Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:AFD/T
purge

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to Cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN.

AfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

However, as a third way, you may choose to add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also

Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process Archived delete debates | Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for deletion

Add new AfD section

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Arroyo Seco Raceway 2 Adnan Ilyas 3 FriHost 4 Taylor Ellwood 5 Note 6 Ahlstrom 7 Search engine prominence 8 Jewstrils 9 List of Self-Promotion Audio Web Services 10 BG Astrological Association 11 Brad Posey 12 Scottish Parliament election, 2011 13 Gabrielle Copeland 14 Asshat 15 Trinity Christian School (Williston, North Dakota) 16 Wiki Constitution 17 York Rainbow Peace Camp 18 Altrec.com 19 Why do men buy terrible presents? 20 Elizabeth Ewen 21 Agapito Conchu 22 Phil Mondiello 23 The PINK PANDA 24 French Kiss (television program) 25 Anarchy Steering Committee 26 Absent referent 27 Tom Bonen 28 College Tonight 29 Ragnafilia 30 Dylan Reese 31 Lasting Factor 32 Jonathan Zizmor 33 Kayla Keim 34 Addonchat 35 Template Band 36 Drops of light 37 Aesthetic Realism (communism) 38 Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate 39 Lionheart helm 40 Stuart Ewen 41 Wikidweb 42 Chainki 43 Michniowski 44 Blueberry dro 45 Barnaby Adams 46 Lilian Aya 47 Statistics in Society (MDST242) 48 Naomi Kent 49 Armalite (band) 50 Julius Žėkas 51 List of Philippine television shows 52 Pink Bridge Incident 53 Kharaa 54 Lawrence Jackson 55 Adequacy.org 56 The Sword and the Soul: The Underground Labyrinth 57 Christian Forums 58 Economics of fascism 59 Airborne (band) 60 C.B. Burns 61 Wagerolling (finance) 62 The Daysleepers 63 Kevin Wm. Wildes 64 Danish Wrestling 65 Sapphire (astral projection writer) 66 Krista and Tatiana Simms 67 Wanda harrell 68 Chance to chance 69 ABS Computer Technologies 70 Scott Mitchell (businessman) 71 Table (HTML) 72 Listography 73 List of Knight's Cross recipients: A 74 JR Cigars 75 Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US) 76 List of 1 vs. 100 episodes 77 Arpwatch 78 The number 5 in V for Vendetta 79 Reverend Dan 80 Milo Andreas Wagner 81 Rpg-tv 82 Kahit Wala Ka Na 83 Tom Abbott 84 Rafael Noboa 85 Normal Bob Smith 86 Iskcon survey 87 Gravity Economy 88 Westfield Glenfield 89 2007 in Australian television 90 Judeophobia 91 MacGregor State High School 92 Mindless eating 93 Northern Irish people 94 Pennfield Senior High School 95 RKO Industries 96 The Society of Newspaper Design 97 Universidad Génesis 98 Wii Motor Sports 99 R. J. Julia Booksellers 100 Brad Zancanaro 101 Gravity Guidance 102 Newscloud 103 Warren Wooldridge 104 Laura VanRyn 105 The Barstow School 106 El Dorado Middle School 107 Ygnacio Valley Elementary School 108 Valley View Middle School (Pleasant Hill, California) 109 Wren Avenue Elementary School 110 Angel David 111 Andrew R Kingston 112 US gang graffiti in Iraq 113 PlanetCricket 114 AfD footer

[edit] Arroyo Seco Raceway

Arroyo Seco Raceway (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article fails notability. If we had articles on every small drag strip and race course in this country, we'd have a whole WikiProject on them. Diez2 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Deleting seems logical...--SUIT 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, needs secondary sources, but if we have information about it, why not? The sheer number of possible articles is not a reason to exclude any one of them. Also, how can it fail notability? Which set of criteria are you applying here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Under the precedent "Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)." There is no evidence presented that this race course has received significant press coverage, nor is it the site of any nationally or regionally notable race. Movementarian (Talk) 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep This isn't just a random small town racecourse. I agree with the premise if it WAS, but this raceway does receive some independant press. It appears to be a course used in Superbike racing series, and races there get covered by independant racing press. Some of these have been linked in the article itself, and the google search turns up some third-party press on races run there. Admitedly, it isn't Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but it seems to be notable within its own field. --Jayron32 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sources cited seem to only "mention" the speedway, not be a study of it (or really assert its importance). I can't seem to find any better sourcing on Google, and the press coverage shown does not seem to meet notability. Seraphimblade 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete two factors which would have convinced me on possible notiablity even though it lacks substancial media coverage. 1. Geographic connection it location Akela Flats, New Mexico is a red link so no article about there. The two towns its roughly between have articles yet neither mention the Raceway. 2. IMHO the best of the references is about a track record yet that person, Doug Chandler doesnt have an article either. It is on an incomplete list of Dragstrips but there are plenty of red links on that. Gnangarra 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply notability cannot be established or refuted inside the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't exhaustive on any subject. The fact that it doesn't appear here doesn't mean it isn't notable, it just means someone hasn't written an article yet. In light of the specific evidence provided below by Oakshade, the article looks more and more notable, since we now have evidence that it is important outside of wikipedia. --Jayron32 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  response as I said the the media coverage IHMO didnt create notiability, given that I went looking for somewhere to suggest a possible merge as there was nothing so recommend deleting. I will say if those wanting to keep can commence some expansion, including links from other articles I'll change my position. Gnangarra 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • reply Just to add to comments on the current articles of nearby towns not yet mentioning this raceway, as a member of WikiProject Trains, I spend alot of gnome time insterting very notable and major train stations that serve major cities into those cities' articles; Los Angeles Union Station in Los Angeles and Gare Centrale in Montreal just to name a couple. Certainly those stations weren't not-notable just because editors failed to write about them for a while. --Oakshade 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Major US venue in the motorcycle racing world, particularly for Supermoto.. Found plenty of independent WP:V articles that are alot more than "mentions" of the speedway. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also the venue of the New Mexico State Championship Series [6]. --Oakshade 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reviewed new evidence, remain convinced of delete: Sources 1 and 6 are about a race. Source 2 is about a racer's association. Source 3, 4, and 5 are about individual racers. However, none seems to provide non-trivial information (besides name/phone #/location) of the raceway, which is what's under discussion here. Seraphimblade 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. No argument about the content of all of those articles. They are all notable races, racers and the organization (you're refering to the Arroyo Seco Motorcyclist Association) that this raceway is the location of and which independent WP:RS did articles of. --Oakshade 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hawaii Raceway Park (in quotations) reveals over 17,000 results and it's not an article. This track in question only has 552 results. What more can I say? Insufficient notability. Also per Diez2. Sr13 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a reason to create that article, not delete this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed (though I'm for deletion myself), "X article isn't here" is no more a valid delete reason then "X article is here" is a valid keep. Seraphimblade 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Let me rephrase. This article does not have sufficient notability. Sorry my former explanation wasn't clear enough...I was using the reverse of the Pokemon test.
• Keep It seems to be a notable racetrack. Atlantis Hawk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What makes it seem notable? Movementarian (Talk) 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It is mentioned in several independent publications, even as the site of a race. That is borderline notability, compared to the vast majority of subjects of Wiki articles which lack even that. Edison 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Scienter 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adnan Ilyas

Adnan Ilyas (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fails WP:BIO utterly. He played for an under-17 team and is now playing for the senior Omani team? Delete, Delete, Delete. Diez2 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being on a national team is normally a sign of notability. Isn't cricket a major sport in Oman, in light of the traditional British influence and the presence of expatriates from countries where cricket is a national sport? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete→Keep - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote due to below arguements... I actually didn't know that senior league was national... My mistake... Spawn Man 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league... I'd say that representing your country in sanctioned international competition qualifies. Movementarian (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep When in doubt, apply primary notability test: Can we find references to this person in reputable, third party sources. Checking a google search turns up: this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, and this site that turns up specific reviews of his play, and this site that turns up a bio written by an independant cricket press. There are dozens of more reviews of his play, and much of it is actual articles, not just box scores. This is a player known to the sports press who receives significant nontrivial coverage, and thus is notable, regardless of his age. --Jayron32 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Represents his nation at senior level in one of the major world sports. Oman's cricket team may not be the greatest, and he may not be on course to be a second Don Bradman, but as a representative sportsman he is thoroughly notable. The fact that his name returns plenty of Google hits doesn't do much harm either.

Xdamr^talk 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As per WP:CRIC's "Criteria guideline for article inclusion", any List A cricketer is eligible for an article, but I am going to disagree with it. I am all for having articles about any first class cricketer, but when it comes to List A, we have to take a look at the context. There is no point in having articles about every player from every Associate & Affiliate nation, unless he has done something really significant. Note that Oman is not even an Associate nation but an Affiliate one. The eligibility criteria in WP:CRIC should be revised to make it more rigorous. Tintin (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply Regardless of the specifics in the individual notability criteria like WP:CRIC, we should NOT delete any article that we can find substantive information on in reliable sources. Regardless of his level of play, this cricketer shows up in MANY sources with non-trivial coverage. While every List A player from an Affiliate nation may not be notable, this one clearly is. Notability should never be based on a a strictly binary arguement (such as "all articles that meet this one criteria are ALL notable/any that do not are NEVER notable). While such guidelines help point us towards further investigation we should not make such claims when further investigation bears out notability. --Jayron32 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. How is this person special? Prominent? Talk about the team (if anything), not the person. You might as well list a roster of the Oman cricket team. There isn't much information about him anyway. Sr13 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. He meets the criteria set forth for athletes in WP:BIO.
    • Response. Why is Nate Ilaoa not an article? NCAA football coaches have considered him important and "prominent" in the UH offense. He should be priority when creating UH football related content. Colt Brennan is an article though. Why? He is a "prominent" figure in UH football. Although team prominence is important, player prominence is important as well. Thus my decision. Also, WP:BIO mentions requirement "tests". One refers to the 100 year test- Will the person be remembered 100 years from now? Colt Brennan may. Not so sure about the person; the team possibly. Sr13 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He has represented his country at adult international level, ergo he is notable. -- Necrothesp 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Ellwood

Taylor Ellwood (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

completing malformed AFD attemp by someone Mattisse(talk) 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems to have published a number of books, but all seem to have been very limited in circulation. (The Library of Congress and a library in Dunedin are the only places I can find that have any of them.) Still, I could be convinced of notability. —Cuiviénen 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Immanion Press, while lacking a Wikipedia article, does turn up 18,400 Google hits, impressive for a publisher. I change my vote to weak keep. —Cuiviénen 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, back to delete, per Kathryn. —Cuiviénen 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While not exactly a vanity press, Immanion is a small, print-on-demand house, which employs Ellwood. As he is in charge of buying projects for the imprint his books appear under, it is very close to the same situation as a vanity press or self-publishing. The "press" store is on CafePress, which may also be who prints their books. Also, article was started by Rosencomet who is now under investigation for spamming Wikipedia with non-notable articles. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kathryn's info Bwithh 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless he's done something more substantial than what is already in the article, I can't really see keeping it. My understanding of Immanion: it was originally a vehicle to keep a particular SF/Fantasy author's books in print (Her name escapes me at the moment.) They've branched out to other authors and subjects but as a print-on-demand house, I'd say they are not much above a vanity press or even web publication. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete I did a google search and checked some of the links there. Its nothing but blogs and forums and chat rooms where this person has contributed. No one in reliable sources reviews his/her work, no one has noticed him/her. Thus, he/she isn't notable. --Jayron32 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep The original malformed AfD attempt was by someone who has since been blocked for vandalizing this page. --Tsuzuki26 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply ad hominem fallacy: Argue the article and not the persons involved in the arguement. Regardless of how obnoxious the original nominator was, it turns out (check google search and the article itself) there is an utter lack of any sources to make any verification of any facts that may be asserted in the article, nor is there any real notability. --Jayron32 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A search on Amazon and Barnes & Noble returned books in stock. His books have been published and are carried by major book sellers. Seems notable to me, but what do I know? Movementarian (Talk) 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply interesting. Helpful, but still doesn't point to notability. If no one has reviewed his work, however, then he still isn't notable. The fact that his books are for sale means a little bit, but in light of the fact that no one OUTSIDE of wikipedia appears to have reviewed his work in reliable sources, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. If we can produce such coverage, I would change my vote. Merely being availible for purchase does not indicate notability. --Jayron32 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. I would agree if we were talking about one book, but we are talking about three at Amazon and four at Barnes & Noble. Having muliple books carried by major book sellers is notable. Movementarian (Talk) 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • reply: Anyone who pays for a UPC code and ISBN registration can sell their books through Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble online. They now carry many self-published books due to this. Additionally, print-on-demand books are always listed as "in stock" and/or "supply unlimited", depending on the website. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kathryn's information. Viridae^Talk 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kathryn's info, per failing WP:NOT a listing of self-published books, and notability. Since anyone who self-publishes can get into Amazon or B&N, also fails WP:RS. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per 2 books "shipped from stock" at Amazon which are in their top 250,000 in sales. He has several books for sale in addition which are apparently demand printed and less notable. I would love to know how to find # of books sold, since somewhere I saw a reference to 5,000 books sold as a guideline for notabiliity of author. In addition, I found 2 magazine article he wrote in a scholarly journal published by a university:[7] [8] Edison 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  Did you actually check out this so called scholarly journal? And please read again Kathryn's note : in stock is a discriptor for print-on-demand. Does Amazon's site somehow specifically say "hey, we keep physical copies of this book"? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I've heard of this author. If not currently "notable" (whatever that means), certainly an up-and-coming author... -999 (Talk) 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Taylor Ellwood contacted me today and requested that I disclose that a group I am part of declined his offer to publish one of our projects on Immanion. Though I thought I made it clear to him in our brief exchange that the reason for our declining his offer was the details I give above (plus other shortcomings of the press I did not detail) he seems to believe this is a personal issue. He says he and I know each other. However, AFAIK, our contact was limited to two e-mails, IIRC, where he laid out details of the offer, my colleagues and I asked him questions about the press, and after research and discussion among ourselves, we decided to decline. Mr. Ellwood and I do know a few people in common, as is common in the small pond of the Pagan community, but we have never met and I really know very little about him beyond those brief e-mails. You can see our recent exchange here on my talk page. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahlstrom

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

Fails WP:SPAM. This reads like an advertisement and does not provide any verification, with sources or otherwise. Diez2 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Wikipedia isn't the place for advertisements.--SUIT 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom... Spawn Man 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a big company with 5700 employees and annual revenue of 1,552.6 million euros. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Week Delete Article needs to be cleaned up - reads too much like an advertisement. Maybe add more about history and a negitive attributes of the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markco1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I added another reference. This one deals with job losses in Pennsylvania as a result of Ahlstrom moving production to South Carolina. As well, there is an article about the company in the Finnish Wikipedia at --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a publicly traded company (though I'm not sure which market it's on). Over 5000 employees and annual revenues in the billions of Euros. Also tons of media mentions and third party sources:
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14] --Wafulz 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, just check out the many, many pages of hits on Google News. --Wafulz 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup 150 year old company with over 1.5 Euros in revenue? Seems quite notable to me. Resolute 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless better sources can be found-"sources" cited above and on Google News all seem to be reprinted press releases (many are even still signed "Ahlstrom Corporation". Will change to keep if independent sources are available, but I'm not finding them.Change to keep as independent sources were provided. Still needs ad cleanup though. Seraphimblade 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more:

• News from Kentucky
• Independent company description

This is easily one of the larger corporations around. I'm sure if someone spoke Finnish they'd be able to find more sources for us too- I sincerely doubt a 150-year-old listed composites manufacturer making billions of dollars each year has marginal independent sourcing. --Wafulz 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is plainly a notable company. It's a case for ((advert)), not ((subst:afd)). -- Shunpiker 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup: Definitely a notable European company. Ben W Bell talk 08:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, what more can I say.-- danntm ^T _C 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a listed and known company, though needs a cleanup. STTW (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BG Astrological Association

BG Astrological Association (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Proposed deletion contested by author. Original reason: lack of content. Article now has more content, though still doesn't seem to assert important or significance, and is worded like an advertisement. – Gurch 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete Hard to tell, since it is a foreign organization and this google search turns up only Bulgarin language sites (though onle 2 of them!!!) and this similar search using the actual name of the article turns up NADA. If there were MORE references to notability, I might vote keep, but I cannot find ANYTHING out there to help this article out. --Jayron32 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete judging by the article, serious lack of notability. Viridae^Talk 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is easily superior to the slight stub about the American Federation of Astrologers. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I cannot understand why this article is here. I have just post some text and what to see: This article is being considered for deletion. Is here some kind of discrimination? Look Here: UK Astrological Association and here: American Federation of Astrologers Are this two articles better then this one: BG Astrological Association Astrologbg 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)=Astrologbg

• Delete. It's not the quality of the article that's in question (it certainly isn't as bad as the UK AA). It's the notability of the organisation. On that question: exactly 4 google hits from less than 4 different sites, even counting very similar results as separate; no apparent third-party coverage. Not an encyclopedic subject at present. Sam Clark 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is - in Bulgaria or in UK. There is more than 80 results i this [google search]. - Bulgarian astrological association, but in bulgarian language. I am sorry, but how many of you know bulgarian? I think that Wikipedia is the right place, where people can learn something about this organization, in english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrologbg (talk • contribs) .

• • Comment. 1. Please sign your posts using four tildes. 2. 80 ghits doesn't add up to notability either. 3. 'Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is' is not an argument for keeping the article, or even a reply to anything I or anyone has said. The issues are notability and verifiability. I'm sure the organisation is a fine one, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should have a wikipedia article. 4. You're quite right that I speak no Bulgarian, but that isn't an argument for keeping this article. 5. Am I right that your username indicates a connection with the organisation? If so, that also raises the problem of conflict of interest. Yours, Sam Clark 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • thanks for your comment. yes, I am from Bulgaria, and that is why I know something about this organization. In Wiki has an article Astrological associations and there was only one link who redirect to UK Astrological asociaction. Now there is two articles. And must have many more. And I dont understand why someone want in this article Astrological associations to have only ONE organization - UK. And I think that this is not right. Astrologbg 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Astrologbg

• reply to Astrologbg 1) before you assume people are descriminating against you, please read the following policy: assume good faith. Do so by clicking on the blue link. Understand that we are discussing this deletion proposal dispassionately and without prejudice. 2) At issue is not the existance of the association, its nature, why it exists, or even what it does. None of those are criteria for the worthiness of the article. We need references in reliable sources to show that the article contains information that is verifiable and that the subject matter is notable. I have linked words in this reply to specific wikipedia policies by which we are judging this article. If you wish to keep the article, improve it, and I and probably many others would be willing to change our vote. 3) The existance of other deletable articles at wikipedia do NOT mean that this one should be kept. If, in your exploration of wikipedia, you have found other articles YOU think are unworthy, please nominate them for deletion. But the existance of such articles has no bearing on this one. Bring it up to standard as is spelled out in the above policies, or let it go. 4) The existance of other articles about similar associations articles here means nothing. They may also be deletable, or they may have reliable references to the information they contain. Understand that deleting an article has NOTHING to do with what the article is about, only with whether the information contained therin is notable, verifiable, and reliable. Please click the polices I have linked to learn more so you can make the article better. --Jayron32 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Posey

Brad Posey (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

proposed deletion contested by author. Some additional information has been added, but I'm still not sure the subject is notable. – Gurch 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It seems like an okay article... It could be worked on, though.--SUIT 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN enough... Spawn Man 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - filming somebody while they take thier melvin to the circus is not enough to garner an encyclopedia entry -- wtfunkymonkey 03:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep OK, so gay porn is not my thing, so I hadn't much prior knowledge on this subject. However, a quick google search turns up: an IMDB listing, this review from a third-party source, and numerous other reviews and locations to buy his videos. They are in wide release, and reviewed in the press. If we are to view this solely within the field of gay porn, he is notable. We cannot take the premise that he is non notable JUST because he shoots gay porn videos. --Jayron32 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article needs work but in respect of the Simon Rex controversy he is clearly notable. Orderinchaos78 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Edison 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Jayron. Should be sourceable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• I vote to KEEP
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Parliament election, 2011

Scottish Parliament election, 2011 (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

The 2007 election has not even taken place yet. This article has no content and nothing can be added but speculation until the 2007 election occurs. The article really serves no purpose until that election occurs. I believe the usual practice is to have an article about one single upcoming election. —Cuiviénen 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing gainful can be said (apart from the date, which surprises me since British elections at least aren't on a fixed program) at least until after the 2007 poll has occurred and probably for a while thereafter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Scotland does have fixed election dates, as do Wales and Northern Ireland (when elections happen in NI at all!). Of course, the government can still be brought down early. —Cuiviénen 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well there we go. I was wondering what the new thing I was going to learn today was, and that's it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hey, I can expand the article! I predict a party will win! Spawn Man 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A prize for that man! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unless it predicts that I'm going to win the election SkierRMH,03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:Not a crystal ball -- wtfunkymonkey 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You can do this kind of thing for, say, the Olympics, because planning goes on YEARS ahead for them. No such thing here. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Political elections are prepared and planned for a long time in advance, but they like to try and get through the most urgent one before thinking about the next. -- saberwyn 11:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, Olympics undergo long site-selection processes years in advance that can be discussed in their articles. Not so for elections. —Cuiviénen 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 07:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a little to soon, although I find it ironic that the election is slated on my birthday.-- danntm ^T _C 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hello32020 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielle Copeland

Gabrielle Copeland (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO Otto4711 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Also nominated:

• Jaime Hammer, same reason. Otto4711 16:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Jo Leigh, same reason. Otto4711 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Tammy Plante, same reason. Otto4711 16:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Victoria Thornton, same reason. Otto4711 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll agree with you in that, for most of the ladies you listed, the articles as they stand right now do not state why they are notable. The only exception I believe could be Tammy Plante, as I think her role in the Virtual Bartender, combined with her Playboy appearances, just might be enough to render her notable. However, I think you should be putting each girl up in her own individual AFD, and as a result, I'm not casting a vote at this time. Tabercil 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete on Gabrielle Copeland - the other articles need their own delete pages.--Hatch68 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom except Tammy Plante; posing nude for any of the multitudes of Playboy publications does not bestow notability (and Plante is the only one to have accomplished something more). Being the centerfold brings notability, but that's because those women are the central focus of an entire issue, the role of the centerfold and of Playboy Playmates has immense pop culture significance, and the magazine focuses on the identity of the Playmates (and on remembering their identity even years later) in a manner not true of the legions of comparably anonymous women who pose for the "special editions." Postdlf 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Make that "Delete all per nom except for Plante and Hammer," about whom I'm somewhere between a "neutral" and a "weak keep." Postdlf 15:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Relevant notability criteria are at WP:PORNBIO.. Looks to me like they all meet it, but I may be misinterpreting what "Coed of the Month" means. —Cuiviénen 01:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• There's no article to explain "Coed of the Month" but based on the Coed of the Week category description it appears to me that it doesn't qualify as an "award" as defined by the WP:PORNBIO criteria. It seems more like a bunch of women are presented each week on the Playboy Cyber Club website and the users pick one for the week and then the month. Someone with more familiarity than I with the website may have more insight but I don't believe that being named Coed of the Week or Month establishes notability in and of itself. Otto4711 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral (at a loss!) - Yes the articles do seem to fail WP:BIO, but as Cuivienen pointed out, they do meet WP:PORNBIO. So I'm at a loss as what to do, as they meet, but don't meet the rules... Thoughts anyone? Spawn Man 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jaime Hammer, neutral on the others. Hammer has appeared on the cover (either alone or as one of three models) of Playboy Special Editions magazines three times between 2004 and 2006. All three times she was identified by name (full name twice, first name once) on the cover itself. This implies that she has some name recognition and celebrity at least within the context of the Playboy magazine readership, as opposed to being some fly-by-night model who is never heard from again. Although she is not an actress or television personality, her repeated appearances on magazine covers should be considered "multiple features in popular culture publications" which would qualify an actress for an article under WP:BIO. The other four models may also warrant articles but I don't have sufficient evidence to make a case for them. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Copeland, Leigh, and Thornton, Keep Hammer and Plante. I was convinced by Hammer's multiple covers and by Plante's appearances for beer.com, etc. The others seem pretty minor. --Brianyoumans 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. Gotta love the infoboxes - measurements and the works. :| Orderinchaos78 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. A definite keep on Hammer, but a very weak keap on plante, as I'm unsure that the ad she appeared in is good enough to warrant an article for her (and not just include her as a subsection of the article about the ad campaign) Bjelleklang - talk 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hammer per 18 appearances in a national magazine of wide circulation, including 2 covers. That is greater notabiility than 90% of the bio articles of living persons. Delete the rest.Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Note: when you nominate a large number of different articles, you make the task for the closing admin difficult. Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asshat

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

unsourced attribution of derogatory term - seems like an attack page Ronnotel 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please...LGF is no more an attack page than any other on the net. It's quite tame compared to many I've seen in the past. If anyone thinks LGF is an attack page, maybe they should check out the numerous Indymedia sites or DailyKos. Then they can get back to me... John1schn 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — John1schn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I believe the nominator was calling the article, not Little Green Footballs, an "attack page." --Slowking Man 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. (Heh). Ronnotel 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but a personal attack and a dic-def (already at Wiktionary). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'cuz I'm an asshat. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Just another slang term. Do not delete. — Brunochojnacki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If something is "just another slang term", then it likely fails WP:NEO, hence the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary, unless some compelling cultural significance can be established that merits an article. --Slowking Man 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. wikipediatrix 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this piece of assshat - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a slang dic. ike9898
• Strong Delete, per above. Naconkantari 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and if anyone disagrees they're an mega-asshat. SkierRMH,02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I touch myself, I want you to touch me. Xihr 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment When I feel down, I want you above me. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - !vote containing a personal attack was removed. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect - has already been transwikied (18 months ago), and I don't think an encyclopedic article can really be created, but deleting will probably only lead to a definition type page being created again in the future. I don't see this as an attack page, though. Mishatx 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this stayed, would it be long before tub of goo and like crap found its way here? Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is well established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and neologisms need sources, and this article has neither.-- danntm ^T _C 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or move to Wiki Dictionary and keep a link. The term (derogatory) is in fairly common use, and deletion will merely result in its recreation in a few weeks or months. I think it was invented by Rachael Lucas, but have only my memory for that citation. htom 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, common use is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Xtifr _tälk 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to discourage recreation. The article is merely a dicdef, but if deleted will most likely be recreated at some point. Movementarian (Talk) 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if it's recreated, it can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Or it can be salted to prevent recreation. Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we are not Urban dictionary. Viridae^Talk 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it......all forms of verbage used to compliment or insult people are words in the language that we must have reference to and explanations for. Doesn't matter who's side you are on......but only an asshat would want this deleted...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:16:49 (UTC) — 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
  • The project whose goal is to document all of the words in the language (and indeed all words in all languages) is Wiktionary. It is over there. This project is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to Wikidictionary - I use the word myself, but it's not something that needs an article. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Park3r 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Very notable term with 1,120,000 Google hits. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been in Wiktionary since 2004. Uncle G 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Burn (Delete) Could be considered a personal attack to a group, derrogatory, I am a teen and never hear it, Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 3:33 pm ET NOvember 20 2006

[edit] Trinity Christian School (Williston, North Dakota)

Trinity Christian School (Williston, North Dakota) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable religious school that fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Private Schools Report" entry It appears to be a K-12 school in a small town (13,000 residents) in ND with 256 pupils and has been in the local media in the town. Orderinchaos78 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a private K-12 school. There are tons of articles about non-notable schools. Expand a bit. Sr13 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Care to name a few? Shimeru 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's not a valid argument whatsoever. Please see WP:INN- just because something exists on WP does not inherently give something else the right to exist. -- Kicking222 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although searching is somewhat tricky because this is a somewhat common name for schools, I am unable at the moment to find any non-trivial reliable sources with which to expand this article. As such, it appears to fail WP:SCHOOLS3. Will check Lexis-Nexis tomorrow and see whether anything turns up there. Shimeru 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, doesn't pass any of WP:SCHOOL, not even the highly controversial 50 year test (which I personally oppose in any case). Just more schoolcruft. Xtifr _tälk 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointed out by Xtifr, no assertion of notability and no evidence of notability. Viridae^Talk
• Delete per Xtifr. -- Kicking222 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Xtifr. No assertion or evidence of notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable school in north dakota!!! Audiobooks 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence to show that this is the case? --Kuzaar^-T-C- 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:SCHOOLS; WP:BEEFSTEW=2. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] York Rainbow Peace Camp

York Rainbow Peace Camp (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Nomination for Deletion Fails WP:V. May fail WP:ORG even if verified. Zero google hits for "York Rainbow Peace Camp"[16]. 25 hits (none from independent,reliable sources and the 25 includes false positives) for "York Peace Camp" [17]. Zero hits for both these phrases in Factiva news database (which includes all major UK national/regional newspapers). Bwithh 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete - not notable, no sources. Probably could be speedied - wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... SkierRMH,07:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• UPDATE Please see below for a statement on the article from its creator, the interestingly named User:weallpoo, which I have copied and pasted from the article talk space Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep vote from User:weallpoo

I wrote a wikipedia article today on York Rainbow Peace Camp, which I consider to have been the indicator of an astonishingly rapid rise in the amount and depth of anti-capitalist militancy in York, England in the year 2003. Prior to this, York could be considered somewhat politically apathetic, especially in terms of direct action and popular engagement in politics outside of the big 3 political parties.

The article is already being considered for deletion. I hope to defend its inclusion in wikipedia, as follows:

It is unsurprising that York Rainbow Peace Camp is not mentioned in the online media searches which have been conducted, as the "official" name of the camp was "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp" (I omitted the word "Village" in the title by accident), but the name never quite caught on anyway, and it was usually referred to locally as "the peace camp", since there was no other peace camp nearby.

Also, we at the camp scarcely saw it as a priority to woo the corporate-owned mass media. However, York's dominant local paper, "The Evening Press" did give us a surprising amount of coverage, and a search for peace camp in their archive ( http://www.thisisyork.co.uk/archive/ ) brought up 9 relevant hits;

• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/3/17/271394.html - "Last stand for peace", 17th Mar 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/3/17/271371.html - "Protesters join huge York rally", 17th Mar 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/3/19/271219.html - "Camp switches to bridge", 19th Mar 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/3/19/271213.html - "Children walk out of York schools in protest at war", 19th Mar 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/4/12/269709.html - "The fight for peace goes on", 12th Apr 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/4/19/269261.html - "Swan's on us!", 19th Apr 2003.
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/4/22/269148.html - "Squatters vow to set up art project",

22nd Apr 2003.

• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/4/25/268758.html - "Peace lies over the Rainbow", 25th Apr 2003
• http://archive.yorkpress.co.uk/2003/12/30/254431.html - "First half report", 30th Dec 2003

There was also a hit about a more recent peace camp in York, when Archbishop John Sentamu held a marathon prayer vigil in a blue tent inside York Minster, at the time of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. This is dated 15th Aug 2006. No evidence has been found that he was directly inspired by the events of 2003, but it could be postulated that a tradition may be emerging in the city.

Also, plugging a search for "peace hotel" into the same archive search engine will bring up more articles from the newspaper, as will searches for the names "Lara Saunders", "Ruby Robinson" and "Sky Sunshine Robinson", 3 activists who died tragically during the period in which the peace camp was active.

If my article is allowed to remain on wikipedia, I hope that I might be permitted to dedicate it to them.

Anyhow, thanks to whoever suggested the deletion, as having to support my article's inclusion has inspired me to find additional sources which can be used to bring the article up to scratch.

- Rene Thomas / "weallpoo", weallpoo@yahoo.co.uk

• • Note I copied the above statement from User:weallpoo from the article talkspace Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Followup Zero hits on google for "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp"[18]; zero hits on Factiva. Bwithh 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The reference above to the activists killed seems to be about a fatal fire (which did not occur at the camp)[19] Bwithh 07:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i was at the York Peace Camp and the article is accurate. The local newspaper references should support this. i have some photos of the Peace hotel i would like to put on the page, so would like it to remain. i do not think that because this was a real event with real people and not televised or in a previous book it should be deleted. it is more valid than much of the stuff on wicipedia which is pretty irrelevant and petty.

i think the author has overemphasised the role of people with mental health problems, as only a few people at the camp and hotel were such. so i would only recomend a little editiing.

• Keep Database and search engine hits while often very helpful are NOT the ultimate test. Also this is an example where entering only a few specific search terms creates a misleading result, try "York Peace Camp" and you will find more sources, a little creativity goes a long way. Furthermore the sources provided of articles written by the York Press are valid sources. Therefore this article meets the WP:V requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I did try "York Peace Camp". It's in my original nomination with an assessment of the hits produced (a little creativity didn't go very far in this case). The York Press is a local city newspaper. Factiva doesn't include this but does include the Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post, the local regional or county newspapers, as well as the Press Association Regional Newswire for Yorkshire and Humberside. No hits for the search terms from these sources showed up (there are hits for protests and peace camps against US activities at military bases RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales but none for the subject of the article). I don't think coverage by the local city newspaper is sufficient for encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize I did not see the "York Peace Camp" search reference before, I still maintain that the Google search is not the definative test of either verifiability or notability. However your opinion that local city newspapers are insufficient is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Under WP:V the requirements for sources are that they are preferably in English, that they are not of dubious reliability and they are not self-published. Under WP: N, "what constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies." The York Press meets these requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altrec.com

Altrec.com (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Found tagged as speedy spam. The text is indeed spammy and badly needs cleanup if it's kept, but the article (and talk page) asserts notability in a not-entirely-adcopy-like way. Thought this merited more discussion. Opabinia regalis 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Multiple news references make this look at least mildly notable, though it needs a cleanup, especially of the linkspam at the bottom. —Cuiviénen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• conditional weak delete should be deleted if there are no references are in the article by the end of the afd discussion. i kan reed 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails most, if not all, points of WP:CORP - wtfunkymonkey 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete bloody spammy, needs massive cleanup and cites, if not, delete it. SkierRMH,07:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Ewen

Elizabeth Ewen (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Stuart Ewen recently wrote articles for himself and his wife, Elizabeth Ewen. He looks to be maybe notable; she doesn't. Self-written (or, in this case, spouse-written) articles are a red flag, for starters. She doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. Two of her four books are collaborations with her husband. The one book she wrote alone, "Life and Culture on the Lower East Side, l890-1930" looks like your typical academic tome. For an academic with a 30-year career her publishing record looks average at best. Ewens's claim to have "significantly defined the fields of American Studies" is unsourced and seems unlikely given her publication record. Herostratus 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep She has 4 books on Amazon over a 21-year span: [20] However, the article is desperately in need of a rewrite. Orderinchaos78 04:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:PROF, lacks any sources, and the language seems to aim pretty well towards the target of vanity, and seeming that it appears to be written by her husband 1.3 of WP:COI seems pretty applicable here. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:COI as per nom. SkierRMH,07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Conflict of interest, something User:Stuartewen has been warned about before he started writing the article. --Lijnema 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Memmke 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even an impartial, well-written article (which this isn't) would fail WP:PROFTEST. -- Fan-1967 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Her position of "Distinguished Teaching Professor" at a major university university establishes notability in the academic world. She has written numerous scholarly books which have received lengthy and favorable reviews in scholarly journals and the New York Times. She has also published numerous articles in scholarly journals. Edit boldly and do any needed rewrites. How on earth does the fact that she and her husband co-authored books make him notable but not her? The book with several reviews ( I only added a few of them to demonstrate notability) was not co-written with hubby. Edison 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I did edit the page a lot. I moved stuff around and made the Publications section. But all I could do was re-arrange; I can't pull notable achievements for her out of the air. I would dispute that we ought to have articles on Distinguished Teaching Professors as a default, and more than on every lawyer who made partner at a major law firm or whatever. And SUNY is large but it's not CalTech or Harvard either. Her husband is notable (maybe) because he has other accomplishments of his own, writing several books on his own including one that apparently made a little noise and doing a bunch of other stuff on his own, thus garnering a few interviews in third-party publications. As far as I can tell, she's written exactly one book on her own: Immigrant Women in the Land of Dollars: Life and Culture on the Lower East Side 1890-1925, which is published by the New Feminist Library, and that sure sounds like the kind of dry academic research made into a book that all tenured professors are expected to write as a matter of course. Herostratus 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agapito Conchu

Agapito Conchu (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. Different version named Agapito Concho previously deleted via prod. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 04:38Z

• Keep. Article exists in Tagalog, and director is listed on IMDB: Lacking a subject-matter expert, there are grounds to believe that this is a historically notable figure in Filipino cinema. -- Shunpiker 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with some editing -- wtfunkymonkey 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, even in Tagalog. Only one skimpy mention in IMDB does not establish notability. There is no source for the statement he directed all the other movies. With references, the article could be re-created. If references for notability were added, the article could be kept. As is, there is not enough demonstrated and documented notability. There is no presumption of notability absent evidence of it.Edison 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Mondiello

Phil Mondiello (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. If the Pokemon stuff was notable there'd be external coverage. (There isn't.) The rest is Youtubecruft. Crystallina 04:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crufty. MER-C 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - goes well beyond cruft and reads more like WP:SPAM and WP:VAIN - wtfunkymonkey 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Movementarian (Talk) 06:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom U-Tubecruft SkierRMH,07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete failing WP:BIO. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The PINK PANDA

The PINK PANDA (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Verifiability problems, check ghits. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete pandacruft. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another glorified garage band SkierRMH,07:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Vio88 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Anarchy Steering Committee

Anarchy Steering Committee (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Internet self-distributed music group, fails all 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC for ensembles. No national chart hits, certified recordings, tours, or albums on major labels. A few net-popular songs several years ago. Google search brings back lots of hits, but none are non-trivial published works. Delete. MikeWazowski 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Glorified Garage Band, nn... SkierRMH,07:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. TheRealFennShysa 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absent referent

Absent referent (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion. I replaced this with a Prod tag as the article asserts some notability. This was then removed by the article's creator, however I think the reason for my prod (lack of notability) still stands. – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - neologism, 715 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism... SkierRMH,07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - while this may appear to be a neologism, it is in fact a variation of well-established concept of the Other. However, this is a unique enough varient to deserve its own entry. How is the threshold for notability or secondary sources determined? -- Bhuston 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are two questions to answer: Is this original research? It's original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else other than its inventor and not become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. To demonstrate that it's not original research, we need sources by people other than Adams discussing this concept. If it's not original research, is this a duplicate article? It's a duplicate article if it's just a different name for the same concept. Uncle G 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Now I'm confused. I thought Original Research in the WP context refered to that done by a Wikipedian for the article, which is prohibited by WP policy. This is contradicted by your assertion that it is "original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else...." I think in such a case as you describe, it still may be prohibited, however due to notability. --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • See Wikipedia:No original research, in particular the parts relating to ideas held by an "extremely small minority", which in this case would be a minority of 1 if no-one other than Adams has acknowledged the concept. Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am fairly certain that the phrase was current in deconstructionist literary jargon before it was appropriated by Adams for the idiosyncratic use described here. It comes from the truism that all symbolic discourse includes a sign, a signifier (person using the sign) and a referent. Here it's used as rhetorical dressing for the slight insight that people don't think about live chickens when they eat their McNuggets. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • reply to comment This is quite interesting! It also reminds me of how certain sects of Judiasm use the symbol (sign) G*D to refer to the divine mover, or the sybmol "{}" as the empty set in mathematics. In this context, I would like to assert a strong KEEP and expand the article to include the context you have provided --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and smerge into The Other. Grutness...wha? 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge into Other, which wants expansion and could use some notes about mathematics and etymology as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mer-C. Edison 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Bonen

Tom Bonen (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 05:03Z

• Delete - verifiability issues, check ghits. Also nothing really useful there either. MER-C 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. (His username is even Tombonen...*sigh*) Anthony Rupert 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate as logical redirect to famous cyclist Tom Boonen. Fram 06:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and follow Fram's suggestion... SkierRMH,07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Fram's suggestion. MartinDK 13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect, and PROTECT THE PAGE - to protect from further immaturity. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Tonight

College Tonight (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Procedural relisting after a "convoluted" close of previous AfD. Original nominations follow:

From the first AfD:

As it turns out, this page was twice speedily deleted before, but since I can't see what was there before, I have no idea if this is substantially the same as before, but it reeks of advertising, and the company is so new that I suspect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball may also be in play.

And from the second AfD:

This article was originally created by single purpose account User:Thesuchman (a name very similar to one of the site founders), and it is an obvious advertisement. This was enough to successfully speedy Evergreens UK, and this article has itself been Speedied twice before. … Even with possibly-valid media mentions, this article is still nothing more than a blatant ad with no prospect of improvement in the forseeable future, and should be removed ASAP.

(Disclaimer: I voted to keep in the first AfD which ended with "no consensus".) Kimchi.sg 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Granted, the site has a number of media mentions, but these seem due more to the publicity-savviness of the site's creators than to any actual newsworthiness of the site itself. There really is nothing whatsoever to the article so far that wouldn't apply to just about every other moderately-sophisticated web-forum out there. Also, the original wording of the article (plus the username of the creator) suggests that it was planted in WP by one of the site-founders as a means of boosting their search profile. I don't want to reward that. --Arvedui

Further comment, if there were even a single detail both notable and unique to the site, such as some well-known cultural or internet phenomenon that originated there or an obviously unique net-subculture that inhabits it, I would probably vote to Keep. But as it's basically a two month old dating/party-promotion site, this seems very unlikely. Also, I'm not calling for a speedy delete here, since those seem to get overturned, though I think the sooner this article is gone, the better. --Arvedui 05:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without being able to see the first discussion, and having no part in it, this still reads like an ad and fails the Crystal Ball test. SkierRMH,07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Fails WP:WEB. Two month project hasn't any notability. This should be on Google but not in Wikipedia. Tulkolahten 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The sources given in the article seem to satisfy WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB and/or any other notability measurement. The two "reliable independent sources" mentioned in the first AfD were a school newspaper and a syndicated column on msnbc.com. Media mentions do not automatically give a subject notability if the subject itself is obviously non-notable. --- RockMFR 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Social networking websites frequently go belly-up. This one was only recently launched and has not yet achieved notability. Get multiple independent mainstream and reliable sources which document its notability and come back in a year or whatever. I do not approvve of using Wikipedia to achieve notability. Edison 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I'd like to vote delete, but the article does not currently fail WP:WEB. Whatever sources were in the first nomination were irrelevant, the subject is covered by MAJOR networks (ABC, MSN). --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and also includes a paragraph in the introduction to the effect that "Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing." That is, of course, precisely and completely what this article is, which is the whole problem, major media mentions or not. --Arvedui 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that. Two delete votes were per WP:WEB, however, which I do not feel it fails, which is why I referenced it. I am going by notability and references asserting notability. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

per WP:WEB and other details. In any case, even if it doesn't fail that particular guideline (which I don't necessarily grant in this case due to the nature of the media coverage), don't you think the anti-advertising policy should trump it? (I'm just trying to give you a reason here to do what you said you wanted to do... :-) ) --Arvedui 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It fails point: except for the following: * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. There is not any notable non-trivial published work fulfilling point 1 of WP:WEB. Tulkolahten 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it passes that exact point. "Trivial" in point 1 of WP:WEB refers to "newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." And the articles from the WP:RS MSNBC, Red Herring, AZfamily.com are not media re-prints or press releases (all even cite a reporter). Srictly following WP:WEB guildlines, the published works sources are decisively non-trivial and demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious advertising. How the two months old project can be notable ? How ? Tulkolahten 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The verification of notability from WP:RS appears present. --Oakshade 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnafilia

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

Seems to fail WP:WEB, and WP:COI, as described on Talk:Ragnafilia --Sigma 7 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NFT. MER-C 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:COI SkierRMH,07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. --Folantin 10:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete article about generic web forum. Mindmatrix 15:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another advert. Moreschi 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Reese

Dylan Reese (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A few very minor assertions of notability: Selected 209th in 2003 NHL draft (but went to college instead); captain of the Harvard University hockey team, which is all very nice, but for one thing Harvard is not exactly an athletic power; and a top player in the North American Hockey League, which is a "Junior A league", whatever that means, but clearly a minor league. If and when he plays in the NHL, then of course he gets an article, but at this point, they guy seems to not come close to meeting any criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Herostratus 05:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Few players (like Luc Robitaille, for instance) get drafted that low and make an impact in the NHL. Harvard's team isn't ranked in the top 20 by ESPN, but they do have a strong program. Either way, he still has a way to go before satisfying WP:BIO. Caknuck 06:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until moves to some level of notierity in field SkierRMH,07:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Folantin 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, Harvard have a decent hockey program and he seems to be one of their best players right now, but maybe this should just be recreated when he is further along in his career. Recury 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - non-notable. Moreschi 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No way to know if he'll even pursue a hockey career once he has a Harvard diploma. If he does, and makes the NHL, recreate then. Fan-1967 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lasting Factor

Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. One self-recorded and -released EP. "Sam Serinsky is now also in the line up of The Dave Weiner Band, the guitar player of Steve Vai's touring band The Breed." Dave Weiner gets minor notability by the Steve Vai association, but to transfer that notability then one stage further is taking it a bit too far. Also nominating: Sam Serinsky (the lead singer) Fram 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) -

• Delete both Obvious vanity. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• This nomination seems to be lacking, well, a nomination. So: non-notable band, WAY under notability requirements. Long detailed article with pictures, though - nice try. Delete --Brianyoumans 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: actually, it seems like several entries, including the original nomination, got deleted, possibly by accident - I have restored them from the history. --Brianyoumans 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for Serinsky as well; he has some claims to notability, but they are weak and don't seem to be verifiable from the references given. --Brianyoumans 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both "The CD is self produced and was recorded in the living room of Ryan's parents house." Well, I guess that technically means they're not a garage band. :) Fails each and every criterion in WP:BAND. Xtifr _tälk 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Added notability "

[edit] Jonathan Zizmor

Jonathan Zizmor (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

2nd nom. I believe first AfD was wrongly decided.

Zizmor is a NN dermatologist. Advertises a lot on the subway, so is well known due to weird name and ads plastered in every other train car, but otherwise completely fails the multiple non-trivial published works test. He's just a doctor in Manhattan. - crz crztalk 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources cited in article, very little notariaty outside of being 'that guy on the subway signs' in NYC. Very few g-hits that are relevant. Article doesn't read like WP:SPAM or WP:VAIN but I don't think there's any point to him having an article. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Well, The New Yorker found him notable enough to write an article about him [21], so did Pulitzer Prize winner Dan Barry at the New York Times [22] (free preview). Another article about him here [23]. All of this plus his face is staring at every New Yorker who rides the subway (probably makes Angelyne jealous). --Oakshade 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As I basically said above, all this coverage is cute, but trivial. - crz crztalk 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Although I would argue the subject easily passes WP:BIO and the published works are not trivial, your opinion of the subject being trivial might not be contended, actually, and alot of people might find something like this interesting. Even "trivial" subjects have a home in WP (Angelyne cited above is an excellent example). I think write-ups by two of the most prestigious publications in the US is quite a good case for verification on its interest value. --Oakshade 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)... (additional comment), In WP:BIO, "trivial coverage" refers to "newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Under WP:BIO's definition, the articles cited are decisively non-trivial. --Oakshade 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough for the city's two most important publications (sorry Wall Street Journal) to feature. Caknuck 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how he meets the criteria in WP:BIO. Just because he is a nice bit of trivia for native New Yorkers doesn't mean that he is notable. What has he done to make himself remembered in the field of dermatology other than spending a lot on advertising? Movementarian (Talk) 11:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's indeed not notable in the field of dermatology. He is however, apparently, responsible for a particularly famous advertising campaign, so the article should be (and indeed is) written mainly around that. Morwen - Talk 12:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Zizmor is famous. It's for something tacky--relentless self-promotion--but I think the argument is being made here that "tacky" equals "trivial to the point of irrelevance". It's very clear the "non-trivial" part of WP:BIO refers to the depth of content written in articles about the subject, not any editor's opinion about the importance of subject, and that's being ignored here. The New Yorker piece shows his cultural notability--as soon as I saw this AfD I remembered that piece. If you search nytimes.com for "Zizmor" you get 23 hits, 20 of which are about him. In an NYT article about Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which you can read on their website, the fact that Zizmor's on the board of the school is worthy of mentioning, and not just in a list. There are several other NYT articles that are features about him. Darkspots 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: I wouldn't go to him, but he's been a pretty common household name (if at least for comedic value) for awhile now. Press coverage meets WP:BIO. --Howrealisreal 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article asserts notability, this notability is backed up, has significant references in reliable print media. Proto::type 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable except for TV ads in one city. Edison 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The central premise of Zizmor's career is that he advertises in the subway, not on television. Maybe he runs TV ads, I don't know--the article and other contributors don't mention television. Here are Edison's contributions. Darkspots 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • quick comment "... in one city."? Do you mean 8 million-plus populated New York City? --Oakshade 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe Edison was referring to the New York metropolitan area instead, with a population of 18,747,320--only a couple million fewer than Australia? Darkspots 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kayla Keim

Kayla Keim (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A teenaged dancer/local model who seems to fail WP:BIO. Little to no external coverage; her accomplishments don't quite make her notable yet. Crystallina 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 9 non-wiki ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Without context for the "prestigious" competitions she's won (ie. WP articles, verifiable sources), no notability is inferred. Caknuck 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like vanity, and I think that if "CanDance" was so prestigious there'd be an article about it. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete w/ -10 ghits... no notability. SkierRMH,07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:AUTO If it walks like a duck.... MartinDK 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Sometimes I doubt my commitment to Sparkle Motion. -- Shunpiker 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Band

Template Band (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Only 2 edits, no pages linking to it except a disambiguation page, also seems to be a bit of a 'glowing review' about the band- "Australia's most exciting and revered progressive rock band" however it has no relevant Google hits, and I have never heard of them. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 07:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC as they don't seem notable at all, and have released only one single independent album. No awards or other notable mentions either. Jayden54 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed under TfD?  :) Just kidding, clearly fails to meet WP:BAND. Xtifr _tälk 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the exact same thing. Also, delete. -- Kicking222 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drops of light

Drops of light (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable band. Was put up for speedy deletion by ArmadilloFromHell (talk • contribs), which was contested by the creator Vinnyk (talk • contribs). Mike Peel 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and I don't believe the original article creator can contest a speedy delete - the correct procedure is to tag it with hangon and not remove the speedy tag--ArmadilloFromHell 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable band.Edison 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic Realism (communism)

Aesthetic Realism (communism) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Questionable authenticity MichaelBluejay 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical that this concept really existed in communist regimes as claimed, at least by this name. I'm familiar with another use of the term Aesthetic realism, and when I researched it on the net I never came across this other alleged communist use. The article certainly provides zero references to support its claim. If the existence of this concept can be established and is notable, then of course I have no objection to keeping the article. Otherwise I suggest it be deleted. -09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The author probably meant Socialist realism. --Folantin 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rintrah 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and Folantin. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Folantin; the socialist realism article is quite good and seems to be about the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Folantin. Would it be a good idea to create a redirect from this name to the socialist realism article? Esn 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt it. There seems no evidence socialist realism was ever called "aesthetic realism". --Folantin 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lionheart helm

Lionheart helm (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This is pure game-guide material. Therefore, this is not Wikipedia material. (Contested prod.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, and point creator to wowwiki.com. Demiurge 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete by WP:CSD 1.2-1&7 -- wtfunkymonkey 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Should probably be speediable as it doesn't assert noteworthiness; if not, WP:NOT applies. Shimeru 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CRUFT and not even the kind that people at least put an effort into. Now how much more of this World of Warcraft crapcruft is left here... MartinDK 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Now this is material which is a clear example of game guide content. Even if there was a page on Warcraft armor, this would be way too much. Mister.Manticore 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Ewen

Stuart Ewen (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Vanity, non-notability? (let's find out) Memmke 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Conflict of interest, something User:Stuartewen has been warned about before he started writing the article. --Lijnema 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a violation of WP:AUTO. Also may be a copyvio from the Hunter College website. Movementarian (Talk) 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hunter College not a copyright violation. Citations will be added. This was posted at the request of many who noted that there was no article on Stuart Ewen and that there should be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartewen (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:00:33 (UTC)
  • Stuart, you do understand why the article has been listed, right? The guidelines on creating an article about yourself are quite clear, and the related articles about original research, verifyability, conflicts of interest, and having a neutral point of view as well. As for the copyright, there's no mention on the article that there is permission from Hunter College to copy the text over here on Wikipedia and change it to being licenced under the GFDL (which you'd really need for a text that has a copyright notice attached, see Wikipedia:Copyrights). --Lijnema 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable as distinguished professor at a major university with numerous scholarly books which are widely reviewed in multiple independent scholary publications. (Note: I absolutely do not get my shorts in a knot if a user with a name similar to a subject edits. The Guideline cited is not an ironclad rule. It means nothing when the subject is inherently notable. I edit Thomas Edison and I am not Thomas Edison. It takes maybe 10 seconds to create a new ID, so why punish authors who are too honest to do that and reward authors who use an anonymous ID, as to create an article about their garage band?) Edison 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is a copyvio of a clearly marked, copyrighted page. That alone makes it eligible for deletion unless the copyright owner (Hunter College) gives permission. It is also written by the subject of the article, which violates WP:AUTO. I am not opposed to an article being written about the professor, but this particular article needs to be deleted. Movementarian (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chainki

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

It's baaaack! Deleted in July by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainki, deleted again in October as repost, here it is again. Content different, but the naming of the founder is a stable feature (vanispamcruftisement?). The last paragraph, a meta-comment stating that it is "already notable" because of its size. Since this was achieved largely through bulk copying from DMOZ, not it's not. No evidence of actually meeting WP:WEB. Started in July 2006, Alexa rank is well over 300,000. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm one of the parties who added details to the article. [Puts up hand sheepishly and admits to having added the founder's name]. Being new here I didn't realise its history, nor that the inclusion of the chap's name is taboo. For future reference, how would I run a search to know if an article has already been deleted? -- MirDoc 10:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it happens all the time. Nothing wrong with adding the guy's name, either, especially if he's notable, but this looks like a vanity namecheck (even if it isn't) because it appears to be the one thing which has existed in all incarnations. You can tell if it's been deleted by looking at the logs, which should be linked from the "no article exists" page. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm to blame for the recent creation of this article which was three sentences long when I submitted it. I'm new to Wikipedia and I didn't realize the content wouldn't be suitable for a new page. I'll read up on the discussion and try to figure out why it isn't appropriate. I also won't try to modify it again. Tut21 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the "half a million pages and 200,000 edits" seem to be inherited directly from Open Directory Project. (I could download an ODP database dump too, that wouldn't make my hard disk notable.) Demiurge 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Open Directory Project to discourage yet another recreation. It should really just be deleted, but it will just be recreated again. Why not just save ourselves the trouble? Movementarian (Talk) 11:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The statement that "notable simply because of its rapid growth" is false -- we need sources for this article and it does not have any, probably because nobody considers it to be worthy of note. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt the earth per nomination. MartinDK 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All references are to itself, which doesn't establish notability. Salt as it has been deleted twice already, once just a month ago. StuffOfInterest 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. As it says Following a long line of other sites using Open Directory Project... - there are thousands of sites that are based on ODP. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michniowski

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

not important politician, i think it is some kind of autobiography, moreover the Polish wiki doesn't contain this article Bielsko 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The Polish wiki does not have an article for him and WP:BIO states that merely being a local politican does not merit inclusion. If deletion is not the result of this discussion, the a redirect to Bielsko-Biała should be considered. Movementarian (Talk) 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article suggests that he's an influential figure in regional energy issues, so if there has been some controversy or major news coverage of that at some point in the past that specifically mentions him, this article might be notable enough for inclusion. In its current state, though, it's deletable. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 11:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although the city over which he provides as deputy mayor is not insignificant, I see no assertion of notability within the article. Viridae^Talk 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Holds an important office in Poland. Should move to Zbigniew Michniowski, however. Westenra 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Holding an important office is IMO not enough for notability. Who were his predecessors? Were they notable? How many people can mention their names? JRSP 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources. Also, why does it have only his last name in the title? Edison 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete A mayor of a city of 200,000 people is by definition notable whether in Poland or the United States, but the deputy mayor? I don't think so. His title as VP of a Euroregion is also not notable - the president of the region may be, but not the vice-president. --Charlene 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blueberry dro

Blueberry dro (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Google search turns up only Urban Dictionary and some web forums-and that's where it belongs, not here. Seraphimblade 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cannabis (drug) or Cannabis sativa. There's no place for articles about specific strains of weed. --Howrealisreal 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnaby Adams

Barnaby Adams (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

From the people who brought you Footbasket and the life story of Theodore Macus comes this charming anon-removed Prod. Once again, we're dealing with a hoax. That Jimmy Barnes appeared on Rove is proven (there was a source provided which tried to show that this entire thing was true, but all it showed was Barnes' appearance), but nothing else is. Given the "facts" being asserted here, one would think that one of the two TV shows would have made a big deal about it, but strangely enough they didn't. As a side-note, since anecdotal evidence doesn't really count, a friend who watches Rove religiously tells me that none of this happened either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete delete delete! And for God's sake block this editor! Can't someone just nuke all of User:Quillandpaper73's articles? Worst hoaxes ever not to forget the army of ridiculous sockpuppets. The best part about this is that now we get to hear the famous "I thought someone would add sources later" argument clearly indicating this persons amazing ability to know things he/she has no idea where came come from. Oh goodie!!!!. Proof of Jimmy Barnes on Rove was added, still trying to find the current Affair link of Barnaby Adams. When I do, I shall link that. Until then, please do not try to delete this article, unless you yourself have searched the Current Affair archives. Now where did we hear that crap before? MartinDK 12:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't we establish last week that this editor is a four headed sockpuppet? MartinDK 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hoax + Obvious = Kill! -- Kicking222 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax - The only "Barnaby Adams" I could find was somebody elected "festival chair" at the Imperial College Union [24]. Or if you're interested in renting a palatial French country home, you can contact Mr. Adams here [25] (looks quite nice, actually) --Oakshade 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and block user. This guy seems to be in the business of creating hoaxes on Wikipedia. --Charlene 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't find any relevant Google hits. For "one of the major promotors of the campaign" he doesn't seem to be very well known. Hut 8.5 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G3 and G5. Decapitate his sockpuppets and make smoking craters out of any other of his edits or articles, while we're at it. This really should've gone straight to speedy as blatant vandalism and intentional disruption, IMHO. Tubezone 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lilian Aya

Lilian Aya (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This used to be an attack page ( poorly sourced statement deleted per WP:BLP, check history and talk page). Without this material, the article is only NN information about a middle rank functionary. No article links there. JRSP 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep she holds an important office in Venezuela. Westenra 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An illegible fax in Spanish is not "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources". A government post might be an unimportant or honorary one. We have no obvious way of knowing that the site is in fact a government site there, since a foreign language Wikipedia might link to www.whitehouse.org or www.theonion.com for humor posing as official looking information. If the person is a high government official, there should be lots of articles in major newspapers of that country. If some of them were in an English language paper of that country (most countries have at least one) so much the better, but we probably could find an editor of English language Wikipedia able to check out foreign languages refs. Edison 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice The main reason that I want this page to be deleted isn't that she's non-noteable, but that the page history exposes wikipedia to liability. The previous versions of this page show a reckless disregard for the truth and are extremely defamatory. They say that she was a member of a Peruvian terrorist group in the 1960s despite the fact that she is not Peruvian and that the group metioned didn't exist in the 1960s. They also say that she was part of some urban guerrilla outfit in Venezuela, but there's no verifiable information that she was. Basically, this page was the definition of libel, and I have no doubt that the Chavez administration would delight in suing Wikipedia. --Descendall 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As it stands she does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:BIO, as merely being a politician does not merit an entry. If one of our spanish speaking Wikipedians can provide more detail, then I'd be happy to change my opinion. Movementarian (Talk) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics in Society (MDST242)

Statistics in Society (MDST242) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete. Individual university are courses are not inherently notable in themselve. This course may have been the longest running course within its university and notably multi-disciplinary but those features aren't especially notable in their own right (although perhaps worthy of briefly being included in the trivia section for Open University. Timrollpickering 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, inherently non-notable. Since it makes some attempt to sound notable, I'm not going to speedy it, but I think WP:SNOW applies here. —Cuiviénen 14:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First, no references to show it is notable or that it existed. Second, why is a "long running course" notable? Should we have article saying that "Torts 1" is the oldest course taught by the Yale Law School, etc for every college in the world? I don't think so. But isf the fact that something is "the oldest course," "the biggest ball of twine," "the smartest parrot" or whatever and there are lots of news articles, TV documentaries, and scholarly articles about it over a long period of time, then by all means create an article, since it is notable. Edison 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. There is an off change that someone may search for this, redirecting preserves GDFL, and it doesn't hurt anything. Movementarian (Talk) 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Kent

There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability, and the content doesn't seem to have anything that meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Also, the picture appears to be a copyvio, from here - [26]. Note that the FHM and The X Factor references are unverified, no sources have been cited. --SunStar Net 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR if we can't get a source for this interview. If we can, delete as a copyvio. yandman 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete fails WP:BIO, does not assert notabilility WP:NOTE, unverified and failed Ghits, ageed image most likely a copyvio from the Geocities website..--Dakota 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article lacks sufficient references. By the way, it says she does the early show at 3 am. The striking picture looks more like she stayed up from the evening before. Does it illustrate her TV appearance? Edison 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The picture was taken for the website in this link and it was from GCap Media, so it's a definite copyvio. As for the TV appearance, that is unverified - no sources have been cited - so it may be a possible hoax (the TV appearance, and the FHM mentions) on the writer's part. --SunStar Net 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armalite (band)

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

Prod was removed, has been previously deleted so now comes to Afd, nn notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, failed Ghits (not to be confused with a gun by the same name ArmaLite) fails Alexa [27]--Dakota 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Draw your attention to paragraph 6, containment of at least one member to go on to join or was once part of notable bands. Two members of band featured in article are current members of extremely influential hardcore bands whose articles stand on WikiPedia: Paint It Black, Atom And His Package and features a past member of groundbreaking hardcore band Kid Dynamite.Mjfraction 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Mjfraction (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, non-notable, and I wonder if their name isn't a trademark violation. yandman 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Note: the trademark does not provide much protection against someone using the same name for a product which cannot be confused with the original: see the case of Ford chewing gum versus Ford Motor Company. Edison 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julius Žėkas

Julius Žėkas (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

NN writer, claimed to have published two poems, but couldn't confirm; even if true... 2 poems is not enough. Seems to be a vanity article; was deleted twice via A7, but as a claimed published author, I think we should decide here. delete. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, yet another student pretending to be notable. yandman 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just barely asserts notability so as to not qualify for speedying via db-bio. -- Kicking222 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Edison 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect I've nominated this article twice for speedy with it passing, and once for speedy with it coming to AFD (this time). I suggest the page should be protected (or considered for protection) after this deletion (its third) since User:Lechaim keeps recreating it with the exact same content. --TM 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philippine television shows

List of Philippine television shows (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

I'm nominating this article for deletion. Here's why:

• Not all the shows are notable enough to be included on the list. Some of the shows enjoyed short runs and, in all likelihood, are no longer remembered by some Filipinos.
• Biased in favor of two channels. Taking a look at the list, it's obvious that this was written by someone who is a Kapuso or a Kapamilya (or a little of both), and then again there are very, very few shows from the other mainstream channels (NBN-4, ABC-5, RPN-9 and IBC-13)
• (Corollary to the previous item) If we have to make a list of all Philippine TV shows from all channels, this list will be too long. Listcruft.
• (Corollary to the last two items) most of the TV shows are/were broadcast in recent times (as early as the 80's). Since this list does not define a specific time window to the shows that can be listed here, it would be logical to include shows that were shown way, way back when the first Philippine TV broadcasts went live...and this means the 1950s. This would make the list even longer.

--- Tito Pao 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because it's highly useful. Though, I believe that it could use improvement. I would like to see it done à la List of American television programs by date which goes back to 1940. --Chris S. 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep remove the foreign shows if you're worried about it being too long, their inclusion is dubious anyway. Notability of individual shows and bias are arguments for cleaning it up, not for deleting it. Demiurge 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You may have problems with the content, in which case you can delete them. It probably should be divided among shows on the major Phillipine Networks, but doing that should happen first, and this page should disambig from there. Mister.Manticore 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Probably a very incomplete list. How long, for example would "List of U.S. television show" be? or same for British, French, etc. Edison 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Bridge Incident

Pink Bridge Incident (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable beyond local areaMiaKarina 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Completely insignificant. -- Kicking222 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: "per nom"? You listed no valid reason. It is a notable incident within Huntington, West Virginia with appropriate citations and an extensive body of text - more than many other articles which are kept on Wikipedia that lack sources. It has also been featured on CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX news, making it quite notable outside of the KYOVA region. If that wasn't the case, it would still fit the bill as would articles concerning the city itself - or else we'd be left with very few articles as most city-related articles do not fall into a broad region but are specific. Would you propose deleting Parks of Huntington, West Virginia or Cityscape of Huntington, West Virginia since it isn't notable outside the local area? Nope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now anyway. Well-referenced artilce on an event that is causing alot of controversy and getting national exposure. People will likely be googling this topic for some time, and this article seems to be a good source for now. If the event dies down in the future, I may be open to a merge into Huntington, West Virginia, Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia, or a future spin-off article on the city. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if inclusion into another would be good if Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia is expanded upon in the future. The page length could become lengthy and the incident isn't wholly related to recreation within the city either. This is considered a 'spin-off' article for the city at current, but it could be directed towards Government as much as Recreation at this point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I was going to reccomend merging it into Ritter Park at some point in the future, but I see you had that deleted, a move with which I mildly disagree. But overall, I am still advocating for a keep here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That was my mistake. I should have moved it instead of deleting when I merged the articles together, but by the time I got to them, most had been deleted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • To add: It was picked up by the Associated Press. That alone makes it notable. See many news articles for verification. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If this article is not deemed encyclopedic material for Wikipedia, then this is not too nor is any other local landmark that gets national attention. It does not conform to one's point of view and the article is backed by a couple of news sources either from television or newspaper. However, I do like someone to go and take a picture of the bridge. Spongefan, 17:38 November 20 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into Huntington, West Virginia. Matter of local interest only. This overly-long article can be much more concisely stated in a brief paragraph in the Huntington article. Agent 86 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • So you are suggesting watering down the article, leaving out the requests for the red/yellow bridges, the Mayor abusing city ordinances and the law, and dumbing it down to a short paragraph onto a page that is already lengthy and will only grow? Let's go ahead and water down thousands of Wikipedia articles because they may be too lengthy or of local interest.
  • Should we be going and deleting Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia since it is local? Or what about all the notable people from Huntington that have entries? Veterans Memorial Fieldhouse and Keith Albee would also fit the bill, along with Buildings at the University of Kentucky, etc. You haven't defined a line and it is vague and insignificant at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Good, concise writing does not equate "dumbing down". "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.": Pascal,1656. Agent 86 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Wikinews Probably does not pass the "100 year" test, but neither deos 90% of Wikipedia articles. At least the editors provided a list of references, so it passes the "in the news right now" test. Edison 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There is no such "100 year" test, or "in the news right now" test. If that was the case, any breaking news such as airline crashes should not be on Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• This page should stay because this article gives great encyclopedic info of a current event going on in the tri-state area. The Punk 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kharaa

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

WP:NOT a game guide or instruction manual, Prod was removed with no reason given. As I said in the prod, any non-manual information can and should be moved to the main Natural Selection article. DarkSaber2k 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k
• Delete per nom. Recury 16:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Natural Selection (computer game), which it's an integral component of. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adequacy.org

Adequacy.org (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB. No real claims of notability, sources. Full of original research. Tagged it and requested sources over 2 weeks ago with no responses. Delete as failing WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Site is notable. Even though the site is down for some time, google still gives a lot of hits. Also links are provided to various sources. Seems to be strongly relate to kuro5hin Sander123 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• All the sources listed in the article are links to the website itself. Wickethewok 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Recury 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notablity. The did have some funny stuff, but a defunct website is unlikely to get more notable, and I don't see that it made enough of a splash. Edison 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is your son a computer hacker? That bit was hilarious! The site gets plenty of hits, but they're almost entirely from weblogs linking to various adequacy.org articles. I can't find anything that meets WP:WEB criterion, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The nominator is correct that the article, as it is currently, violates WP:OR. JGardner 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly we don't have secondary sources to document the facts in this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Forums

Christian Forums (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Forum article with no sources. Some quick Googling doesn't find any either. Requested sources over 2 weeks ago, but no responses. Almost entirely original research and fails WP:WEB. Delete. Wickethewok 15:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I do believe that Christian Forums constitutes a notable topic. It has over 150,000 members and is generally recognized as the largest Christianity-related internet forum in existence (or at the very least, I've yet to see another Christianity-related forum that had as many members or that contested that claim). I also frequently see links to it on other Christian websites. However, I agree that it has serious problems with original research and verifiability (and probably NPOV as well). —Cswrye 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a life. Two weeks is a drop in the bucket. Give it time. CyberAnth 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable, third-party sources are found. Recury 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article does not provide independent sources sufficient to show notablity. Edison 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of fascism

Economics of fascism (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Delete. POV Content fork. All material in this article can and should already be discussed in other articles, like Italian Fascism, Fascism (Fascism and ideology), Corporatism, etc. Intangible 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Another attempt by Intangible to force a minority POV on the rest of Wikipedia.--Cberlet 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The economic aspects of the subjects cited in the nom seem too long to include all the content of this article in those specific articles. There's an enormous amount of sources cited that deal with the specifics of economies and economic techniques in historic fascist societies. Might not be likable, but still important to study. Unlike communism, fascism in itself is not an economic philosophy, but a method of governance, frequently characterized by an "iron fist" method of control of a populace using techniques such as blackshirts in order to gain population submission. This article deals with historic (I hope it gets expanded to more current) economic policies under such a governance. --Oakshade 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article needs a paragraph summary in the article Fascism and then a link to this article. The main article could use a few more subtopics broken out. Why would you take one concise article and try and distribute it over multiple articles: Italian Fascism, Fascism (Fascism and ideology), and Corporatism. Isn't that a step backward? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic topic and has references. Edison 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airborne (band)

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

This article makes no mention of any discography, or if they have released any works. It also makes no mention of the band members. Thus, this article fails WP:BAND. Diez2 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete-per nom. Borjon22 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. There is a difference between article needing expansion and article that should be deleted. See the entry of this band on AllMusicGuide [here]. I would say it's notable enough to keep. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C.B. Burns

C.B. Burns (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A person who played in one game in major league baseball. There are no references, nor articles that link to this page. Somehow i think that having one at bat does not make him notable. Borjon22 16:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Professional baseball player. Westenra 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - meets WP:BIO as an athlete who has played in the top league of his sport. -- Whpq 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major league baseball player, one of a select few with a 1.000 batting average and one at-bat. I added a reference. Edison 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. --Oakshade 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wagerolling (finance)

Wagerolling (finance) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A protological term, 127 Ghits all pointing to a single product offered by a single company. Disguised advertising MNewnham 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Daysleepers

The Daysleepers (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

non notable band Brianyoumans 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Wm. Wildes

Kevin Wm. Wildes (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable. Fails WP:BIO and Notability in academics. Links only to the University page. Eclectek ^{C T}

• Keep I do take offense to this. Schoolwork this week has prevented me from further completing the article, but I assure you I will. As a president of what US News and World Reports considers a top tier school, he certainly passes the "average college professor test". He is very respected in his field on bioethics and has appeared on important shows such as Meet the Press and Larry King Live to give the church's perspective on issues like Terri Schivo and partial birth abortion, his opinions have been featured in the New York Times' op-ed section. Am I not neutral? Have I missed sources? Is your only basis for this that I used information from another article?--Patrickneil 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a personal attack. I have no problem with the sources or neutrality. Simply, the article doesn't meet notability in my opinion. Eclectek ^{C T} 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep University presidents are fairly notable. I added three references from independent publications which talk about him. He also wrote a textbook which is described in the article. Edison 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Wrestling

Danish Wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable wrestling promotion Dsreyn 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sapphire (astral projection writer)

Sapphire (astral projection writer) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article appears to be little more than self-promotion, I have been researching OBE and related areas for many years and have never heard of this individual. His books are no doubt self-published (and I note all this year) and contain characteristic poor grammar. Interestingly, his reviews on Amazon all contain the same poor grammar; I only mention this as the reviews have been cited to backup notability on the article's talk page. Solar 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Worldcat can't find any of these books. You're right: clearly all the Amazon reviews were written by the same person as this article (not a fluent English speaker, it would seem). Fan-1967 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As a writer s/he has not received multiple independent reviews of xyr work. --Charlene 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krista and Tatiana Simms

Krista and Tatiana Simms (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

non notable Buivndsaaas 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanda harrell

Wanda harrell (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A community published poet and author, one book sales ranking lower than 2 million on amazon. MNewnham 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chance to chance

Chance to chance (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Not notable. In fact it doesn't even exist yet, and hasn't been published by the author's own admission. An "Importance to the [sic] Society" section has been added to the bottom since I added the proposed deletion template to the article before (which was then deleted by someone not signed in). However, even if it was a book of tremendous importance to society, it hasn't been published, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone (as far as I know), and I think that is article is merely a the author's attempt at publicity (it appears to be the sole reference to this book on the entire web). Therefore, I suggest deletion.Furby100 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A seventh grader is writing a book (that he started last month) and hopes to publish it someday? Not even close to meeting WP:V or WP:N. -- Fan-1967 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete unpublished works by high schoolers for sure. — brighterorange (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABS Computer Technologies

ABS Computer Technologies (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Blatant advertising from Abscomputers (talk • contribs). I don't see evidence that the company meets WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Should be Speedied This definitely meets the criteria of db-spam. There is no mention of the history of the company, nor of its notability in the world. Also, per nom, it fails WP:CORP. Diez2 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Mitchell (businessman)

Scott Mitchell (businessman) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No independent, reliable sources verify any of the assertions in the article except that Mitchell is the CEO of Think Partnership - which is adequately covered in Think's article. Despite months of editors attempting to make this article worthy of inclusion, appropriate sources for information have not been found. Because of the lack of coverage of Mitchell by independent sources, he does not yet appear to merit an article in Wikipedia. Siobhan Hansa 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I would almost think of this as an ego-boosting self-advertisement. It is not sourced well and there are no independent sources. Authors of this article spammed other articles to link to this one including changing links on the Scott Mitchell footballer page to point to here. Scott Mitchell's son even created a wiki page for himself at one point which was speedily deleted. Even the Think Partnership wiki seems to have been created just to list his name. Does not meet criteria.RedBirdI55 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. I think Forbes is a reliable source who has verified the information. Also, almost all the information was verified in SEC filings. My read of this situation is that RedBird (the name of the mascot for Illinois State University) was offended when someone tried to add Mitchel; and several other CEO's listed on ISU's own noteable alumni business page, to the notable alumni list. He constantly removed Mitchell and all Alumni despite the fact that arean football quarterbacks were left on. I think that this whole thing is quite rediculous. When I look back at the history, I see many reliable sources were removed. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.83.78.67 (talk)
  • Comment. Your "READ" of the situation is wrong and doesn't go with AGF. My reasons for wanting the deletion are stated above. There are others who would like this deleted as well if you look at the discussion of the main article. Once again I think this article is self-promotional and the Think article covers all that is needed. ISU was just one of the many articles that were spammed to promote this one. RedBirdI55 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table (HTML)

Seems more like a guide/howto documentation than an article, the subject seems also a bit to specific for an encyclopedic article, if not deleted, then at least it should be moved to wikibooks or something simlar. _→AzaToth 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to HTML and transwiki to WikiBooks per nom. --Czj 18:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wiki is not an HTML reference manual. -- Whpq 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Knight's Cross recipients: A

List of Knight's Cross recipients: A (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This award seems to have been handed out like candy. Besides, Wikipedia should not be a host for Nazi trivia. Denni ^talk 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a historically notable list. --Czj 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a notable Nazi award handed out during WWII. Google itself has about 3.5 million hits on it. Diez2 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep 128 names in the list for A, times 26 letters in the alphabet = an estimated 3328 recipients overall, which is manageable — compare List of Medal of Honor recipients (3461 recipients). It's not like we're talking about Purple Hearts here. Demiurge 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Scienter 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JR Cigars

JR Cigars (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Contested speedy. Doesn't appear notable. Only assertion is that it's the largest tobacco store in North Carolina. No sources. NawlinWiki 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The article really needs to be expanded, but since the claim is not really verifiable, it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diez2 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. Not notable. Only contested by article creator, who reasonably should be expected to be ignored by the G11 criteria. I would not object to this being speedied and salted. --Improv 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's something significant to say about this store. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with Agent 86's expansion. There's a world of difference between "a large cigar store in Burlington" and "one of the largest wholesalers [of] cigar-related products in the United States". Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is why I'm leery of G11. This company is a major retailer of cigars in the United States. I've expanded and sourced the article, and I believe it now meets the criteria of WP:CORP, among other things. Agent 86 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US)

Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A list of game show episodes isn't needed. Look at the detail of each episode: it just describes what the models wear, guest stars (which is only once in a while), and what the contestant won. Purely fancruft. If we had an article for each season of a long running game show such as Price as Right, Wikipedia would be flooded with useless information such as Bob Barker wore a brown suit and so on. RobJ1981 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Remove excess information if necessary, but a season of this show is notable in its own right, and the season page is preferable to dozens of episode pages. Just because it's a bit crufty doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. --Czj 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The show has regularly ranked in the top twenty U.S. broadcast network shows since its inception and has been widely discussed by reliable sources of all kinds. The material meets any reasonable notability standard. There's no justification for deleting this article while leaving in place many other episode-list articles, often for shows with smaller audiences. Casey Abell 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I mean come on having a list of Star Trek episodes is one thing but a listing of a gameshow. Think about it if you cut out the excess you'd have nothing at all.Deathawk 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 1 vs. 100 episodes

List of 1 vs. 100 episodes (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

An episode guide for a game show isn't needed. Not much room for expansion here. What the contestant won, and a few other notes for each episode isn't much. Make a gameshow Wiki, and put this there (along with all the Deal or No Deal episode lists). RobJ1981 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to know how I, as a Wikipedia reader, can verify any of what this article says about last month's shows. As far as I can tell, this article is unverifiable. The only ways that I can check what the article says about the 2006-10-20 episode are either to burgle some television studio or to power up my handy time machine, it appears. Uncle G 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Can you imagine what 30 years of episodes of The Price Is Right would look like? Besides, shows without a cast, a plot, or guest stars have absolutely no need for episode guides. Caknuck 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Like 30 years of Samoans carrying around Bob Barker while he slowly ages - and his face grows tighter. With respect to this AfD, Delete - with respect to new game shows, one article per show is surely enough. --Charlene 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per Caknuck. - Deathawk 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arpwatch

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

Fails notability, and makes no mention of exactly what Arpwatch actually does. Diez2 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The number 5 in V for Vendetta

The number 5 in V for Vendetta (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Speculative original research and numerology. Not encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to V for Vendetta (film)#The letter V and the number 5, and redirect. --Czj 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is all original research unless sources can be cited that document the connection. -- Whpq 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Whpq. TheRealFennShysa 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as stated by Czj. Movementarian (Talk) 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverend Dan

Reverend Dan (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

1. Created by a single purpose account named "Laradio"
2. DJ whose sole claim to fame is doing the graveyard shift on a jesuit university radio station
3. No mention of either this show or its host on the "LA weekly" site
4. No mention of either this show or its host found on google apart from forums and geocities yandman 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milo Andreas Wagner

Milo Andreas Wagner (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Fixing malformed nomination. Article previously nominated in March 2005, although that may be a different person, I can't tell. User:Gandygatt stated on the original VFD page "Seems again like a vanity page, reasons for deletion same as last time!" No vote by nominator, proceedual nomination -- saberwyn 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability and no sources that satisfy WP:BIO. JGardner 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 45 ghits for "A Swarm of Wasps" + Wagner, and the only pertinent ones were for Amazon, Ebay and the subject's Web site. Nothing in the article asserts subject is any more notable than other young, self-published poets. Caknuck 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rpg-tv

Rpg-tv (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No indication this PA knockoff meets any of our notability guidelines. Contested PROD. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 20 November 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Kahit Wala Ka Na

Kahit Wala Ka Na (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Bump from speedy. Said to be a hoax. Previously deleted via prod. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 19:22Z

• Delete hoax, did not google all that came up was a title for a 1989 film by the same name [29]]--Dakota 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax or not, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JGardner 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Abbott

Tom Abbott (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 19:48Z

• Delete Article doesn't assert notability. Being related to and being trained by notable people doesn't infer notability. Caknuck 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Noboa

Rafael Noboa (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 20:02Z

• Delete - there's no assertion of notability here, or indication that this is anything other than WP:VANITY. --Hyperbole 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Normal Bob Smith

Normal Bob Smith (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith.

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-20 20:06Z

• Note This was recreated from a previously deleted article. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith)-Deathawk 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iskcon survey

Iskcon survey (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Duplicate of International Society for Krishna Consciousness, just formatted differently. Little if any data worth merging. Chopper Dave 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity Economy

Gravity Economy (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This is an original, satirical essay. The only source is a mechanical textbook. Will Beback · † · 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westfield Glenfield

Westfield Glenfield (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article about a New Zealand shopping mall, with no reliable references or indication of notability. Does not pass WP:CORP. Previous attempts at merge were unsuccessful [30]. --Elonka 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judeophobia

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

Neologism, simply a definition, wikipedia is not a dictionary .V. 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to antisemitism and redirect if a source can be produced supporting its origin. Could be of some historical interest, but it doesn't seem the term ever caught on, and I doubt there's much potential for expansion. Shimeru 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacGregor State High School

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

MacGregor State High School

Lack of notability, nothing in this page meets the parameters outlined in WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. Sufficient precedent has been set on this subject for the removal of school articles that do not meet these qualificiations. 'However', find something that sets this school apart enough to deem it notable and I will reverse my position. Trusilver 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Article is better than it originally was, although I still don't think it lives up to notability standards, I'm fairly open to any new information presented. Trusilver 03:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all schools. --Czj 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindless eating

Mindless eating (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This concept of mindless eating has struck a chord with an international public.

In the past 6 weeks, both the New York Times and USA Today have mentioned in in major feature articles. In the past month, 20/20, Good Morning America have featured it. On Sunday 11/19, CBS Weekend will have a feature by Emmy Award-winning Teichner and CBS News with Katie Couric will have a feature on it Monday 11/20.

It has also been the subject of a recent book, "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think," which was #11 on the NYTimes Bestseller list last week. This is also of international resonance: The book has been licensed for publication in Japan, Brazil, Russia, in Hebrew, Danish, and Korean.

Academic references to the topic have been provided in the updated entry. In addition, Mindless Eating is mentioned throughout the two following articles:

"Seduced By Snacks? No, Not You" by Kim Severson New York Times, 10-11-06, pp. D1+. "Just Put Your Mind to It" by Nanci Hellmich USA Today, 10-11-06, p. 5D.

The one in the NYTimes was among the five most emailed articles for the week in which it was published.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jychao (talk • contribs) .

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Redirect options are also available. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Does appear to have attracted some attention, but no indication that that will translate into lasting notability. Additionally, the article as it stands treads close to being an ad. (I do note that the book itself appears noteworthy, but this article is not about the book, but rather the book's underlying concept.) Shimeru 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Irish people

Northern Irish people (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

The "Northern Irish" are not an ethnic group, in that Northern Ireland is populated (in addition to a small number of recent immigrants) with native Irish, the Scots Irish (a/k/a Ulster-Scots)and the Anglo-Irish, all three of whom already have articles. The assertion that the "Northen Irish" are a single "ethnic" group is merely an attempt to advance the political ideology of unionism. Windyjarhead 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and (no) context of article. Cbrown1023 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strictly speaking, qualifies under A3 as a speedy deletion candidate. However, since we're here, redirect at closing bod's discretion to Scots Irish, Ulster-Scots or Anglo-Irish as suggested in nomination. Personally I think the creator of the article was trying to help rather than pushing a POV. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennfield Senior High School

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

Pennfield Senior High School

Lack of notability, does not withstand precedent to delete similar articles that fail to note substantial relevance. Fails to pass either WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no-notable; doesn't even have more than a thousand students... my school even has more than that.... Cbrown1023 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RKO Industries

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

It appears this page is an advertising/spam page for RKO industries--Alex 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or possible speedy G11. Advertising tone, barely if at all notable company. Seraphimblade 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• I understand there is a 5 day period within which to discuss the consideration of deletion. I will make every effort to post my argument for inclusion later today. If not today, I will certainly post by tomorrow a.m. user:Recycledagplastic 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am working on Wikipedia's waste & recycling sections. If you can prove notability and make the article read not as a publicity piece for the company I would support you. In its present format I agree with Seraphimblade as a delete--Alex 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universidad Génesis

Universidad Génesis (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Non-notable online university stub. Created a year ago but never grew past two unsourced sentences. wikipediatrix 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete unnotable and small. Cbrown1023 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Motor Sports

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

This page is entirely composed of false/unverifiable information about a game that is not known to be planned, and was only shown at E3 2006 - one time. The name Wii Motor Sports was stated to only be temporary. The only game composing Wii Motor Sports is said to be this airplane game - but the airplane demo is nowhere to be seen. An old quote in the article taks about how it could be included in Wii Sports, but this has been contradicted since the released product contains no such ariplane demo. Scepia 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a crazy idea: instead of deleting it, edit it. In a addition, put one of them "upcoming events" templates at the top.--The4sword 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. TJ Spyke 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or weak merge with Wii Sports. If we wait a while, we can get a little more information about it. if not, we can merge it with Wii Sports because it also part of the series...SuperSonic 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for now. When Reliable information is available, can always be recreated, but not acceptable now. Fan-1967 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't pronounce on these types of things; we're not Wikinews. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R. J. Julia Booksellers

R. J. Julia Booksellers (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

This article fails notability. The only claim to fame seems to be a list of minor celebrities who are calimed to have visited the store - which is extremely difficult to verify. Qarnos 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia precedent: "Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)." Movementarian (Talk) 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Zancanaro

Brad Zancanaro (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Nominated for AfD by User:Trusilver five days ago but not carried through. Now listing. No obvious assertion of notability, but then I know nothing about the sport in question so possibly can't judge. Therefore I'm soliciting your opinions. No opinion is being stated by me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity Guidance

Gravity Guidance (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Nominated by User:Dddstone but not carried through. Listing now. This article appears to skirt speedy deletion criteria A1, A3 and A7 without hitting any of them. Your opinion is welcome. No opinion is being expressed by me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newscloud

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

Fails WP:WEB, doesn't seem notable. I'm curious what others think on this. --Czj 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Wooldridge

Warren Wooldridge (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

A sliver of asserted notability keeps this linkless and unsourced article from being a speedy delete candidate. Your opinion is sought. I think delete is the right thing to do. You? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. NN individual. --Czj 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laura VanRyn

Laura VanRyn (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Article is an obituary (variant of vanity page) that does not assert encyclopedic notability. Article is also only referenced via a blog page. Bumm13 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Very sad case, but doesn't really belong in this encylopedia. Not notable besides to the ones close to the subject and even her tragic death doesn't show notability. This is a difficult one. --Oakshade 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Weak Delete realizing she was involved in that identity mix-up that made headlines last year. Still, it's hard to see how that warrants an entire article as the story was really about the identity mix-up and not the subject. --Oakshade 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The identity mixup between the severely injured girl and the dead one was in the news for a few days, but wasn't a major or lasting story. Fan-1967 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Barstow School

The Barstow School (edit|talk|history|links|logs) New article which displays no information showing why this school is notable or deserves an article. It seems no different than any other small private school in a suburban area. Wikophile 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] El Dorado Middle School

El Dorado Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ygnacio Valley Elementary School

Ygnacio Valley Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valley View Middle School (Pleasant Hill, California)

Valley View Middle School (Pleasant Hill, California) (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wren Avenue Elementary School

Wren Avenue Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angel David

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

Non-notable actor. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew R Kingston

Andrew R Kingston (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

Notability not established; potential vanity page. Created by user who also added various items to lists referring to short stories by the subject of this article Stumps 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US gang graffiti in Iraq

US gang graffiti in Iraq (edit|talk|history|links|logs)

not encyclopaedic, belongs in wikinews Xorkl000 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PlanetCricket

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

Non notable website about cricket. Claims in article very misleading Leg before Wiki 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Add new AfD section

[edit] AfD footer

This page describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable.

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I.	Put the deletion tag on the article.   Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the page. Please do not mark the edit as minor. Please include in the edit summary the phrase nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the AfD tag is removed by a vandal. Save the page. (If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}. See Template Talk:afdx. This does not include articles that have only had the {{prod}} tag removed.)
II.	Create the article's deletion discussion page.   The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear. Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page). OR Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because ... replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and providing reasons for deletion. Save the page.
III.	Notify users who monitor AfD discussion.   Copy the tag below, and then click  THIS LINK to open the deletion log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert: {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} replacing PageName appropriately; also include the page's name in your edit summary. Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}. (If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

To list multiple related pages for deletion see here.

WikiProject User scripts may have some scripts to streamline these steps.

Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.