considering it wasn't added until after I made my point above.) Demiurge 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's little more than an ad pamphlet. MB
• Keep, as important. Siba 12:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dev Sibrawa

Dev Sibrawa (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Minor Star Wars character. 1 ghit (not quite a googlewhack, if you remove the quotes you get three), thus unverifiable. Crufty and unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I believe this falls squarely under the "that one guy who appeared once in the third episode of the second season" clause, from a policy/guideline I have forgotten the name of. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Truce at Bakura (or, merge into List of minor Star Wars characters) per WP:FICT. The reason you get only 1 ghit is because the name is misspelled. ColourBurst 04:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of minor Star Wars characters per ColourBurst. hateless 06:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Minor characters have their own list, and he's minor. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Falcorian. Sr13 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton, Oregon

Clayton, Oregon (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Hoax article. After consultation with several editors we can find no sources proving this place exists. The one article that links to it may be in error. Katr67 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please see the article's talk page. Also note that the same editor created the article State Highway 128 (Oregon), which is also up for AfD. Katr67 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has resisted all efforts to prove it actually exists. StuffOfInterest 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find any record of this even being a collection of trailors. If it's a hoax, what a strange one it is. --Oakshade 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax I am always surprised by articles about places that RamBot didn't catch. While there are MANY notable, but unincorporated places that RamBot didn't create, a quick google check does verify that this one is entirely made up. --Jayron32 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax fails everything test SkierRMH 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. It's east of nowhere. --Dhartung | Talk 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see my google search here.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete is a hoax, my ghits turned up the same as Bakaman's, only Wikipedia article mentions of its existence.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is why I tag even articles about hiways and towns which are unsourced. Edison 22:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonexistant. ReverendG 04:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadri-

Quadri- (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Topic is subsumed by Wiktionary entry wikt:Quad- Myasuda 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Redirect per Uncle G. Isn't there a speedy category for dicdefs? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No. I think the concern is that the difference between dicdef and not is too thin and subjective. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. 1ne 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; dicdef. SkierRMH 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. feydey 11:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• No deletion is required. Like I did with most of the others, almost a year ago, redirect to numerical prefix, which is an encyclopaedia article on numerical prefixes that is cross-linked to the several dictionary articles on the individual numerical prefixes. Uncle G 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Uncle G. - Mike МиГ 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas Sampler

Kansas Sampler (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails WP:ORG based on local scope & lack of third-party sources, and content is taken almost entirely from the various websites associated with the organization, only slightly reorganized. – Little Miss Might Be Wrong 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Needs editing, but there seem to ample hits at unrelated sites

• AP article
• Kansas State University
• local news article
• brief tribute by a Kansas Congressman

--Hjal 09:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but it needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The organization is held in high esteem at Kansas University [4] and the founder has been cited by (local) Congressman Jerry Moran as "an effective and tireless advocate for Kansas' rural communities" [5] and has served on a state task force about rural life[6]. In any case, there are sufficient independent sources to develop an article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Added 4 independent newspaper references. Edison 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wooden Wars

Wooden Wars (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Contested prod. Non-notable computer game modification. Khatru2 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SkierRMH 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an apparently non-notable game mod.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable.--aviper2k7 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quake and Kaik

Quake and Kaik (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom...
• Speedy delete per nom and (fill in the name of your favorite WP policy here, it probably applies) Thoroughly debunked on the Spanish WP. BTW, in Spanish quake rhymes with cake and flake, but not kaik, and one of the "actors" (Miguel Sánchez) was a 17th century Mexican priest. Cráter humeante, pronto. Tubezone 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aarón González

Aarón González (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be made up out of whole cloth. Analogous Spanish-language page now well on its way to being deleted for that reason Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search for "Quake y Kaik" finds only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Delete like you've never deleted before. SkierRMH 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• ¡Guacala! per above. Tubezone 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geremy Olkous

Geremy Olkous (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This appears to be hoax. Virtually all of the ghits for this person (in English or otherwise) appear to be WP mirrors and the Roseau Warriors are a high school team in Minnesota... author looks to be the same as the author of Quake and Kaik and Aarón González, both up for AfD as hoaxes. Tubezone 05:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Meh! Hoaxy, hoaxy, hoaxy! But seriously, yes, it's a hoax so...you know what to do. DoomsDay349 05:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax? Yes. Delete. Yes. SkierRMH 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Eight non-wiki ghits. Zero verifiability. 100% hoax. MER-C 08:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comixpedia

Comixpedia (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

non notable websites. as WP:WEB. Duyouknows 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Comixpedia.com, get rid of Comixpedia.org. Comixpedia.com is notable, but .org isn't. 1ne 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral on Comixpedia.com. I'll get rid of the Comixpedia.org half of the article, since I would have !voted speedy delete if it were in a separate article. MER-C 08:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question what does "has featured cover art by" mean? Did these artists (who I presume are notable because some of them have articles) create content specifically for Comixpedia or did Comixpedia just republish it? Demiurge 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  The former. Nifboy 05:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete-borderline if not blatant spam, article links only to own site. Little to no assertion of notability aside from "notability by association". Seraphimblade 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikilinking using "comixpedia:" goes to comixpedia.org. Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline speedy. Fails WP:WEB, no third-party coverage. Sandstein 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akron Wiki

Akron Wiki (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non notable Wiki. It has been speedied twice before, but I see it has sources which may be an assertion of notability. Nevertheless, it is not the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" in order for the page to meet WP:WEB. Khatru2 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. feydey 11:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sources...cited by a newspaper... Keep ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ReverendG 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backpacker (hip hop)

Backpacker (hip hop) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Unreferenced silly neologism found in the speedy backlog. Deleted once via prod and partially reposted. Opabinia regalis 07:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd heard it before and wondered what it meant, but this looks like a job for Urbandictionary or another crowd like that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. SkierRMH 08:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the original prodder (the OP, yo) and placed the db-repost this time. -- Mikeblas 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment so you know, recreating an article deleted by prod counts as contesting the deletion, so technically not eligible for db-repost. Opabinia regalis 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not an article worth keeping and as stated above, obvious neologism.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely ridiculous non-notable term. ReverendG 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of watch manufacturers

List of watch manufacturers (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list appears to be listcruft. There is no good definition of what a "watch manufacturer" is and listing every brand name is not appropriate.

This article was under proposed deletion, but it was disputed with the claim that it "Should be a fairly trivial excercise to decruftify this." On the contrary, I think it will be very difficult to decruftify.

First off, note that there already is a Category:Watchmakers, I'm sorry for failing to mention this in the prod. Many of the problems with this list, however apply to that category also.

Secondly, I confess I was hoping this list would go away quietly because an explanation of why it is a bad idea is not simple nor obvious.

Watch manufacturing goes back about 500 years. The listcruft article says that any "list of something" that doesn't have a definition for that "something" is highly questionable. The closest thing to a defintion of a watch manufacturer is a watchmaker, but as noted in that article, this includes most people who just repair watches. Imagine if people who repaired cars were called automakers rather than auto mechanics, or anyone who assembled white box, repaired or upgraded computers was a computer maker.

For the last couple hundred years, a "watch manufacture" could be anything for one person to a large company. A "watch manufacture" could produce almost all parts of a watch assemble, test and finish them, but never have its name put on the dial or be sold under its name. Or, a "watch manufacture" could do little more than contract with others to produce a, possible stock, watch with their name on it. Or, a "watch manufacture" may produce a few watches, but mostly resell other watches under their name. Or, a "watch manufacture" might make only a few easy to make parts, such as the case. Or, a "watch manufacture" might not make all the parts, but do all the work required to turn a rough movement (or an Ébauche) into a usable timepeice. Or, a "watch manufacture" might take a fully working movement and add a few flourishes. Or, ....

If you removed all current "watch manufactures" that didn't just buy generic quartz movements or ETA mechanical movements, you would eliminate almost all the names in the list of watch manufacturers, and end up with a handful such as Swatch and Rolex. However, in order to do that, you would need to know a great deal about the actual watches, something that many "watch manufactures" try very hard to keep private. The watch industry makes heavy use of branding, and has for hundreds of years, with effectively idencial watches selling for 10 or even 100 times as much with one name as another.

Because of long historical and legal precedent, basically any name that has ever appeared on a watch face has a solid claim to being a "watch manufacture". Attempting to apply more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture" will result in strong resistance from both those companies and loyal customers.

There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures". For example, look at some that are still in print on shentonbooks.com: "WATCHMAKERS AND CLOCKMAKERS OF THE WORLD: 21st CENTURY EDITION" at 720 pages, "GREATER MANCHESTER CLOCKS AND CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS" at 344 pages, "COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF AMERICAN CLOCK/WATCHMAKERS 1640-1950" at 52 pages, and several others from just that one book seller.

A complete list of watch manufacturers would easily contain thousands of entries.

Wrs1864 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are more than 40 links to WP articles in that list, which suggests that there is a fair amount of interest in watch makers/manufacturers/sellers. One or more of the entries are annotated--the list could be improved by annotating it further. --Hjal 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• "There are whole books that just list "clock/watch manufactures"" — This is a pretty strong Keep argument. Not to mention "more modern defintions/ideas of what qualifies as a true "manufacture"" sounds like WP:OR. Demiurge 13:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Seraphimblade 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/questions My argument is not that there isn't interest, nor that the list would be short, but rather that the list will be effectively unlimited and unmaintainable. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Remember, any name that has appeared on a watch face, any person who has or had a career as a "watchmaker" would qualify. Right now, this list is primarily external links to small companies that most likely manufacture very few, if any parts of the watches they sell, along with internal links to things like Diesel (clothing company), DKNY and Victorinox which do not actually manfacuter watches, or internal links such as Roamer, Skagen, Xemex (redlinked in the list) which don't link to articles related to watches. Is there any criteria for what does or does not belong here that can make it less of a website directory? For example, there are things like list of people, but those lists seem to be restricted to internal links. Would that be a reasonable restriction? Remember, there already is a category for watchmakers, which automatically restricts the list to internal links. I will keep an eye on this, and if people can convince me that this list can be "easily decruftified", I will withdraw my AfD. Originally, I was just going to delete what I thought were inappropriate entries, but realized that would delete almost everything. Wrs1864 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you see any bad entries of non-watch manufacturers, the solution is to delete those entries, not this list. Mister.Manticore 15:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, but that is kind of my point, what qualifies as a "watch manufacturer"? WP:lists explicitly says "For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value" and the historic definition would include a huge number of brand names. For example, I have a web page that lists a couple hundred names that I could add to this article, and this list is only for one particular "real" manufacturer that has been defunct for decades, it was known for *not* selling watches under other names, and I collected the list over a relatively short time. I think that if I either deleted 90% of this list, or added hundreds of new entries, that I would violate WP:POINT. Wrs1864 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • This list isn't for all watch manufacturers, it's for notable watch manufacturers (the "notable" is implicit in all lists on Wikipedia). A good rule of thumb is that, if it wouldn't deserve a Wikipedia article of its own, it doesn't deserve inclusion in the list. Demiurge 18:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, fair enough. Would it be acceptable to delete all external links? Also, I'm not sure how well WP:NOTE works when applied to companies from the 1500s-1700s. Would anyone who has been a member of the British Worshipful Company of Clockmakers (est 1631) qualify? (Of course, that would be a very small subset of all watch/clock makers) Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your question is something that can resolved. For example, by removing any entries that are just brand-names labels that buy from another source with their labels put on. (Though I'd make a distinction with those that assemble from stock components). For another example, take a look at List of automobile manufacturers. Obviously the details would require some knowledge of the subject, but I suggest taking it to the list's discussion page, and seeking input from other informed persons. Mister.Manticore 22:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
        • As I said in my AfD commentary, I don't think trying to apply modern concepts of what a manufacturer is will work. As Demiurge points out, any such new definition would be WP:OR. I mentioned carmakers in my AfD so, yeah, I have looked at it quite a bit. Compared to watches, cars are a very modern invention and have a comparatively modern definition of what a "manufacturer" is. Also, as I mentioned in my AfD, these companies try very hard to hide just how much or how little they actually do to qualify as "manufacturers", which will make WP:VERIFY very hard to do and result in a lot of WP:OR for each company. There are far too many examples of "watch manufactures" that really were nothing other than a shell that sold watches with their name on it. See below where I talk about the "Advance" name. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
          • First, you seem confused about what OR is. Deciding the criteria on this list is not necessarily original research. All we really need is a reliable claim about the company that they make watches. Anything else is just a convenient restriction to what's useful for Wikipedia. Where that would be on Watch manufactures, I don't know, but this AfD is hardly the place to decide. If a company is just a "shell" then I think it would be clear they should be mentioned at most under the original company, assuming the brand itself is more or less notable. If something else, then that can be determined on a case by case basis. What you talk about Elgin doing with Advance is really no different than what many electronics and appliance companies do today. (For example, Sears has several brands, including Kenmore but they are manufactured by other companies from Maytag to LG). In any case, none of your arguments add up to deletion. They are merely concerns for the individual entries on the list itself. All of which can be resolved, if you commit yourself to doing so, not just giving up and throwing it in the wastebin. Mister.Manticore 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Funny you would use Sears as an example. R. W. Sears started out selling watches and hired a watchmaker named Roebuck. Their late 1800s-early 1900s advertising, at best, implied that they were watch manfacturers, even though they just resold things like Elign watches. Again, this would be considered acceptable at the time they did it. So, Sears certainly should be in a list of "watch manufacturers". I kind of doubt they would could reasonably be placed in a list of "washing machine manufacturers". Wrs1864 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the long AfD to the contrary, none of the arguments presented indicate a grounds for deletion. All of this information should, if true, be included in the article on watchmakers or possibly at the top of this list, to inform folks. Deleting this list would accomplish nothing except the removal of potentially valuable information to folks. I don't know about you, but I prefer lists to categories myself. If you are concerned about the criteria, go to the talk page, establish some sustainable criteria, put it on the talk page, see if people accept it. Mister.Manticore 15:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• What a nauseating linkfarm. The only way I can see this list being of any use whatsoever to Wikipedia is if inclusion criteria limiting it to companies which already possess articles on Wikipedia were both adopted and enforced, with the list page primarily serving as a honeypot to find newly-spammed articles. Category:Watchmakers is and would remain the tool that both our readers and our editors use; this unadorned list is harder to maintain, comparatively quite incomplete, and ridiculously prone to self-promotion. Unless someone is willing to commit to removing the two or three new redlinks and external links that people who ignore a nice, friendly <!-- Please do not add external links or entries that do not have an article. --> will put into the article every day, delete. —Cryptic 15:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless list. There is no encyclopedic value is providing a list of links.meshach 21:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is neither a directory nor "listcruft." Fg2 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, directory AND listcruft AND very lousy made. Mixes manufacturers (those who actually build) with resellers (those who put a brand label on a box). Contains pearls like Advance and "generic" names as Andy Warhol. Pavel Vozenilek 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

More, it contains names from a few Western countries. A really complete list of mere manufacturers would be huge. Pavel Vozenilek 01:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Advance is a great example! You dismiss it as if it wasn't a "watch manfacturer, but it almost certainly was represented as such. The Elgin National Watch Company made about 115,000 watches using the Advance name betwen 1875 and 1900. During this time, there were several recessions in the US and recessions hit watch companies hard since a good watch will last many decades and they are expensive. These Advance watches were made to much lower standards than Elgin's normal watches. Elgin also had a distribution system with jewelers such that everyone expected that Elgin would *never* sell direct to the public. Now, was the Advance name simply a name that Elgin used in order not to damage their own good name and sell direct to the public? Or, was it a shell corporation? Or, was it another company that contracted with Elgin? Besides the Elgin manufactured Advance watches, there are also examples made by the Trenton Watch Company. This could be evidence that the folks selling the Advance watches were separate from Elgin, or it could be that there were two companies with the same name.

All this happened "only" around 100 years ago. Lots of people are interested in this kind of trivial and have investigated it, but I am reasonably certain that no one alive today knows the answers to the above questions. What is clear to me, however, is that any list of "watch manufacturers" would need to include Advance, and that Andy Warhol watches are no less qualified to be in that list than Advance. Wrs1864 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Advance is dismabiguation page for a generic word. I pointed the approach this list was created - copy something, link every word, forget about it. If kept the list should be separated into the true manufacturers (they aren't that many - here's one from Czech lands [9]) and list of watch brands where marketeers could promote and battle. Pavel Vozenilek 04:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Advance link being incorrect, in fact, I'd say there are rather a lot of them on this page once I converted it from external links to internal ones, but I felt it was more important to have it done and make it right than check each and every name for an existing article. Obviously, this list needs to be fixed even if kept, but that's a job for another day. Mister.Manticore 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightstreak

Nightstreak (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be a work of complete fiction, part of an elaborate fictional history being created - Wikipedia is not a web host. Zero relevent google hits. Creator removed all prods without comment. Resolute 07:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating: Kyle Kain, Rhylin, Magnate Industries Resolute 07:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as per nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. all, WP:OR, WP:NOT -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom. SkierRMH 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to have been made up one day. MER-C 08:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. VegaDark 09:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Also get rid of Jonas creek and Cal magnate redirects. --Charlene 10:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) (edited for typo)
• Delete per nom and a big WTF? after I read it. MikeWazowski 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. hateless 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wasting WP server space. --Oakshade 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodlands Civic Centre

Woodlands Civic Centre (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

non notable commercial premises Nuttah68 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn busines, reads as bad ad. SkierRMH 08:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Woodlands, Singapore. Building not notable on its own, but being the hub for Wooodlands Regional Centre, with the library and housing board offices house there. It does assert some notability, so content still can be moved over. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Morgan School for Girls

Julia Morgan School for Girls (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Found in the speedy backlog, where it really doesn't fit. School with no particular claim to fame, written with a degree of POV expected from an article created by a student. Four cleanup tags and counting. Opabinia regalis 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom... NN school, reads like homework assignment. SkierRMH 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - unlike some schools, there's some reliable sources (subscription required) out there. MER-C 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MER-C and independent coverage, which should be incorporated into the article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This school is as notable as a new middle school could be. There's no notable alumnae to argue about yet, but as a unique school type (all-girls middle school) in an area of several million people, with major coverage in the NYT, Harvard Magazine, several Bay Area papers, and a book, it seems to pass any test that the school deletionists could come up with. I've fixed it up a little, and I'll continue if nobody else finishes it up first. --Hjal 11:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But there are some good reasons for voting keep, other than the consensus here. One, the above sources quoted are reliable - Harvard and the New York Times, and the type of school is unique. If anyone wants to, I'd be willing to help re-write this article. --SunStar Net 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In tha the NYT article about the school and other sources helps confer notability (given that the school is in California) per WP:SCHOOLS3 criterion 1, and yes I know that isn't a guideline but that criterion seems at least to me to be reasonable. JoshuaZ 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How many schools have a New York Times article and a book about them? Plus they have what is in this era a somewhat innovative program of all girls education. Not a run of the mill school at all. Edison 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Based on the references this should not be on AFD. --JJay 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, school is notable, references are cited and are reliable. There's a lot of mention by major organisations, isn't that enough? --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. School is not notable. Yes, it's mentioned in a couple of articles, but it is not the subject of those articles. Valrith 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you may want to reread the NYT article. JoshuaZ 05:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, passes WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 06:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant coverage in the NYT and Harvard magazine is a clear demonstration of notability per WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 08:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elmhurst (Metra)

Elmhurst (Metra) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable: the article is about a small commuter train station in a suburb of a city, just one of hundreds of thousands of such stations in the world. TheSeven 07:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, why pick this one for AfD out of like a kajillion commuter railway station articles? Anyway, there's enough room in Union Pacific/West Line to merge the individual stations except for any particularly notable ones (eg: Ogilvie Transportation Center) into a list or table. Weak keep as there's already plenty of precedent for individual stations on notable rail lines having their own articles, although I still think a list merge wouldn't be a bad idea. Also, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nom since it was apparently selected at random, perhaps to make a point? Tubezone 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Elmhurst or Union Pacific/West Line SkierRMH 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep *ahem* Jordanhill railway station *ahem*. Looks like the the Pokémon test applies here. MER-C 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, though Jordanhill does have some peculiar notability to go with it (Wikipedia's millionth article). Keep for sure. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a maintained and categorized system of station articles for a notable commuter rail system. Ample precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I assume that the nominator did not know that there's a good reason while railway and commuter rail stations tend not to wind up on AfD. Rail station articles are largely accepted, and any campaign to delete them would likely cause conflict and division.-- danntm ^T _C 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Precedent is not necessarily binding, notability should be examined individually. This particular one does not seem to establish it even if others might. Certainly we don't need an individual article on every minor rail route in existence. "Someone might get irritated" is not a valid keep reason. Seraphimblade 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:AFDP, all rail stations are notable. There's no reason for this one to be singled out. --Oakshade 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Is Wikipedia supposed to have an article about every commuter train station in the world? If not, then—since there is nothing else notable about this one—I think it should be deleted. If Wikipedia is supposed to, then that would be hundreds of thousands of articles. (Note: I am the nominator). TheSeven 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, there are thousands of train station articles, and there's a lengthy discussion going on User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about that very subject, the large number of station articles and their maintainability. IMHO, that's where this discussion should be headed, rather than arguing about the notability of stations on an AfD for one station. Still, at this time, precedent should decide the issue. Are you trying to make some kind of point? ;-) Tubezone 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentThe guideline WP:AFDP cited above says "Subway and railway stations are allowed, but notability is currently under discussion [1]" This means there is no inherent right to maintain an article for each of the thousands or millions of them in the world for no apparent purpose. Edison 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment / Reply - I knew someone would say that. I'm actually part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations where we are trying to create an informative comprehensive collection of articles of stations from around the world. All of us don't simply want stations listed, but to have encyclopedic information of each station like its history and/or importance, for instances. Yes, just like Tubezone said above (better than I have, actually), there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. But as it stands now there's no reason to single out this station for AfD against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bus stops and train stations are not inherently notable unless multiple independent news stories or other indices of notability are provided which talk about the station in a nontrivial way. No function is served by copying everything from every directory in the world into a Wikipedia article which is soon out of date. A mention of the station could be made in an article about the transit system, with a link to their website for schedules and travel times. Edison 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV and not official WP policy or guideline (except for the bus stops bit - different subject) and you are free and encouraged to be part of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations and/or User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable regarding the inherent notability of train stations. --Oakshade 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I think that an important thing to note is that bus stops almost always get deleted at AfD, while train stations don't. Further, I agree that dumping the timetable into a Wikipedia article is unwise, to say the least. However, there can be much more to train stations then simply what time the trains come, such as there history, architecture, etc.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As precedent, at least until policy overrides this. Robovski 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesley (color)

Lesley (color) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

(a) I cannot find any source to very this claim about a future event; it might be a hoax by a fan, but that isn't the key point because (b) even if I could, Wikipedia does not need to list every brand name chosen as a shade for every product made (consider the tens of thousands of names of shades of paint). Notinasnaid 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until such a time that this paint is released, it's not verifiable, violating WP:V. Even if it was, there's the question of notability to be addressed. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• If they're mentioning Bausch & Lomb that'll be a colour for spectacle lenses and contact lenses, not a paint. Whatever, delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very unlikely to be true: naming a product after a celebrity would mean paying royalty fees, and the obscurity of the celebrity in question would make that a highly unwise decision. Even if it is true, though, it's not worth an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, and the article does even specify what point of the color horseshoe this new color is on.-- danntm ^T _C 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It says This particular shade of Jade (color) resembles the actresses eye color. Tonywalton | Talk 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Query: would it be appropriate for me to mention this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Color, since the article purports to be about a color? Notinasnaid 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Probably, although it shouldn't be considered necessary to notify the overseeing Wikiproject when nominating something. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad crystal ball. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per no crystal balls, nom as " WP = not an indiscriminate collection of information", unverifability, and probable non-notability. Nihiltres 20:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Actresses's eye color? Very doubtful about that. There's no cites or references or anything! Kyo cat^(T)•(C) 22:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. One google hit (this article) for "Baush & Lomb" "Caroline Lesley". Were this genuine, I would expect to find press releases at least a year before production, which would already be well-advanced if the product were being sold 1Q 2007. —Cryptic 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems hoaxish. ReverendG 04:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong International School

The article contain a lot of unverifiable data. Nobody care to mantain the article and it is a constant subject of vandalism. Then vandals inserted obscenities I know it is vandalism. If the vandals change the name of the principal I have no way to check if it is a real info or a vandalism. I suggest deletion per WP:NOR Alex Bakharev 09:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The existence of the school is well verified, and there are independent sources about the school, including the United States Department of State [10]. It appears to me that most of the information present is available on the school website so I cannot really call the article original research. Even with quotes, Google gives a massive 32,300 hits, many of them relevant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Revert to a clean version - An article being vandalized is not a reason to delete. This is Articles for Deletion, not cleanup. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 16:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Cleanup will suffice. — RJH (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs cleanup and improvement, but the fact that it has been vandalized is no justification for deletion. Alansohn 08:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is where requests for protection should go. Tonywalton | Talk 10:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awksglokin

Awksglokin (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Reads like original research. A single direct source given (Mental Floss) but I can't find any information at all on 'Dr. Boris Shleskin'. Zero ghits for 'Awksglokin'; no relevant ghits for 'The Ultimate Theory of Really Big Numbers'. The Hitchikers Guide connection is tenuous. Apologies in advance if this is notable and verifiable. Marasmusine 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pretty obvious and massive hoax, but move content first to WP:BJAODN. "Mental Floss" has never had an issue 22; "awksglokin" is not used in any field; HHGTTG does not mention it. Wikipedia is not for things made up after reading Douglas Adams one day. For one thing, Douglas Adams would have been funnier. --Charlene 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax and/or original research. Hello32020 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant hoax. And the lord said: Let there be crap!!! MartinDK 13:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MartinDK, just remember to flush! Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy delete: on the borderline between patent nonsense and complete bollocks. -- Ekjon Lok 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is a theory that Deleting it will cause it to be replaced by something only more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory that this has already happened. Mishatx 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although according to something I read somewhere, it doesn't behave like other articles and would thus become a redirect to 1 (number). --WikiSlasher 09:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article not important enough for WP. Snowman 11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Simon

Bio written by Hesi who has contributed nothing else. Looks like self-promotion. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 11:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an autobiography. MER-C 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up I think this has NPOV problems, but the web site it links to says "Simon has published over 30 books in 15 languages, including the worldwide bestsellers Hidden Champions and Power Pricing.". Seems solid for authors WP:BIO. I'll see if I can track down any of these 30.Obina 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Amazon has 6 of his books. He gets up to $20K as a speaker too. Nice! Page just needs a deep clean up.Obina 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Clean up - Notable author, but the article needs rewriting. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fearsome

Fearsome (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Contested Prod, tag removed by page creator. Original Prod reason: Subject may not be sufficiently notable to merit an article, see notability guidelines. – Gurch 12:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, does not assert notability apart from a handful of awards, which are also of dubious notability. Demiurge 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing that makes this group particularly more notable then the hundreds of other sketch troupes out there--Twintone 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Zimmerman

Michael Zimmerman (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No evidence of notability or WP:RS. Leibniz 12:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Frivolous nomination. Googling "Michael E. Zimmerman" yields 13.700 hits. Philosophy professor at a major university with several widely cited books to his credit. Stammer 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep a good number of published books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sindre Rørstadbotnen

Sindre Rørstadbotnen (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Junior/youth weightlifter. No significant achievements. 13 Google hits outside of Wikipedia. Punkmorten 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete almost a speedy but not quite. 14-year old weightlifter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. - Mike МиГ 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - article asserts that the subject has won a gold medal at national level, which seems to just squeeze into WP:BIO as people/athletes/competitors who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable. Author needs to provide sources fo the assertion. Tonywalton | Talk 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Stallberg

Paul Stallberg (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

I really appreciate all the work that this contributor is putting into the Saw pages, but minor characters like Paul (who have only appeared in for one scene) are not deserving of their own articles. CyberGhostface 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete poorly written article about a character in one scene of one movie. Completely worthless. Wavy G 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. People may hate the word "cruft", but this is cruft in the truest sense. Resolute 07:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Rodriguez

Mark Rodriguez (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable Saw character who only appeared for one scene. CyberGhostface 13:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed RichMac 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see why characters in one dramatic death scene need individual articles. Merge necessary info back to Saw (film) (or whichever film this guy is supposed to be from). Wavy G 22:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or just merge (conservatively) and redirect to Saw (film) per Wavy G. Postdlf 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airline destinations (2nd nomination)

Airline destinations (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Creating page, since the user who put up the nomination never did so. DB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - this was voted on less than two weeks ago and the decision was strongly in favor of keeping it. DB (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I never got around to finishing this one, but it is cruft and a list of links. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as per Dbinder. - Mike МиГ 14:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Restatement of List of airports. - Mike МиГ 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read the previous discussion. It is not a restatement. Vegaswikian 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as listcruft-WP:NOT a directory. Seraphimblade 14:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is essentially a restatement of List of airports. wikipediatrix 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In the previous discussion, the issue of being a restatement of List of airports never came up, and the arguments for keeping were mostly "Look at these other things!" Besides, "This was voted on 2 weeks ago" is not a criteria for speedy keep. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it did come up. It is not a restatement of the list of airports, since that list (supposedly) has every airport in the world. This is intended to show only those which have commercial service, and it serves both as a list and as a guideline for how to list airports in other destination lists. There is a discussion on moving it to project namespace. DB (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful information, all verifiable/notable, and this was just kept a few weeks ago. --- RockMFR 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Fails to point out the policy it does not follow which is requried as a second nomination. Also the List of airports was disucssed in the previous nomination. Anyone voting delete should first read the previous discussion and address the keep reasons there before voting delete. From my first comments A category is not a list and a list is not a category. The article serves several purposes. One is a list of airports that have had commerical service and not all airports. This is covered in the intro. The other is a source for listing an airport in other articles. Because of location and naming issues, it is not possible to create a guideline that covers this. So this list functions a source for this information. It also serves as a common point on the location of an airport in other destination articles. The order in this article is still being adjusted after several months of discussion as consensus is achieved. Vegaswikian 06:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Issues raised during the first discussion about size are being worked on but it takes time to set this up and achieve consensus. Vegaswikian 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, here is the previous discussion. DB (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but move out of article namespace. This is useful to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines and WP:Airports projects but it does not rise to the level required per WP:NOT —Cliffb 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; this was just proposed and rejected two weeks ago, and pretty much every substantive issue came up in that AfD. Again, I'd urge renaming to List of cities with commercial airline service or List of airports with commercial airline service, probably the former. This is not at all synonymous with List of airports; only a small subset of airports have airline service. --MCB 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that a rename is necessary. --- RockMFR 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - a meaningless list, and one which is unmaintainable. It's hard enough to keep per-airport and per-airline lists up-to-date. Also remember what Wikipedia is not. Thanks/wangi 00:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  As I mentioned in the first discussion, it's easy to maintain, since airports aren't constantly shifting back-and-forth from having and not having commercial service. It's much more difficult to maintain the individual lists within the airports, but few have argued that those should be removed. DB (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but there's a good reason for it; it belongs in project space. I'll do the move if anyone wants... --SunStar Net 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per VegasWikikian, this was only afd'ed a few weeks ago. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep... pretty weak, but still a KEEP -- There's a few concerns I have about this article, now that i look through it, but both Vegaswikian's arguments and a few things stated in the last afd have convinced me to keep it. I'm mostly concerned with the accuracy of the article. It's really a very difficult subject to really keep track of, and it will be very challenging for whomever moderates it to keep it accurate considering destinations are dropped left and right in the worldwide airline industry and in some low profile countries/airflines this may not be known for weeks. Also, the article's a bit large to scan through and comes off as disorganized, but that part can be fixed easily with some work. Still, I do see people coming on here to look for this information... the list of airports category and article contains every airport, commercial or not, while this list contains airports with commercial service, something I know is of interest to regular joes, and that itself makes it worth a keep; it's weak one on my part, but I may not change my vote unless something drastic happens. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

heh, ironically, firefox froze on me and had a shutdown error when I pressed the back button after posting my vote here because the list was that much of a burden on it. The list is just waaay too large, it needs to be cut down somehow, I'm still keeping though, but it really needs to be scaled down. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree on splitting it. We're actually working on that. The talk page has a discussion on how to organize the info. Once that's decided, it will be split. DB (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, wasn't it just a few weeks ago when I saw this on AFD? Useful and encyclopedic list, lists are not categories and vice versa. This list has its benefits and thus it should not be deleted. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiply

Multiply (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article doesn't make any claims to notability. I admit its Alexa rating is rather high, so there must be some kind of notability I'm missing here. Still, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect Multiply to Multiplication? Just seems a little out of sort. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 10:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Top 500 Alexa rank, and seems to get a decent amount of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Multiply.com and redirect Multiply→Multiplication. Easily passes WP:WEB; see e.g. this article in The Palm Beach Post. —Cryptic 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like this solution. Think we should change the Multiply page to disambiguate between the website and multiplication? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not unless there's another article that would be at Multiply. Just put a {{redirect5}} at the top of Multiplication. —Cryptic 00:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move as per Cryptic. - Mike МиГ 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move as above. Just about has enough notability. Apparently only 14 employees though Bwithh 00:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fawaz Hussain

Fawaz Hussain (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Does not seem to be notable or meet criterium for inclusion. Few unique google hits for this person, since search also shows lots of other names who are not this person. Khorshid 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Googling "Fawaz Husên" yields a couple of hundred hits, most of them in Turkish or Kurdish, often traceable to the subject's literary activity. WP:BIAS is clearly relevant here. Stammer 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regretfully 200 google hits in Kurdish and Turkish is not enough for WP:BIO. Khorshid 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Box Tour

Music Box Tour (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Google turns up few (more precisely no, that I can find) hits aside from fan sites. While the artist is certainly notable, the tour seems not to be-better handled on her page or deleted, as reliable sources regarding this seem to be in short supply or nonexistent. Sourced after all, appears I was incorrect. Please withdraw nom. Seraphimblade 14:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This article is just getting started, as work is progressing on all of the Category:Mariah Carey tours articles. Having an article on a major artist's tour is no different than having an article on an album or a hit single, of which Wikipedia has zillions. There are about 275 tour articles now on Wikipedia, see Category:Concert tours. Mariah Carey tours as a whole are in fact more notable than many, because she tends to play outside her native country more than most U.S. artists and she tends to play in unusual regions of Asia, the Middle East, and so forth for a U.S. act. There is no reason to delete this article; with it, it completes the coverage of the six Carey tours to date. Wasted Time R 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, and disclaimer-I'm also strongly against "albums are notable enough for an article just because the person who wrote them is." A lot of albums would be better handled on the artist's page. However, that aside, it doesn't seem that this tour is notable or reliably sourced, even though her later ones seem to be. Seraphimblade 14:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In fact, there are non-fan-page sources on this tour, since it was given poor reviews by newspaper critics and written about in the Shapiro Mariah Carey biography. The Mariah Carey main article mentions this and gives a book cite for it. The bad reception is part of the reason she avoided playing in the (continental) U.S. for several subsequent tours, and so is important to describing the arc of her career. This article has just begun and needs work, but that is no reason for deletion. Wasted Time R 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment Please note that I now have a significant number of non-fan-page sources for this article, and I believe I have also conclusively demonstrated the tour's notability, as it gained a lot of national media attention at the time as well as having an effect on Carey's subsequent career. Wasted Time R 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• [implicit Keep] At first it was not fully completed it still is not it has a lot more information there are a lot of concert tour pages I do not think this one should be deleted. Interestedscholar 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Tonywalton | Talk 10:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ms. Kelly

Ms. Kelly (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article is about an unreleased album that has been cancelled. See [12] - Donald Albury 14:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I should elaborate a little. This article is about an album that was due to be released in June 2006. It was originally to be called Ms. Kelly. The name was changed to My Story at some point, and a second article was created for that title. Someone recently redirected My Story to Ms. Kelly, but neither album has been issued, and Kelly Rowland is now planning an album, as yet unnamed, for release next year. -- Donald Albury 14:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• The album was orginally entitled Kelly Rowland: My Story and had recently been renamed to Ms. Kelly. I posted a link to an audio interview with this information on the site a few days ago. -- Noboyo 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KiwiLyrics

KiwiLyrics (edit|talk|history|links|logs) (Previous nomination)

Delete - Prod'd, but has already survived an AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Link to old deletion discussion page is broken, not sure how this ever survived an AfD, and can't find out! In any case, delete as non-notable website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I've linked the previous afd above; it was typo'd on the article's talk page. Of the two keep votes (omission of ! deliberate) there, one is a classic WP:ILIKEIT from a user of the site, claiming that it was "fast-growing" (i.e., not yet notable, but someday it may be!) and that it's "heavily linked" (though it should not be linked to from Wikipedia at all, as we should not link to copyright infringements). As for the other, I'd repeat Uncle G's mantra that counting google hits isn't research, but this vote didn't even bother to count them. Of the 98 unique results that Google found for kiwilyrics, I didn't notice a single one from a reliable source. Plenty of forum posts, blogs, and SEO, though.

  Were it not for the previous afd, the article as it currently stands would be a clear WP:CSD#A7 candidate, as it makes no assertion of any sort of notability. Nor does it cite any third-party sources. There isn't even any primary source linked for any of the article except for the digression in the third paragraph. With the site gone, and nothing promising showing up on google (did I miss something at all usable?), the article is and seems likely to stay unverifiable. Certainly it doesn't meet WP:WEB. Delete. —Cryptic 15:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Cryptic. --Charlene 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator the first time around. Punkmorten 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong

International Mathematical Olympiad Preliminary Selection Contest - Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable lower-level competition. Seraphimblade 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I cannot imagine why International Mathematical Olympiad would want this, and I do not see anywhere else to merge. Septentrionalis 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unhelpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illiana Christian High School

Illiana Christian High School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable religious school. No source given for the article's claim of accreditation. 223 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Lansing, Illinois article, unless expanded. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable school, and there isn't anything that could be merged other than that the school exists. TJ Spyke 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, no relevant articles to merge into. Trusilver 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni ^talk 22:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no content to speak of. Might even be speediable as a restatement of the article title. Shimeru 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Would even fail the fail WP:SCHOOLS, would fail the recent proposal of WP:SCHOOLS3. Has no non-trivial sources about the school. Aside from existence fails WP:V even before we get to actual issues of notability (which it fails also). JoshuaZ 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the only relevant policy, which is verifiability. I don't see evidence the school is recognized by the state (for instance I didn't find an "eReport Card" with the state's BoE). --Rob 04:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. ReverendG 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Lansing, Illinois. There does not seem to be enough content at this point to create an article in compliance with WP:SCHOOL. The little useful information and link should be merged into the municipality article. Alansohn 08:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pentium 5

The article is about nothing; about a thing that some people speculated would exists, but which never actually existed, and now given the new intel policy is very unlikely to ever exist; about rumours with unconfirmed sources. Also, see Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. MureninC 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per my nomination MureninC 15:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Pentium Brand and MureninC, you don't need to vote and nominate. It is usually understood. Mister.Manticore 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, I was just a bit confused to see other people both nominate and vote in their nominated articles recently, hence my own vote... We have some bad trends, I guess. :) MureninC 20:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the article that Mister.Manticore wants this redirected to is actually called Pentium brand. --65.95.18.64 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, silly me, I didn't even notice. Thanks for pointing that out. Mister.Manticore 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is hardly anything worth saving here. DHR 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless, utterly pointless. ReverendG 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School

Yaaḵoosgé Daakahídi Alternative High School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable "alternative" school, gets 48 unique Ghits. "In recent years, the school has hosted nearly 100 students." Hmmm. wikipediatrix 15:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It sounds to me like this school "has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools", especially given its Tlingit language name, which renders it worthy per the proposed WP:SCHOOL. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, claim to notability weak at best. A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program (currently the only potential claim of such is "less mainstream high school experience"), it needs to be dealt with in a little more detail and sourced. Currently fails WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:V. Shimeru 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SCHOOLS3 has no basis or justification for use as a Wikipedia guideline as it has never been presented for review and approval by Wikipedia users, let alone reached consensus as a basis for any purpose in Wikipedia. The failure to make the most trivial investigation of this program that is derided as a "unique program" solely because of its non-English name seems to be blatant prejudice. Questioning the existence of teh program only proves that this entire vote is baseless. Alansohn 10:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Reading prejudice into a factual statement ("A non-English [school] name does not constitute a unique program") is a personal attack, and shows bad faith. Desist. As for the program, as you are very well aware, there was no evidence within the article that one existed at the time I cast my !vote, and I reject your attempt to obscure the issue through barely-veiled accusations of racism. Furthermore, I do not feel that any reliable sources have yet been provided that show it is in fact a "unique program." Finally, WP:SCHOOLS3 has at least as much justification for use as WP:SCHOOLS. Shimeru 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You can try to spin "A non-English name does not constitute a "unique program" -- if there is in fact such a program" as being a good faith disagreement with the qualifications of the article, but to any reasonable person it comes off as a patronizing dismissal of the schools' program. I sincerely hope it's mere ignorance and not prejudice, and I hope that your protests are justified. Unlike the far more thoroughly developed WP:SCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLS3 has received no review or any consideration whatsoever from Wikipedia users as a guideline. As it has made no attempt at all at reaching consensus within the Wikipedia community, it can't possibly be justified for use as a guideline, and the extreme deletionist bias it demonstrates makes it unlikely to ever be a basis for a consensus guideline. Do the facts provided in the current article satisfy your concerns? Alansohn 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • There is no spin involved, but since you've already shown you're not prepared to assume good faith, I won't waste my time with you further. I simply ask that you refrain from any and all speculation upon my motives in the future, and repeat my request that you cease to use such terms as "ignorant" and "prejudiced" to describe me. On the other topic, as you realize, SCHOOLS3 is newer than SCHOOLS; this does not mean it is not valid, and, unlike SCHOOLS, it has not been rejected. When it is presented, then we will see. Finally, I thought I had made this clear, but no, the current article does not meet my concerns. I do not feel that reliable sources have been provided that show that the program is "unique." Shimeru 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-existant notability. And I agree, a non-English name does not fulfill the requirements of a "unique program". I would need to see considerably more from this article to reverse my vote. Trusilver 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Shimeru and Trusilver. JoshuaZ 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/merge, I don't see why you shouldn't allow us to read about high schools, alternative or not. Kappa 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a guideline or policy based keep in there. WP:V is non-neogtiable among other issues. Claims that somehow deletion would be akin to some amorphous group not allowing another amorphous group to "read about highschools" is unhelpful and unproductive. JoshuaZ 08:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's far better than the deletionist elitist "no schools are notable" approach that seems to be infecting recent school AfD's. Alansohn 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The school offers a substantially unique program aimed at serving students at greatest risk of dropping out of high school. A significant part of the program focuses on the Tlingit culture and language used by the many Native American students who attend the school and are at greatest risk of falling through the cracks, which addresses criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. The school and its programs have also been the subject of several reports in major local newspapers, in fulfillment of criterion 1 of WP:SCHOOLS, with sources that are reliable and verifiable, in compliance with WP:RS and WP:V. As such, the article meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOL criteria for retention. Use of "scare quotes" for "alternative" in the nomination and "unique program" regarding the non-English name are patently offensive and a sign of ignorance for those who are willing to delete anything they are unwilling to attempt to do the most basic research. Alansohn 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Unique program" is a direct quote of WP:SCHOOL. And please avoid veiled personal attacks. Shimeru 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentine Elementary School

Valentine Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable private school with one teacher, gets 149 unique Ghits. Fails WP:SCHOOL. wikipediatrix 15:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Note to closing administrator: Contrary to the false information listed in the nomination, this is a public school with 687 students and dozens of teachers; it is NOT a "private school with one teacher". All votes below with the content "per nom" have demonstrated that they did not bother to actually read the article as part of the most fundamental obligation of an AfD. Alansohn 09:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edgecution 18:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like most schools, this one does not appear to the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability. Several points: (1) Yes, it received a California Distinguished Schools award for which it was recognized in the local paper. No, this recognition does not confer encyclopedic notability. The local paper article itself is trivial (<100 words), 5 other schools were recognized in the same article for receiving the same award, and the only material concerning Valentine Elementary is a 2-sentence quote from the principal. Because there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this award, it doesn't show notability. (2) Now, it might be argued that all schools receiving the California Distinguished Schools award are somehow intrinsically notable, whether non-trivial sources exist or not. I would argue strongly against that. 377 California schools received it in 2006 alone, and a school can re-apply to receive it every four years. The award doesn't truly distinguish its recipients a la the Oscars; it's a pat on the head from the California state government to well-performing schools. No wonder there is no non-trivial independent coverage of Valentine receiving this "award." (3) Finally, yes, there is a government report on this school (filled with statistics, bromides, and mundane facts). Regardless of content, government reports don't show notability, as their publication has nothing to do with notability, but with accountability of government schools. Pan Dan 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - in the immortal words of Elaragirl, go and sit in the corner until your notability grades improve. Moreschi 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the immortal words of Alansohn, are you justifying your deletion by appealing to Wikipedia standards and guidelines, or just wasting our time? Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni ^talk 22:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pan Dan. Also unsourced and fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sources have been added to document the school's explicit claim of notability and to address your concern. Again, WP:SCHOOLS3 is a talking forum for deletionists to concoct the most arbitrary and meaningless standards to ensure that no school articles will exist in Wikipedia. WP:SCHOOLS3 has not been presented to the Wikipedia community for approval and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify deletion of an article. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The school has been recognized twice with the California Distinguished School award, the highest award granted to schools' in the state by the California Department of Education, which satisfies "Significant awards or commendations", criterion 5 of WP:SCHOOL. As the school was founded in 1938, the school meets the 50-year test of criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. As such, the school meets and exceeds the notability standards of WP:SCHOOL and should be retained. Use of "scare quotes" to denigrate this "award" are unjustified and offensive. Alansohn 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SCHOOLS is a failed attempt to establish a guideline and has no validity on any basis as the source to justify inclusion of an article. Also, use of "ad hominem attacks" to denigrate objections to this award are unjustified and offensive. Shimeru 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It's hard to take you seriously when you refer to the completely meaningless WP:SCHOOLS3 as an excuse for deletion, while blithely brushing off WP:SCHOOL. WP:SCHOOL is the only productive attempt at achieving consensus, and failed solely because of the interference and obstruction of school deletionists. WP:SCHOOL3 is a pointless, non-viable effort that makes no effort at achieving consensus and will never be useful for any purpose if there is meaningful movement towards reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users who have a broader definition of school notability than the hyper-narrow definition concocted at WP:SCHOOL3. Pointing out that the nominator misread the article and that two sheep blindly followed along is evidence of a basic violation of AfD practice, not an attack on the individuals. If you have an alternative explanation for this blatant discrepancy I'd love to hear your story. Alansohn 10:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinions, but I suppose we can now count out any good-faith efforts to contribute to reaching that consensus at SCHOOLS3. I'd hoped for better from an editor of your stature, especially after you seemed to acknowledge that that WP:SCHOOLS4 disruption of yours was counterproductive. And "Two sheep blindly followed" is "not an attack on the individuals"? As for the "discrepancy," it might be because the article itself claims "There is only one teacher," maybe? It seems perhaps you didn't read the article. Shimeru 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adim

• I can see no non-wikipedia based page in Google that defines this person. Markh 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. I found this[15] and this[16] within a few seconds; neither are Wikipedia based. He appears to be a legitimate figure in Egyptian mythology and/or history, but is he notable? I don't know, but with respect to historical items I personally tend to be a bit more lenient because there isn't often as much online about ancient historical figures as there is, say, about Katie Holmes's wedding. --Charlene 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm seeing numerous sources when doing a Google Books search. --- RockMFR 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budasheer

• I can see no non-wikipedia based page in Google that defines this person. Markh 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but move to Budashir, the name under which he's normally known. There are only two hits on Google Scholar, one of which is in German[17], but there might not be a lot online about a semi-legendary pre-pharoanic Egyptian king who is only mentioned in one ancient source. --Charlene 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --- RockMFR 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical Marketing

Nonsensical Marketing (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

At best this is a neologism, at worst it's spam. A term made up by one company to describe their style of marketing. Judging by Google, not a term in widespread use. Deprodded by author without explanation. eaolson 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spam. Stammer Stammer 16:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Moosejaw.com. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism, advert, spam. Moreschi 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coconut monkey

Coconut monkey (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Prod contested. Article is somewhat OR, and the title is not proper for the content. Delete to give room for a better written article. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Embarassingly, this is the second afd for this article apparently. here's the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coconut monkey where apparently WP:V was ignored Bwithh 22:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Has sources, verifiable. Remove the bits of original research (the entire article is not OR). An article should not be deleted to make room for a better written article... that makes no sense at all. --- RockMFR 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks kind of dubious to me; the source for bulk of the article is a 1998 article on "gospelweb", which is mostly interested in making a homily out of the story. I'm inclined to think that this is an old canard. --Brianyoumans 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V No supporting, reliable sources. Gospelweb link is unreliable. NBC brief news story has nothing to do with the main point of the article and does not support the phrase or "idiom" (no explanation in article of what that is about). Article style/content smells hoaxy. And what on earth does Cargo cults have to do with this article? Bwithh 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at the contribution history of the original article creator (whose name suggests a possible troll) increases suspicion this article was created as a hoax. See [18][19][20][21][22]. Bwithh 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unlikely article. ReverendG 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Many Ghits describing this as monkey trap. Rename and clean up? Tonywalton | Talk 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Kombat: Destroyer and Mortal Kombat: Destruction

Mortal Kombat: Destroyer (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Mortal Kombat: Destruction (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Articles on alleged new titles in the Mortal Kombat series. No sources are provided. RobWill80 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Mixed !vote - Speedy Delete the MK:Destroyer as unverifiable, with 0 ghits, Keep/Rename/Redirect Mortal Kombat: Destruction finale is the French distribution of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, written by Joshua Wexler, note that all of the listed references are French language pages, except the IMDB entry. - IMDB entry [23] [24] [25]. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kutaism

Kutaism (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Originally tagged for speedy delete (CSD G1) but contested. No relevant ghits. Denni ^talk 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense, and the alleged link on the talk page isn't remotely relevant. Fan-1967 16:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V, incoherent gibberish. Tubezone 17:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Apparently the article is about Chicago police detective Sgt. Tony Kuta, who is mentioned in the Chicago Sun-Times url noted on the talk page. Still, the word kutaism is a neologism, and doesn't belong here. Sgt. Kuta on his own might be notable. Tubezone 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be. Generates a few dozen hits in local crime reporting, as you would expect for a senior detective, but no indication in any of the reports that he's famous for his philosophy or phrasing. Fan-1967 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense Danny Lilithborne 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefany Singh

Stefany Singh (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Speedy tag was contested. There do seem to be claims of notability, but it also seems the article was written by a publicist. I can't find much to back up their claims but to be safe I'm bringing it here. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the attractive, non-notable lady. ReverendG 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional caregiver insurance risk

Professional caregiver insurance risk (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete for several reasons:

• The article appears to be a vanity piece:
  • The article is entirely the work of Drtcbear, who contributed the full article text in a single edit, signed "Thomas Cox PhD, RN", and with one exception two days later has not contributed to Wikipedia again.
  • The reference list is entirely the work of 24.250.251.228 in a single edit, and are all from the work of "Cox, T.", alone or in combination with others.
  • Except for wikifying links, there has been no contribution to the article by any other editor.
• The article is full of weasel-worded statements and opinion statements.
• The article reads like text from a professional magazine or a conference presentation, although I have not been able to locate it in any publicly available online sources.
• The article is an orphan - there are only four links, none from other articles.

RossPatterson 17:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OR, as only one source is cited, apparently the article author himself, and major POV issues. Also reads like an insurance lecture. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age Midget

Age Midget (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A term made up in school one day. Denni ^talk 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong/speedy delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As speedily as possible. Wikipedia is not for thingsmade up in school one day. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)}
• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. An "age midget"? COME ON. Wavy G 21:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hastily complete bullshit. ReverendG 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Ridiculous. --The Way 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 10:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transreal number line

Transreal number line (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No ghits for this term. Suspect original research. Denni ^talk 20:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per the external link, new terminology from a paper scheduled for publication next year. Fan-1967 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that "original research" related to unpublished research presented by an editor, not to published research. I wrote the treansreal numberl line article to support a longer article I was planning to write on transreal numbers which, in turn, would link to the page perspex machine. Whilst the article on the perspex machine relates to my research, I did not initiate that page, nor did I write more than a very small fraction of it. Most of what I contributed to the perspex machine article was corrections. If there is an article on transreal numbers then it can be used to clarify the perspex machine entry and to present a more neutral view in various mathematical pages. However, if it is policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material then I will refrain from initiating any article that relates to my research. Please do advise me on this point before I go to any more effort on this.

Please note that it is SPIE policy to allow web publication, as cited, pending publication on paper. But it is certainly possible to wait for paper publication before supplying a linkg to the web version. But if it is policy to avoid neologisms then I could simply wait a few years to see if secondary sources become available.

Thanks, James A.D.W. Anderson 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• In general, what we wish to document is established knowledge in science, not newly presented thought. In five years, this may be considered established teaching, or may not. Right now, it is not widely accepted (or even used at all, it seems) terminology. Its publication here is premature. Fan-1967 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree with James that it is a bit of a stretch to call this original research, given that it's accepted for publication. There is no policy not to accept articles written by the original author of external material, but most of us are deeply suspicious about such articles and therefore it is strongly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). It is however policy to avoid neologisms (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). However, the real problem with transreal number line, as Fan-1967 indicates, is that the term is not used at all. In my opinion, one paper in workshop proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering is not enough to support a Wikipedia article on a mathematical concept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. The statement that the numberhood of the infinities distinguishes this from the extended reals is meaningless. --Lambiam^Talk 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lump it

Lump it (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Dictionary def that has been transwikied to wikt. No salvageable content for Wikipedia. Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unnessecery dictionary def. ReverendG 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruiserweight triple crown

Cruiserweight triple crown (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

There is no no such thing as a "cruiserweight triple crown", this is just something the article creater came up with on their own (which constitutes original research, a no-no on Wikipedia). -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - It looks like something made up at school one day, although it is more like something a wrestler came up with one day to make himself more huffy and puffy than the rest. Need I say more? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no cruiserweight triple crown and I can find no reference to WWE ever saying there was one. This is original research, so it has to go. TJ Spyke 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As above ><Richard0612 ^{UW 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frinika

Frinika (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Originally {{prod}}ded [26], reverted w/o explanation [27]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs) .

Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if Frinika meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton | Talk 10:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vexed

Vexed (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Originally {{prod}}ded [28], reverted w/o explanation [29]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs) .

Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if Vexed meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton | Talk 11:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FreeRIP

FreeRIP (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Originally {{prod}}ded [30], reverted w/o explanation [31]. Article fails WP:SOFTWARE. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the author of the article... Why is it proposed for deletion, am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucianaPavel (talk • contribs) .

Comment as the nominator said above, the article fails to explain how the product meets the criteria listed at WP:SOFTWARE. Please take a look at that page and, if FreeRIP meets the criteria, explain how it meets them. Oh, and please remember to sign your entries on talk pages (though not on articles) by placing ~~~~ at the end. Thanks Tonywalton | Talk 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greentreprenuers

Greentreprenuers (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Unimportant neologism. Also possibly fails WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ghits: [32] NMChico24 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• You get marginally more hits if you actually spell it correctly (unlike the author). Only one of those looks remotely like a reliable source and even that only used the phrase "so-called greentrepreneurs" (without going into who calls them so) once, four years ago. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detective Kerry

Detective Kerry (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Kerry is a relatively minor supporting character in the Saw series with little involvement in the plot and thus I don't think she deserves her own article. CyberGhostface 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to the film/s in which she appears. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect ReverendG 04:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meng and Ecker

Meng and Ecker (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable, little sources or info about the series itself, and seems to be fancruft that wouldn't be too informative if someone wasn't familar with the series. CyberGhostface 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

{{Prod}} was removed. Non-notablilty and it's lack of existance is the claim. Previous dicussion can be found at Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign. semper fi — Moe 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This probably merits mention in the articles on the related albums, but I don't see how it deserves its own separate article. Merge it somewhere. Bearcat 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that we should Keep it so long as it is expanded upon per some of the comments above. I remember this campaign being a really big deal at the time and am quite certain it had an impact on the release. I think in its current form its full relevance is not well articulated to someone who wasn’t in the scene at the time like I was, or who isn’t completely familiar with the circumstances of the CD release. I think that is the underlying problem, not its importance. I know there’s enough content/knowledge out there to expand the article, so placing a notice up asking for expansion of the content would be the best course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.199 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete There is no particular proof that this campaign, among others, had any impact on the release. The difference between this campaign and others concerning The Lillywhite Sessions album, was that it got national attention, mainly in Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly. This national press coverage, although cited, is not enough, I believe to warrant its own article. If there is proof that this one particular campaign had an impact on the end means, which wasn't the release of the unreleased material, but a rerecording of most of those songs, released as Busted Stuff, then maybe it should remain. If not, it should be mentioned that there were campaigns and communication by fans on the articles for The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff. Milchama 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree with that argument, based on the well thought-out response that was posted on the discussion page for the article. First of all, there is no proof of any other campaigns - so the "among others" comment is misleading. I'm pretty sure there weren't any others, perhaps just a generic web petition or two at best. Second of all, the relavance of the article is not based on if it clearly resulted in the release of the CD - that is not the right standard to hold it up to, as other articles of this nature aren't held up to that standard. Yes, the CD was indeed newly minted and fully-produced recordings of the shelved materials .. which was the goal of the campaign... I know, because I was one of the 20,000+ people who signed it and had my feedback delivered directly to RCA. It is 100% clear this campaign a) captured the attention of the press b) received the attention of the producer/band c) had a very high potential for being influential. Just because the band/producer/publicist would not go on the record confirming or denying the campaign's role in the decision to indeed release the CD doesn't make it unworthy. In fact, the very fact that this specific campaign reached them by name makes it notable. I strongly agree with the majority of the comments posted on the talk discussion of the article's page that the article should stay and be expanded upon... this campaign really meant a lot to the fans, and was a grassroots effort that many believe played a big role in the decision. It would be a shame to not expand on this article considering its part in DMB history. See some of the other feedback in Talk:Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign 206.188.56.5 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Response It is not clear that the campaign received the attention of the producer/band. Nobody involved with the production of The Lillywhite Sessions or Busted Stuff have acknowledged this one particular campiagn's existence and/or role in the decision made to produce and release Busted Stuff. Please find a citation to prove me wrong. This Nancies.com fansite interview with Busted Stuff producer Steve Harris (http://www.nancies.org/news/2002/10/interview-with-steve-harris/2/) does not confirm, deny or acknowedge that the band knew about this particular Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign, or other pro-Lillywhite fanmail that was unrelated to the campaign. Milchama 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response (Keep) Few things. First, please provide citations for any other notable campaign(s) you stated may have existed/also influenced the situation - based on your prior assertions. Second, it is clear that the campaign recieved the attention of the producer, since the creator and the campaign itself was mentioned/linked in that very Steve Harris interview you reference!!! The citation is right there in the reference via a direct question asked, and arguing the campaign's "lack of existence" is quite silly at this point considering the sources. The email response from Steve Lillywhite regarding the campaign was posted on now-defunct Minarets.net (just as the email responses from Steve Lillywhite to Craig Knapp were posted online which led to the leak; refer to Lillywhite Sessions leak history or the article in Rolling Stone covering this topic if you're unaware of the history). And finally, to your last point, nobody has argued 100% certainty that this campaign led to the release -- the best you'll see are some articles saying that it may have, as many in our community believe it did. What others have argued is that point alone is not grounds for deletion. The correct response would be to say that it is not clear, but that the potential was clearly there due to the large following (20,000+ supporters), delivery of all supporter comments directly to the record company, sizable media exposure of campaign (article in ICE Magazine from few years back is a good one too, look for the print copy for some good quotes regarding the campaign), and the fact that the campaign (and other fans) did indeed get what they wanted since the mission was accomplished - one way or another. Those factors alone, for me, are compelling reasons to keep and expand upon the article as I would with any other article that had similar drivers behind it.
• Response The campaign in that Steve Harris interview was mentioned by the interviewer, not the interviewee. Harris himself did not comment on the campaign. Milchama 01:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response (Keep) The campaign in the interview, which is the campaign we are discusssing, was indeed mentioned by the interviewer with the added comment "it appears to have worked." And, Steve Harris' response to the question was "I can't answer that" - which was the typical response. However, in his defense, he also commented that the decision was made before he was pulled in; this is all fully congruent with everything that has been stated. Looking forward to your citations/references on any other notable campaigns that supposedly existed and had the potential for influence.

• Keep There were no other campaigns aside from this one. In fact, there were no other movements that had the amount of appeal as this one, if there were any other movements at all (references please??). I am in full agreement with the second post (keep) that the underlying problem is the article needs to better articulate its references/impact because those who are "not in the know" don't realize how big of a deal this was (There's a reason why it was mentioned in so much of the mainstream press as well as why it reached the band). Milchama, while I'm sure your intentions are good - your original reference claim was proved wrong, and based on your comments I strongly feel that your argument is based on some incorrect assumptions/a loose understanding of the events that took place prior to the album release. Its a bit misleading - but I don't think that's your fault, I instead agree that the article needs to be expanded to further convey the influence of the campaign to those who weren't as active in the DMB community at the time. To reiterate some key stats: a) Campaign was quoted in mainstream media (Rolling Stone, MTV [Kurt Loader made a quick mention on MTV News and showed a screenshot of the site], VH1, Entertainment Weekly, E!, and others) b) Camapign was directly referenced by producer and publicist - although of course they had to act as if they can't comment on if it played a role ... they could have said No It Didn't, but they instead dodged the question, which adds more fuel to the fire c) Feedback from 20k campaign signees was delivered directly to RCA Records d) Songs were indeed fully produced and released shortly thereafter, as the campaign intended. e) I, like many others at the time, believe the campaign was successful and played a big part in conveying fans wishes, but I also think it became a big enough deal even if it were to have failed. I'm more than willing to add more content and legitimate references to the article to better explain why this really did matter based on much of what has been said, if that would help others understand the full history. Thanks. 131.107.0.102 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Busted Stuff, then delete. It doesn't need an article by itself but shouldn't be deleted altogether! Bjelleklang - talk 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Question I appreciate your middleground, sounds reasonable in theory. However, in addition to what you stated, I would also propose the possibility that there's enough additional information/background/context/controversy on the campaign and the entire endevaor/uprising that would justify keeping it seperate and expanding upon it. I feel that I, as well as some others who have commented, appear to be knowledgable enough to provide that. It was quite an interesting time!
• Suggestion It was definately an interesting time. Maybe the focus of the article can be changed from this one campaign to the whole controversy surrounding The Lillywhite Sessions and how it led to Busted Stuff. The article could be renamed something like The Lillywhite Sessions Controversy. However, the majority of The Lillywhite article is about the controversy, but that could be moved to this new article. That would allow to to create a better, more definite history of this very interesting time in DMB history. Milchama 03:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Suggestion That's not a bad idea. However, per previous comments - I think there's enough information sorrounding this campaign to justify another article as well, and I think it was of enough importance as it relates to the subject to be seperate. Also, the Lillywhite Sessions article already is trying to be the article you propose - it just needs some work. I think keeping the reference to the campaign article in the Lillywhite Sessions article, to not make it so campaign-centric, and expanding the Lillywhite Sessions article to cover everything you propose at a higher level would be the best of both worlds! I like that idea, not exactly what you proposed, but best of both worlds getting both accomplished... and its reasonable. When I get some time (soon), I'll start expanding the campaign article to go into some of the nitty gritty details of the time that were important and add some more references - but I will also start expanding The Lillywhite Sessions article to go over all the other aspects of the controvery as you suggested, and clean it up a bit. Thanks for the insight!!

Comment (last two posts): As far as I can see, none of the external references mentioned in the article as it exists now can validate any claims that this campaign had anything to do with the decision to release the album. As the article stands at the moment, it is non-notable, and as such doesn't warrant an article by itself. If more information can be added to the article, confirming that the campaign was notable, and also proving that it actually can be connected somehow to the decision to release the album, then it might deserve an article on it's own. But for now, it isn't really notable, and as such should be referred to in The Lillywhite Sessions and/or Busted Stuff, but little else. If the focus can be changed, that's also fine, but unless the article grows to an unreasonable length, it should still be included in the existing articles regarding the records, and not by having a seperate article. Bjelleklang - talk 04:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep/Comment Just thought I'd chime in. Keep in mind, that point may never be able to be fully validated - record company wasn't upfront on discussing all the real reasons behind the release, or even shelving... if you look at past media, it was kind of an elusive and evolving story. I think the article can be expanded and include some of the elements you suggest, and make the case as to why it was a notable and influential campaign, because I know for a fact it was (I didn't hand out flyer's in the cold before three shows if I didn't think it was worth it as a fan supporting the campaign) regardless of any other uncertainty. I think that makes more sense then merging as I believe it is notable and improving the article can help communicate that - and so there isn't redundant content in the Dave Matthews Band, Lillywhite Sessions, or Busted Stuff articles -- allowing the details to be explained, but at a reasonable length. I'd be willing to help contribute to this task as well, you have to be a true fan to understand! :-) 24.19.189.5 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a matter of fact, I am a fan of the band, and have a more or less complete collection of their albums! But still, there are other ways of indicating the notability of the campaign, but basically, if this cannot be done, then the article doesn't deserve to be there, and is better off referenced in the articles about the various albums! First of all, find a source that can say something about the scope of the campaign...some has been mentioned in previous posts here, but the article doesn't really reference it in any way! If this had been a subject I didn't have much knowledge of or interest in to start with, I'd say delete due to non-notability. If someone can find sources that prove this to be notable enough, then fine! But if not, it should be referenced in other articles as being unconfirmed, and not in a separate article! Bjelleklang - talk 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I agree with you. I will work over the week or so to cite those sources and add the details you suggest, I feel it can be done. It is great to talk to a fellow fan. I wonder, how popular is the band in Kristiansand or Norway for that matter? Takk :-) 24.19.189.5 05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amir Hassanpour

Amir Hassanpour (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No indication that he is notable, no 3rd-party or secondary sources. Khorshid 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shahrzad Mojab

Shahrzad Mojab (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No indication that she is notable, only two or three 3rd-party or secondary sources provided that do not seem to conform to WP:V. Khorshid 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep utoronto cited her in a link. My vote can be changes though depending on more proof coming in.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, as far as I know being a university professor is not enough for notability. She is just a regular professor at U of T. Khorshid 19:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Britton

David Britton (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Writer doesn't seem notable enough; little links to other pages and information pertaining to the works themselves, just mention that they are controversial. CyberGhostface 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: "David Britton author" gets 13 Ghits. Not exactly an overwhelming assertion of notability. Moreschi 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TLP Music UK

TLP Music UK (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Reads like an advert and is patently non-notable: gets just 21 Ghits, most of which seem to be MySpace. Contested Prod. Moreschi 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - advert.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Burlingame

Charles Burlingame (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable; only refs are (1) an entry that documents every victim of 9/11 and (2) an unofficial Arlington National Cemetery site. Fails WP:BIO: article would never have been created had it not been for his manner of death. Fails Wikipedia is not a memorial. Delete. Dylan 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep he is qualifies as a "Person achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated.", per WP:BIO. It's important to have an article on him, because he is also frequently cited in 9/11 conspiracy theories, with his involvement in Pentagon MASCAL exercises and other factors. Searching "Charles Burlingame" on Google [33] turns up 13,000+ results, so the sources are there to support this article. --Aude (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See these threads [34] and [35] from the Loose Change forum as examples of what I mean. I've been working on 9/11 articles generally, in addition to my other topic areas, and can work on this article. And folks on the Loose Change forum do consult Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep given Aude's edits since this AfD began. Notability issue has been fixed. --A. B. 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Aude. Also, his case triggered reform of Arlington burial criteria. I've added this to the article with a congressional sourceBwithh 22:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - its funny, someone told me that the article I created was being proposed for deletion, I asked myself "who the hell is charles burlingame?". But after looking at the history I remembered I created it because he is important in the story of 911, and an article featuring him makes this encyclopedia more complete. Its true that wikipedia is not a memorial, but the amount of sources produced after the propD shows that information about him is more than a memorial. Fresheneesz 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockhead (cartoon)

Blockhead (cartoon) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable webcomic. Prod tag removed by article creator. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Clearly you never checked your sources becuase it primarily is not a webcomic. The webcomic for it was onyl created very recently, loong afer the fairly notable flash series. Okay, that's going a bit overboard, but if the Salad Fingers and David Firth articles stayed up I don't see why this one can't. I'll see if I can add some explanation of its notability in the article. --Wizardman 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable flash cartoon. ReverendG 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mikie Da Poet

Mikie Da Poet (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete This was not written by the artist himself, it was written by me. And no it is not made up at all. He is a real rapper and everything there is truthful. Check out myspace.com/mikiedapoet011, myspace.com/mikiedapoet2006, and cdbaby.com/mikie if you dont believe me.
  • Comment The problem is, none of those are reliable sources. Shimeru 05:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. The information appears to be entirely made up (apparently he was close to Michael Jordan and Kanye West, among others), it's likely made by the artist himself (it's the user's only contribution, not to mention that it lapses into first person at times), and it's not even remotely objective. My favorite line is "A lot of people started hating on him, wanting money that wasn't there or just a little scared that he got so good so fast." Bottom line: delete this. Please. Tozoku 18:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Artist does seem to exist, but albums are on a "vanity press"-style recording studio, DDMI. Much of the other content of the article appears unverifiable. Shimeru 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zvi Tohar

Zvi Tohar (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Obscure airline pilot. Article's sole mention of notability is that he once flew a war crimes victim. Non-notable. KazakhPol 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wow. Is this non-notable or what? Diez2
• Delete I would agree. --Brianyoumans 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I suspect it's the former of Diez2's two choices. Grutness...wha? 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Tohar played a major role in getting Adolf Eichmann onto the plane and flying him from Argentina to Israel. The article needs to be expanded to clarify Tohar's role. Eichmann was not a "victim", but the perpetrator of some of the most horrific acts in human history. In one of the greatest trials in history, Eichmann was convicted and hanged for crimes against humanity. That anyone could be so unfamiliar with one of the major events of the twentieth century and characterize Eichmann as a "victim" is pathetic, and that so many would be so equally ignorant and fail to read the source provided is a strong indication of the flaws of the AfD process. Alansohn 09:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed Eichmann was far from being a "war crimes victim", but what on Earth makes the bloke that happened to fly Eichmann to Israel following his capture notable? Can we expect an article on the co-pilot? The security person who took delivery of Eichmann at the airport? Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 11:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the external link to a Time Magazine article mentions Tohar once, stating only that he flew the plane. Any "major role" he played in getting Eichmann onto the plane seems not to be documented there. Tonywalton | Talk 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All-style Fighting Competition

All-style Fighting Competition (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Reads like an advertisement, and fails WP:SPAM. Diez2 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks notable, doesn't read like spam at all. --- RockMFR 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like it needs cleanup, doesn't read like spam to me either. Let's see what it looks like if I clean it up a bit. Tonywalton | Talk 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd be happier if the external link worked. There may be concerns about its verifiability. Jendo by the same author has been tagged for questionable {{notability}} (though not spam), but at least its external link works. Tonywalton | Talk 12:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Ah. A typo in the URL (there shouldn't be a slash on the end). Tonywalton | Talk 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis Group

Analysis Group (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails WP:SPAM. It reads like an advertisement and is an advertisement. Diez2 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely an advertisement. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep After doing some research (very hard with this company as the term "analysis group" is used alot) this appears to be an important US national research company. Studies and experts at this firm are constantly cited by news organizations and other companies such as Johnson & Johnson [36][37][38]. An article of something notable looking like an advert means there needs to be a content change, not a deletion. --Oakshade 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Oakshade. --- RockMFR 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First game at Comerica Park

First game at Comerica Park (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

I don't think that this is notable. Other parks don't have articles about the first games held there. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Comerica Park. --- RockMFR 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - perhaps in a history section.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I do not see why it isn't notable. The article describes the first game at a Major League Baseball stadium. Just because no other stadiums have articles about first games doesn't mean that this article isn't notable. X96lee15 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge whatever is necessary to Comerica park. We do not need articles on the first game at each park, that'll just lead to having articles on every game (why is the first game inherently more notable than subsequent ones?). Next thing you know, we'll have articles on the First Class of Harvard and the First Issue of TIME Magazine, etc. --The Way 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being the first game at a particular stadium brings no inherent notability.

[edit] Paris Fall Fair

Paris Fall Fair (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

non-notable local event; previous speedy removed with suggestion for AFD. Words cannot express this article's apparent lack of notability. Brianyoumans 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Paris, Ontario. --- RockMFR 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Villain (2007 film)

Villain (2007 film) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable film, as well as recreation of previously deleted article - see prior AfD. Film is listed on IMDB, but that alone is not a standard reference for notability. Article contains many crystal ball statements and unsourced speculation and/or personal speculation about this future film. Initial Google searches were inconclusive due to the film's common name, but search on "villain +Benfer" yeilds only 127 unique out of 591 total, which is fairly low, and only about half of those unique actually refer to this film. With the exception of a passing reference on the FilmThreat website, no other mentions are from major sites. Until the film is ever released/and or can provide reputable citations, I recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Exceptionally non-notable. Articles on unreleased films should be avoided unless there is extensive press coverage, which clearly does not exist here. Fan-1967 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unimportant, if the movie is made then article can be recreated. ReverendG 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Let us see the criteria at WP:NF. "Has the film actually entered production or is it just rumored or expected to be made?" The people involved with the film (not just the director) have made independent statements about their work on the film, so it would seem that the film is more than a rumour. Some links: ([39] [40]) [41] [42]

"Will the film be notable upon release?" It will be, because according to IMDB it will feature work by several notable people, including Warwick Davis, Hunter Gomez, Nathan Furst (music), David Rand and Jason Yanofsky (visual effects). It is also being partially produced by Newgrounds (Tom Fulp is the CEO).

Perhaps the problem here is that those notable people haven't yet made official statements confirming their roles in the film. However, neither has any of them tried to get it removed from their profile on IMDB, and some of them have been there for months now (Warwick Davis has been there since September, I think). You would think that ONE of them would have noticed and tried to get it removed by now if it wasn't true. Of course, I'm not sure exactly how the IMDB system works - perhaps I'm wrong and they wouldn't be able to.

So it is established that the film IS being worked on, but its notability rests on the trustworthiness of IMDB. I think that we should take a wait-and-see approach here. It can be mentioned in the article that those people have not yet independently confirmed that they are in the film. However, it could well be a big waste of many people's time to delete this article now. Being UNSURE if something is notable or not is not the same as being SURE of its non-notability, and in this case it is the former which is true. Until more information appears, I believe that this article should stay, but with "citation needed" notes for the involvement of those people who give it notability. As I see it, there is not currently enough information to judge whether it is notable or not per wikipedia standards, but there seems to be more likelihood that it is notable at the moment than the opposite. We SHOULD NOT make such a decision until the information becomes available, one way or the other - it is far better to err on the side of caution and wait. Esn 09:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Steele

Jason Steele (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable filmmaker. Initial Google search inconclusive, due to somewhat common name. However, using his films as modifiers, search on ("Jason Steele" Spatula) brings back only 54 unique on 485 returns, while ("Jason Steele" Charlie Unicorn) brings back 49 unique on 199. Filmmaker's IMDB listings are mainly related to the Knox films, which have been deleted several times as non-notable. No other citations outside of non-notable message boards and blogs, or YouTube. Obviously, recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 19:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes_Against_Autism

Athletes_Against_Autism (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable organisation afiliated with Cure Autism Now Rdos 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Affiliation with a notable group does not make you notable, nor does working for a good cause. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• What do they have against people with autism? Just kidding. But seriously, no article necessary. Merge to Cure Autism Now. Wavy G 21:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wavy G. ReverendG 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge necessary info into Cure Autism Now. Also, whoever was responsible for naming this organization really should stay out of future PR work ;) --The Way 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Kast Radio

Knox Kast Radio (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable podcast. Google search on "Knox Kast Radio" brings back only 51 returns, only 5 unique. Likely vanity article as well. Delete. MikeWazowski 19:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete webcasts aren't radio stations and need some particular claim to fame. i kan reed 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable podcast. ReverendG 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Kittrell

Robin Kittrell (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

some kid got in trouble for having a weapon, not verified, somewhat iffy. i kan reed 19:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Whitewater High School (Georgia) — Google shows some news stories about this incident so it passes the verifiability test, but news headlines alone don't make you worthy of a Wikipedia article (otherwise we'd be overrun in articles about non-notable car crashes and robberies). Demiurge 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Demiurge: verifiable but not notable. Herostratus 21:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not major news. ReverendG 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chandra Sheehy

Chandra Sheehy (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Nn-bio. Asserts to have co-founded a new language, but unable to verify that with google. Previously prodded. Vsion 19:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, POV, nonsense, unverified, unverifiable, the works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I am disinclined to cite vanity as a favourable reason to delete this article because I think it is an accusation that borders on incivility. I do, however, think that because this article is unreferenced and, as far as we know, unverifiable, it should be deleted.
• (See the two following Google searches as evidence of unverifiability. [43] and [44]. The name "Chandra Sheehy" is only included on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Furthermore, the "Chali language" in only two places: as a dialect of Komo, a language in Sudan, and on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors.)
• If this person exists and reliable, verifiable sources can be appropriately included in the article, then I would support keeping the article. But since those cannot at this time be found, I argue to delete this article. --Iamunknown 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Given that the original creator may well be the article's subject let's be nice, avoid terms like "vanity" and refer to it as a conflict of interest instead. Then delete it as non-notable and unverifiable. Tonywalton | Talk 12:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waffles radio

I placed a PROD tag on this article, as it doesn't appear to be a particularly important radio show. The article's original creator disagrees with the PROD, so I'm bringing the issue here to generate some discussion one way or the other. Joyous! | Talk 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't even see why it is notable for that matter and I also agree with the nominator. Tarret 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. College radio show at some D-list university. "The goal of the show is to play music that the DJ (Chris Osborne) thinks listeners need to hear." Um OK. Herostratus 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete college radio station. ReverendG 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A & J Show

This appears to be a pretty minor radio show. The article states that the show is "award-winning," but I can't find any mention of awards anywhere. Joyous! | Talk 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. You're right, no mention of their "award". Also says its a on college station, but doesn't say which college. For all I can tell its a barber college.Herostratus 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inconsistancies ReverendG 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GDrive

GDrive (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article's already been deleted once after an AfD, but I'm not speedy deleting it because the article there now isn't an identical copy. This article has next to no information, and no official or reputable sources. A Google search finds much speculation, but nothing solid. The link on the article, though four months old, says that nothing has been confirmed, and the article says "the details of the service are unclear". The article is a violation of WP:V and WP:NOT#CBALL. _JD^talk 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "...the details of the service are unclear" so what the heck good is an article, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Let someone write an article when it actually exists. Herostratus 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagina envy

Vagina envy (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This seems like original research, or borderline nonsense. There's already a womb envy article, which is a legitimate concept. That article contains sources. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete original research, lacking in sources and references, if indeed there are any. (aeropagitica) 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. seems real enough per stuff like this and so forth. Doesn't need to be super-notable as long it's used a bit by real psychologists etc. Article pretty poor though, I'd reduce it to a one-sentence stub as there are no references cited. Herostratus 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I would suggest merge to Penis envy, but the feminists would have a fit. Wavy G 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I suffer from vagina envy. Keep. - Mig ^(Talk) 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to womb envy as possible search term. Shimeru 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but article badly needs referencing. Multiple hits on Google books [45] Bwithh 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten, otherwise delete. Some hits on Google scholar. Coined by Felix Böhm (a psychiatrist) during pre-war period (likely in 1927). Should be named "vagina envy theory". Pavel Vozenilek 01:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But focus seems overly centered on the awesomeness of the female orgasm and not on actual vagina envy. ReverendG 05:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Accord

One Accord (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Singing group at B-list college. No assertion that the records aren't basically self-published, or any other claim of notability. Contested speedy Herostratus 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator, clarifying my position because this is a procedural nomination from speedy. Herostratus 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. shotwell 21:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthven House

Ruthven House (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A boarding school dorm. Denni ^talk 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, completely fails WP:V and no real assertion of any form of notability.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incia

Incia (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable fictional race. No evidence that this is anything other than something made up in school one day. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Zero relevant ghits for the author name, so this must be some unpublished amateur fiction. Fan-1967 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Nonsense...?--SUIT 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was good amateur fiction. Fan-1967 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per those above. If the fiction itself ever becomes notable, it might ultimately be useful to hive this article off, but not yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Atkin

Liam Atkin (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A player who has yet to have played in the 1st team and fails WP:BIO as they have yet to have played in a proffesional match
I am also nominating the following related pages due to the same reason:

• Robert Cavener
• David Edgar (footballer)
• Carl Finnigan
• Delete all per nom Kingjamie 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Kingjamie 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom --Angelo 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except David Edgar (footballer), since his article actually contains some information on his career and Sky Sports News have an article concerning his sale here. QmunkE 07:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Can't even see any notability in Edgar - yet. - fchd 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep David Edgar (footballer), he is a Canadian international. Bababoum 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Wrestling Association

United Wrestling Association (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A google search turned up very few decent results for this indy promotion. Major stars have wrestled in many indy feds, that doesn't make it anymore notable than some other promotion. UWA has had DVD releases: that's not enough to keep it either, seeing as how many independent promotions release DVDs on the internet all the time. RobJ1981 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am the article's primary author. I do not agree with the reasons given for the proposed deletion. The UWA has been in existence for approximately 5 years while owned by Mr. Grubb, which is notable itself considering the current wrestling climate in the U.S. It is true that major wrestling stars wrestle in many indy feds, however in 2006 alone the UWA has promoted matches featuring 8 former WWE stars (including former WWF tag team champion and executive Tom Prichard, who performs for UWA every week), 6 former WCW stars (including Ricky Morton and the original Midnight Express), and 6 stars currently contracted by TNA wrestling (most notably A.J. Styles and Chase Stevens, who reigned as UWA champion for 5 weeks). It was the home promotion of current WWE-contracted developmental talent Devin Driscoll, and several Ohio Valley Wrestling stars compete in UWA semi-regularly. Furthermore UWA is the premiere promotion in the region surrounding Knoxville (3rd largest city in Tennessee). To my knowledge it is the only wrestling organization in Eastern Tennessee (10,000+ sq. mi.) that promotes over 52 live shows each year. In addition to the DVDs, UWA is televised on cable television in the Knoxville area. STFmaryville 00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have reliable sources that verify these claims you've made about the promotion? As it stands currently, the entire article and the sbuject's notability is unsourced and unverifiable - unless you can show us some independent sources that verify what you're claiming, the article will probably be deleted. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehran Keshe

Mehran Keshe (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Appears to be original research or hoax masquerading as a biography, or perhaps a repost of Pelastration (see Talk:Pelastration/Delete) . No references (except Keshe's own web site), no categories, looks like it may be part of a spam campaign to improve Keshe's notability, given the number of WP derived ghits. Keshe's article is linked from Dirk Laureyssens, but other than this press release, I cannot find ghits for any collaboration between the two. Appears Mr. Laureyssens wrote the Keshe article..?? Phrases like "Specific Entangled Plasmatic Magnetic Fields" found on Keshe's website turn up ghits only on his website. Tubezone 22:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, self-admitted original research — "Mehran Keshe introduced the concept...", "While this theory is not confirmed by the academic world", "Unknown by the existing scientific community he wrote a number of scientific papers in 2004 and sent them for peer-review...he decided to draw back his papers". Demiurge 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think there may be WP:COI going on here too, author was User:Mu6, see www.mu6.com Tubezone 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've started an AfD for related article Dirk Laureyssens; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk Laureyssens. Demiurge 00:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly non-Wikipedic per above. Stammer 08:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Khorshid 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] God's Property

God's Property (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Tagged A7 but notability is asserted. No proper sources listed, only some pretty trivial stuff about a lawsuit and some minor reviews. Oh, and a likely copyvio on YouTube. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Their 1997 album did reach No.3 in the general Billboard 200 chart for the US[46] . Multiple hits in Factiva back up the Jet magazine article. I'm removing the copyvio link.Bwithh 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is asserted and referenced. Everyking 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Imploded Structures

List of Imploded Structures (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Violates WP:NOT as an indiscriminate list (implosion is a common way of demolishing buildings). Also fails WP:V as not a single entry is cited. Aaron 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Quality overview with examples is on [47]. Pavel Vozenilek 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Implode per nom. --Lambiam^Talk 02:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, just like The Fall of the House of Usher. ReverendG 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as arbitrary listcruft. An article on the process of imploding buildings to demolish them is fine, but seeing as its such a common means of accomplishing this, this is absolutely unmaintainable. --The Way 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can never be 100% complete, which is my usual guideline when it comes to lists. - fchd 07:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John R. Zeidler

John R. Zeidler (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Tagged A7, which is probably valid, but despite the near-zero Google hits I wonder if there might be some merit in this subject. Possibly not, but it is worth thinking about Guy (Help!) 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete One hit on Factiva - a 418-word obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer, described as a "master guitar maker". That's certainly not enough in itself and Wikipedia is not a memorial. However, the Zeidler Project to make a commemorative guitar in his honor (and for his child's education) received some coverage in 20th Century Guitar Magazine[48] and Acoustic Guitar[49], and made the front cover of um, American Lutherie[50]. I don't think this level of coverage quite translates to encyclopedic notability though. The fact that its a charity appeal project also dilutes things. Backup evidence from fellow luthiers in favour of the article would be most welcome, as are more opposing arguments. Bwithh 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adi Hadzic

Adi Hadzic (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Tagged A7 but asserts notability, albeit with no evidence whatsoever cited in support. Bosnian trance scene? Quite likely complete bollocks but who knows. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative Delete. I can see now that tagging it for CSD was in error as there was a weak assertion of notability. However, neither the article nor discussion thus far at Talk:Adi Hadzic have borne conclusive evidence of notability that would pass WP:V. Discussion is ongoing, however. We have 5 days to see what happens there. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a tough one, because... how much material is there about the Bosnian trance scene that's available to us? I'm just saying. That being said, the proponents of this article do need to come up with something to verify this. On the other hand, the image caption says that it was taken in Stockholm, indication an international tour which would basically mean he meets WP:MUSIC. But that doesn't mean that that image was actually taken in Stockholm... Herostratus 02:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William David Allan

William David Allan (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, I understand that London is a large and old city, but I do not think that confers automatic notability on ranking police officers. The officer in question appears to have worked hard and served his country, but as I understand the policies this is not enough to warrant an encylopedic entry. Dylan fan 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:BIO. No ex offico notability for third highest ranking police officer of London. There seems to be an effort to create articles on the entire London police upper hierarchy -see list on Assistant_Commissioner_of_Police_of_the_Metropolis. Good effort, but I'm don;t think all the articles have sufficient encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The "effort" is mine, and naturally I disagree with you. These people are notable because of their office, just as military commanders and senior civil servants are notable because of their office. We consider politicians notable because of their office, we consider professional sportsmen to be notable because they play professionally, yet you claim we should not consider senior police officers to be notable because they run big policing organisations that affect many thousands of people (millions in the case of London)? This is not logical. I fear that notability is being confused with recognisability. They are not the same. -- Necrothesp 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My contention is that this person did not reach a senior enough position (third ranking officer) for ex officio encyclopedic notability - and not that all senior police officers are non-notable. Same goes for civil servants and military officers who do not reach the very highest positions. And no, I don't confuse notability with recognisability - while I've long said that a WP:MANDARIN guideline is needed for public servants, I've been even more vocal in asserting that media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . However, you will see that this officer was awarded an O.B.E.. Athough some cynics have described this as gong as an "Order bestowed to Everyone", it is actually hard to come by and indicates someone who is much-more than a time-server, as Dylan fan implies, on User:Necrothesp's Talk page . Perhaps the O.B.E. citation would bring more colour to the article. I suppose another test of notability could be whether anyone researching, say, "London: Crime and the Police response" could find the article immensely helpful in tieing up loose ends. === Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition, up to 858 OBEs may be awarded per year, with no limit on total numbers. Too common to be a reliable indicator of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is now. Far fewer were awarded in the past. And in any case, that's not the normal number of OBEs awarded. The usual number today is maybe 2-300 a year. In Allan's time it was closer to 100 at the most. -- Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am the creator of this article and others in the series. The Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, of whom there were only four at any one time, were among the six most senior officers of the London Metropolitan Police, after the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The force was between 20,000 and 30,000 men strong, policed one of the largest and most important cities in the world, and led policing innovation throughout Britain, the British Empire, and often the world. The ACs wore (and still wear) effectively the same rank insignia as a Lieutenant-General in the British Army and are equal in rank to the Chief Constables (i.e. the chiefs of police) of every other police force in the United Kingdom. Allan had previously served as a Chief Constable himself and then as one of HM Inspectors of Constabulary, of whom there were only two in the whole of England and Wales and whose job it was to inspect every other police force on behalf of the Home Office. And yet people claim he's not notable?! Of course someone of that rank is notable, by virtue of his rank and position alone. If people like this are not considered notable and minor soap stars, athletes, models and singers are then I shall begin to give up on Wikipedia. It's simply getting to the stage when the attitude of the deletionists is making it not worth writing for this encyclopaedia, since hard work and attempts to create coherent series of articles are gleefully proposed for deletion by people who obviously have little knowledge of the subject and little idea of what constitutes notability, particularly as regards anything that predates the internet age. -- Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be sorry to see you give up on Wikipedia, but I would point out that inclusion of minor celebrities is not a deletionist attitude. Anyway, being afd'd shouldn't be taken as an offensive gesture. Bwithh 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If this particular person was involved in innovation, please point it out, then they would have some notable achievement, the fact that the force is in a large city doesn't mean that it's ranking officers are more important than medium sized cities police chiefs. I recognize and agree that many minor people have articles when we will forget about them in a few years, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss this articleDylan fan 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly notable! Chief Constable of two police forces and an AC in the Met? Even if we ignore the AC position, he was the highest ranking police officer in two British police forces, or should we only have articles on the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police? Agree with Necrothesp - pretty frustrating, isn't it! Great article by the way. --Canley 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Phil Cline, the Chief of the Chicago Police Department, doesn't have an article, as far as I can tell, only Raymond W. Kelly the commissioner, is the only guy in NYPD that has one. Yes, I agree that it's silly that every damn pokemon character has an article and many ranking cops don't, but we're talking about overall public notability here. WP:NOT a London police directory. BTW, while we're at it, how about a list of policemen involved in or investigated by Operation Countryman. Now, that'd be notable. ;-) Tubezone 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HijackThis

HijackThis (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete One of a great number of tools for removing spyware. I can't quite see why this one is notable. AlistairMcMillan 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I needed to use HijackThis to remove a certain piece of spyware from my mother's computer, so it might be notable in that respect. But I don't know enough about the topic to be certain that it falls under notability guidelines. Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep Seems to arguably meet criterion 2 for WP:SOFTWARE with [51] [52] and [53]. JoshuaZ 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan claus

Satan claus (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Doesn't cite sources, and appears to be something someone made up in school one day. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is it clearly a contrived and convoluted argument, but some statements within it are untrue. Christ did not have a white beard, and Santa Claus is not depicted with a crown of thorns.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone knows there ain't no satany clause. Delete. Tubezone 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as something sailing very close to being total bilge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete utter garbagola SkierRMH 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as likely neologism and possibly original research. eaolson 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion for now, but I will note that the idea is not original research or nonsense. For example it shows up in the book Wyrm. I may need to search but I believe that Martin Gardener mentioned the anagram part in a column a few years ago. The issue therefore is more notability than original research. JoshuaZ 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cautious Keep Let this article stand for a a few weeks. Do not speedy delete. Assume that this article was written in good faith. I've sent a message to the user who created the article, mabye he can weigh in. There is a movie made with this title[54]. The article needs improvement, but if no evidence is offered to support the information, then I'll waive my decision to support this article. RiseRobotRise 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the film, IMDB's entry on it would strongly suggest that the only reason the name is the same is because the film's about a serial killer dressed as Santa, not the religiously (and other things) based arguments here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete patent nonsense. Do not assume good faith for what is obviously utter idiocy / piece of utter moronism. There's a limit to everything and good faith can only go so far and no further. "Santa" means "saint". If it looks like "satan" to you that's your problem. Let's not be completely silly. --Ekjon Lok 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment who has ever heard about Santa being omniscient and omnipresent? Who has ever heard about Jesus having a white beard? Creator is obviously some random vandal. --Ekjon Lok 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake sounds like a claim of omniscience to me, but this article reads like stuff someone made up. I agree there is a good argument to be made for the Creator being a random vandal, He certainly seems to have created a few. Tubezone 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. However, "He sees you when you're sleeping..." and Revelations 1:14; [[Jesus'] head and [His] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow. ReverendG 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a repost of speedily deleted material. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Brown (writer)

Walt Brown (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Tagged A7 speedy but not an unambiguous delete. Loks like non-notable conspiracycruft, but this might just be a bad article on a reasonable subject. Reads as WP:OR, though. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google brings forth a grand total of 66 unique hits for The Warren Omissions "Walt Brown". The book itself garners exactly one hit...this article. If, as the article states, Brown is renowned for his books I would imagine the hits would be far higher than that. IrishGuy ^talk 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rayfield (band)

Rayfield (band) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable garage band. As the article itself notes, they have yet to record an album. Also, as the creator of the article is named Rayfieldband there is a seriously high probability of a conflict of interest here. IrishGuy ^talk 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am a fan of the band, and wanted to chronicle their story as it happens through Wikipedia. They have a following in Newfoundland, Canada, and have toured the country. This is not a promotion for the band, and it states the facts with as little bias as possible. Nothing is exagerated, and I stuck as closely to other bands pages formats as possible. With time, I planned to put links to the keywords that could be liked to (such as Aliant, Warped Tour, Bedouin Soundclash, etc). The band have yet to record a full length, but as stated in the article, they made it known that they do plan on recording one in the new year. It would seem a waste to delete this article now, when it would have to be recreated then. I again, ask that you please do not delete this article. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayfieldband (talk • contribs) .

It isn't a waste to remove articles that are strictly advertising. This band doesn't meet WP:BAND. If at some point it does in the future, that will be different. Currently, they don't. Their "official website" is a MySpace profile. IrishGuy ^talk 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Garage Band or Glorified Garage Band SkierRMH 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: As per above. Band is not notable enough. I suggest to author to remake if in the future they are notable. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Brickley

Tim Brickley (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

• Delete, Artist is not notable, a google search revealed only 973 hits many of which were not unique and were listings of local indianapolis bars where he was playing. A guided Lexus Nexus search of all music reviews going back to 1979 yielded zero hits as did much broader lexus nexus searchs of all entertainment articles and all available Indiana news sources. Also of the 12 criteria for musician notibilty the only possible criteria he meets was the claim that he won an Emmy in 1998 yet the source for this comes from his bio on his booking agents website while a search for Tim Brickley in Emmy awards database (http://www.emmys.org/awards/2006pt/history.php) reveals no hits nor does the IMDB entry for the 1998 emmys(http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Emmy_Awards/1998)Xpendersx 00:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I was going to vote keep because of the emmy, but it seems to be fake. Co-nominate his two albums:
  • Be Apart
  • Everything That Ever Was

Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filming mistakes from That's So Raven

Filming mistakes from That's So Raven (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article is unverified, fancruft, this article should be deleted or at best merged into That's So Raven with references. DoomsDay349 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The filiming mistakes aren't notable enough to deserve their own article. If needed, add to the That's So Raven article. And with references, as stated above. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 01:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this falls under the category of "so the hell what". The only filming mistake from That's So Raven that matters is that it got filmed at all. :P Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ouch! Burn. Agreed, although that isn't what this AFD is for :). DoomsDay349 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How about List of pencil types used in House next? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the the Wikipedia:No one cares guideline that really should exist. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ultra loser. ReverendG 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)