Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 21 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache






















































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

The result was Deleted not closed. Viridae 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible hoax. Kallygawy 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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



















































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

The result was Speedy Keep per nom's withdrawal and the absence of any recommendations to delete.. --Hetar 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Zoe at User_talk:Borisvino, the article seems to be simply a copy-and-paste of the website directors list, with listings of all corporate officers and their emails as well, and has no particular explanation of what the association does. –- kungming·2 | 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This version isn't the same as the one I was commenting on on the User's Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
After talking with the author of the article via email, I withdraw this nomination of AfD, and I'll try to bring it up to speed. I think the organization is an excellent one. –- kungming·2 | 04:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why you intend to delete my article. I am confused. It only mentions the basic information about RAMA. Can you, please, help me to follow your rules so I can post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisvino (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Basically, the reason it seems to be up for deletion is because you make no claim of notability or even really describe anything about the organization. It seems that you copied and pasted information straight from the website. If you want your articles to remain on wikipedia, you need to take a look at WP:IA in order to ensure that your articles meet the minimum guidelines that have been agreed upon. Please also read WP:GUIDELINES. I think that this organization is notable, given the number of unique google hits and that it is a major organization for russian speaking physicians in the US. The article should be kept but cleaned up. will381796 03:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And a good start! This is what we should do! Thansk - Williamborg (Bill) 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- Samir धर्म 01:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Contested Prod. High school nonsense. Original version of the article claimed the events happened in 1999, but all the named students were members of last year's varsity football team at Rancho Cotate High School . When removing the Prod notice (which pointed out these kids would have been in grade school), author changed the date to claim the events happened in 2005. The adult named in the article actually googles as a convicted hacker; the rest of it is totally unverifiable from any outside source. Fan-1967 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually the storyline is valid, it occured in December 2005 after the football season had concluded. There are small articles about it in local papers, the boys involvement is obviously not as big as the article portrays it to be. They had a minor role in creating the trojan, google it, there is information about it in various forums.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerb1222 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Knowledge articles must be Verified from Reliable Sources. Forums are not reliable sources, as anyone can post anything. I am also puzzled by your stating "the boys involvement is obviously not as big as the article portrays it to be" when you wrote the article. Are you saying you lied? Fan-1967 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nn person, seems to be a violation of WP:VAIN, only 23 hits on google, mostly retreads of this article Burgwerworldz 00:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nn college club, gets under 500 hits on google, most not about this club, due to the name of the group. See these similar college politics groups for precedents: 1 2 3 Burgwerworldz 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Prod removed without comment by anon. New website. Per the article: "Although there aren't any movies on there now as the crew is still in production, there will be some movies soon." Knowledge is not a crystal ball. No way to know if this website will be notable after it actually has content. Fails WP:WEB now. (Note: Google and alexa come up totally empty for the site.) Fan-1967 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion on basis of non-notability. Contested by creator. Brought to AFD for consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

useless trivia shouldn't be a list on Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobJ1981 (talk • contribs) .

Wasn't correctly listed, now listed correctly. Also voting delete. Lid 00:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Constant updates? You mean one update every (insert amount of months) when the title changes hands? Calaschysm 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment How about once a day? At least from what I can see, the "age" column does not automatically calculate the age, so every day, each one would need an updated to be factually correct. will381796 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: For what it's worth, the age column is the difference between the wrestler's birthdate and the date of his victory. It does not take into account today's date in any way. --Kinu /c 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Noted. will381796 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable science fiction convention. Doesn't supply sources per WP:RS and from the research I did all I found were blogs/photo albums. Crystallina 00:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep all. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Borough councillors and London Assembly members are not inherently notable and there is no evidence of real-world achievements. This is a multi-nomination also for:

Delete all. BlueValour 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete, almost CSD G1, and by overwhelming consensus. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 04:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Inherently POV article, starting with the title. Contains limited invalid facts and a POV listing of titles. This article contributes nothing that Anime doesn't or couldn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anime is the Japenese form of animation. It is very detailed and is much more complicated than the Peanuts or the Boondocks.
In addition, it seems to be mostly written by a bored DBZ fan. --Wafulz 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Undistinguished non-league manager and chairman. Delete. BlueValour 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Snowball kept. This article has a snowball's chance in hell of getting deleted. Also, Will381796 argues the presence of other similar articles acts as a precedent. Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Scratched out because this user had participated in the conversation and decided to keep it. I'll take the close on this one. SynergeticMaggot 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is non-notable. The article makes no claim as to the particular notability of this model of telephone. Many models of telephones are released every year, and a mere list of features and specifications does not mean the subject is sufficient for inclusion —ptk✰fgs 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Keep—there's always room for improvement for the article, and I say that you should keep it instead of delete it. Unless the phone changes are minor, I would keep as there are noticeable changes for the i870 to deserve an article. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep In addition to above, articles are present for many other motorola cell phones. There appears to be a precedent for inclusion. will381796 01:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment you see a "precedent for inclusion". I look at the same filth and I just see a whole lot more AFD's ahead of me. We have to treat them one at a time. —ptk✰fgs 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — Article is well written, explains why the phone is unique, and the subject of the article seems notable to me and has plenty of ghits. 209,000 Dionyseus 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This product isn't notable enough to deserve an article. Its features are tentative and evolutionary and not revolutionary. A crummy article about a non-notable phone could be edited and improved, but then we'd just have good artilce on a crummy phone and some editors who should've spent their time on something more important. -- Mikeblas 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's no reason why not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep—But this opens the door for a lot of similar technical material. That said, it is well enough written that I'm open to letting the autor make a broader case for such material. Afterall, the virtue of Knowledge is that it bravely goes where the Encyclopædia Britannica fears to tread. And if we have editors willing to contribute such material, why not go there? Williamborg (Bill) 04:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Knowledge is not limited like a paper encyclopedia, as such the distinct products (as opposed to variations upon these) of major companies are a great inclusion. For internationally marketed products, it should be possible to aquire english-language reviews from trade/consumer magazines, giving WP:V and WP:RS. The product lines of a major company are themselves notable, too. LinaMishima 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Is there somewhere some of this information can be merged to? I've seen that been done with specific computer models in the past. Wickethewok 13:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowledge is not paper. --Arnzy 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and the presence of a GFDL photo Computerjoe's talk 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Per nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 06:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable and does not adhere to requirements WP:LIVING for biographies for living people. No sources cited and google search yields 19 hits, most of which are duplicated and all of which merely quote the wikipedia article word-for-word. Also, no changes or addition to stub in almost 2 years. will381796 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted as unsalvageable, non-notable, unverifiable material that cannot possibly survive this AfD. - Richardcavell 02:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NN fictional character; page created by similarly-named user. Daniel Case 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally I'm very pro-list, but I can't think of anything about this list that can't be covered in the page for Wausau, Wisconsin or, if absolutely necessary, in a category. Crystallina 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Protologism with no Google hits and not likely to be expandable beyond dicdef even though the phenomenon does exist. But more to the point, I live about 25 miles (40 km) from Poughkeepsie and I've never heard of this. Daniel Case 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

These do not appear to be sufficiently notable models of telephones. They appear to be minor incremental improvements over existing and widespread technology. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of phone specifications. —ptk✰fgs 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional article

  • Nokia Shorty
  • Question Would a merged article of say, all motorola cell phones, all nokia cell phones, etc. be acceptable? While I agree that separate articles are probably a waste of resources, the information probably should be here. If I want to purchase a new phone, it would be nice to be able to just go to wikipedia and look it up. Anyone else in favor of a possible merge? Although, it will probably take a lot of work... will381796 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I have no problem at all with an article discussing the histories of major cell phone technologies, with appropriate examples. I just think it's inappropriate to have so many articles on so many individual phones whose uniqueness appears to exist only as a function of the way the electronics industry works. If individual models are notable, that's fine -- see Motorola International 3200. But Knowledge is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of electronics specifications. Link to phonescoop from the "Cell phone" article and we're all set. —ptk✰fgs 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — Nominator has recently nominated another phone article for the same reason, everyone has opposed his nomation so far. As for the WP:NOT he is quoting, it says nothing about phone spefications. Also, this phone series has even more google hits than the other article he nominated. 560,000 Dionyseus 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let's let the bandwagon effect play itself out without resigning ourselves to it as a form of procedural guidance. Do you have any idea how many hits there are for mremap() in the Linux kernel? And yet we just have the main articles. —ptk✰fgs 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment'. WP:NOT can't possibly enumerate every subject or article series that doesn't belong. Being interested in cleaning up more than one article is similarly irrelevant. -- Mikeblas 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both. This phone isn't in any way revolutionary and therefore isn't notable enough for an article of its own. People interested in Nokia phones can check the Nokia website, their cell provider's website, or any of several cell phone specialty sites and find information that is both more current and more useful. -- Mikeblas 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep—As noted in previous discussion. Williamborg (Bill) 05:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per my comment in previous discussion. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep distinct products of major notable companies are notable in their own right. Internationally released products will hae reviews in trade/consumer magazines for WP:V and WP:RS. Articles needs a "Nokia products" navigation box adding, though. Knowledge need to conform to paper dictionary limitations on notability LinaMishima 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT as cited in nom. Just because the other AfD was closed early as a WP:SNOW case doesn't mean the keep reasons were well argued or compelling. This is an encyclopedia, not consumer reports. We don't need an article on every product under the sun.--Isotope23 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Isotope23. --Bigtop 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep it's verifiable. It's going to be important to someone. Put it here. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't think it's a coincidence that the example in WP:CORP for products that don't need a bazillion separate articles is:
"For instance, if a company has twenty different models of cell phone, and there is little difference between them, then compiling a single article for all of them would help readers in spotting the differences and similarities."
If this ain't cruft, I don't know what is. —ptk✰fgs 20:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply if you can point out to us which model this phone is a variation upon (and hence not a distinct design with truely unique features), and hence show that this article does fit the above, then do so, and votes will be changed. It is also worth remembering that notability is a guideline (albeit a rather useful one), rather than policy LinaMishima 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. The 1600 is almost exactly the same as the 1110; slightly different keyboard, B&W instead of colour screen. Judging by the specs listed in the articles, The 1600 is also similar to the 6030. Dual-band GSM phones, slightly different firmware features; otherwise the same case size (within a millimeter) and same weight (within a few grams). Very similar to the 6010; again, just a slightly different case and a few firmware features. Otherwise, just another dovebar phone. 3310/3315 are nearly the same, too; a few firmware features and dual-band GSM. The firmware features that are different are enabled or disabled to provide some small differentiation for marketing purposes. They don't really mean naything notable about the phone at all -- no research or revolution; just planned obselescence to milk more money out of consumers and put more phoens into landfills.
Indeed, notability is only a guideline, but it's also up to the article to show notability. These articles don't even try. -- Mikeblas 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is no real reason to delete this, the model is plenty notable and if the article is too short it can be temporarily merged into a list of Nokia phone models. RFerreira 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete both per ptk. JChap2007 04:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Both per WP:NOT, nom, and Isotope23 --Targetter 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted - the text of the essay is non-notable spam, vanity and entirely unsuitable for wikipedia. The reason for speedying is that it's a blatant copyright violation. The whole thing is just unsalvageable. - Richardcavell 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That they not include content like this: OR, reads like essay and unlikely to be made into something encyclopedic. Daniel Case 02:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In its present form this may be speedable under g1, but when I prodded it read as a dicdef, and at that, of a neologism, given zero Google hits . Knowledge is not a dictionary, we have guideline against neologisms, and if those don't fit, and this is not nonsense, then it appears to be original research.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — no ghits. neologism. Dionyseus 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above, but I don't think its speedy-able. will381796 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Just from the title it sounds like a neologism. Maybe Urban Dictionary will take it. Daniel Case 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rugged, all-terrain delete (I'm tired of "strong", I suppose). This gibberish is actually rather amusing. Was it perhaps written by Mark V Shaney with a spelling impediment? For surely the writer mentersay "denialisation". Moreover, he/she writes: "Therefore an example of deniasation...." -- Hoary 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, I thought the author might have meant that spelling simply based on the commonality of isation in similarly constructed words. That also Googled with zero results.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Editor is new and contributed several other articles which, although showing signs of unfamiliarity with Knowledge and less than thorough research, were in fact credible material. I'll withhold my position for several days to see if he can come forward with references or a basis for this article. That said, it does look suspiciously like a neologism. Williamborg (Bill) 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment.Comments taken on board this is neologism (as all new words are) for a new phenomenon (post piper alpha and the deregulation of Pressure Integrity regulation)

During a large recent oil spill in the Artic BP blamed corrosion as the root cause. After much International debate on the National association of Corrosion Engineers (USA) NACE Corrosion Network" <nace@nacecorrosionnetwork.com> the true root cause was belived not to be corrosion but short term greed hence Denialasation. If the word is offensive then delete but I am sure that it will be used in the future by Corrosion Engineers for this worrying phenomenon and used in future technical papers. Sorry for the spelling impediment (I agree) I do suffer from dyslexia but try hard to correct mistakes. Not gibberish but I take the point for the move to the urban dictionary, maybe it has to reside there until in common use. Definately Not Denialisation. I will leave the coucil of elders to decide its fate.

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article doesn't say it, but it's the Texas 22nd District -- she's one of the Republicans vying to replace Tom DeLay now that he couldn't get himself thrown off the ballot. It's not at all clear whether she will run or not from what I understand; she's indicated she'd drop out if the party asked her to. In any event she's the equivalent of someone running for a nomination, not the office itself, and we don't do articles about people who aren't candidates in general elections, much less write-ins. Daniel Case 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Not yet notable. will381796 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Irongargoyle 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 02:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are not only articles related to nominees, there are articles related to nominees who are not, and have never been, officeholders. See Tony Trupiano. To eliminate an article about someone who is not only the preferred choice of the Republican Party in that district-at the present moment-but also a well-known elected official from Houston seems to be presumptuous, at best. Ruthfulbarbarity 08:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Google News gives 318 stories under her name - sounds like she has plenty of news coverage, passes WP:BIO, whatever. It'd be nice if someone added some sources. WilyD 13:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I created the article; however, I did not have time to go back and fill in the specifics. I planned on doing it this weekend, but I was called away to family responsibilites. Gibbs is the endorsed canadidate for Tom Delay's former congressional seat. She was endorsed by the Fort Bend County Republican party precinct chairpersons over the weekend. As others have pointed out, this will be one of the most highly watched congressional races in the country in the next two months. Why is she a write-in if she is really the Republican choice? Because Delay won the primary election and then fought a court battle with the Democrats to have his name replaced and another official Republican name added. He fought through the court system and lost. So Delay pulled his name off of the ballot, but it was too late in the election cycle to replace him with an official Republican nominee. So the Fort Bend Republicans, not the only county in the district, met behind closed doors and endorsed Gibbs. Gibbs would qualify for her own Knowledge article simply on her accomplishments so far (prominent doctor, Houston City Council member, etc.). However, the fact that she is the endorsed Republican candidate for Tom Delay's old seat is enough for qualification by itself also. --Getaway 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD --Arnzy 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This will be one of the most watched political dramas of the election season and Gibbs will be a big player in it. Anyone who is interested in who maintains control of Congress after the election is paying attention to this race. Even the legal circumstances that kept her off the ballot between Democratic and Republican interest is notable. (Though I would say more needs to be written about that in the article in an NPOV tone).Agne 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Being a prominent doctor and a city council member is usually not enough for notability unless she meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. The city council members for a city, even as large a city as Houston, are not generally notable. Although, this information should probably be included somewhere. Is there an article on the 2006 Texas Congressional Race? Maybe a bit about her in that article, if it exists, would be sufficient, until she actually wins the election. will381796 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With all due respect, you are mistaken. There are articles on each of the members of the Los Angeles City Council, and over half of the members of the New York City Council. In fact, there should probably be more articles related to the latter legislative body, since Larry Seabrook-a former state senator and well-known congressional candidate who now sits on the City Council-does not have an article devoted to his career. Furthermore, the fact that she is the de facto Republican nominee in what is one of the most volatile congressional races in the country would merit an article in and of itself, regardless of any other notoriety she might have achieved as a prominent member of the city council of the fourth-largest city in the nation. That being said, her record as a city councilwoman would also be sufficient to earn a Knowledge article, per above.Ruthfulbarbarity 22:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As a follow-up the above comment. There are fifty city council members (aldermen) on the Chicago City Council and every single one of them have a Knowledge article about them. Chicago is the third largest city and Houston is the fourth largest city. Also, there is no way all fifty of them should have their own Knowledge article. Please read some of them. For example, I'm sure this person is a good person, but what qualifies this Chicago alderman with a Knowledge article, other than simply being on the Chicago City Council? See John Pope (alderman). Based upon this article, I respectfully disagree that simply being on a city council gets you in Knowledge. Sekula-Gibbs would be the first Houston city council member with her own Knowledge article and there are a couple of others who probably should be covered also, but ALL of the Chicago aldermen?? I don't think so.--Getaway 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep -- per Agne -- Geo Swan 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Re: The write-in issue. While a candidate winning office as a write-in candidate is a rarity, it is not unheard of. See Linda Smith and Strom Thurmond. The number of individuals who have waged notable, competitive write-in candidacies-but who ultimately lost their races-is even larger. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Right - ultimately, the people argue for delete are arguing that she shouldn't be notable, not that she isn't notable, which she obviously is, per 318 google news hits. That kind of argument doesn't conform to WP:NPOV WilyD 00:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As well as repeated articles referencing her participation in this race published in the Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning-News, Washington Post, New York Times, and other major regional and national daily newspapers. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, since the race is still in progress. We can always delete it later if she loses, and until then, it'll be useful. -Hit bull, win steak 02:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - While I might agree in most cases about not including write-ins, very few have the endorsement of the incumbent party, and even fewer have to do with the Tom DeLay saga. Souperman 04:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep She is endorsed by the Republican Party for the election. C56C 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She could possibly win a seat in congress, one that has been safe in the clutches of Tom Delay until just this year. The race is important; so are those running in it. Elicenter 10:17, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Delete - she's a write-in candidate. Rhelmerichs 04:28, 23 August 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment That is not the measure of notability. As has already been pointed out-several times-there have been a handful of write-in candidates who have gone on to win the general election, and even more who have waged extremely competitive, high-profile campaigns. She has the endorsement of large segments of the GOP within her constituency, and is the de facto Republican-endorsed candidate at this moment. Her campaign has earned media coverage in every national daily newspaper, and every major daily within the state of Texas. Also, she is a well-known officeholder within the city of Houston, the fourth-largest city in the nation. She has a prima facie case for inclusion in Knowledge, and the fact that this article was even nominated for deletion-at a time when the prominence of Sekula-Gibbs is only increasing-strikes me as odd. Ruthfulbarbarity 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this race is very notable and will get much national media coverage. --Tdl1060 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sekula-Gibbs is a legitimate contender. The district is one of the most Republican in the country and any Democrat will start out as an underdog. The Republican Party endorsed candidate should be covered through the campaign at the bare minimum.--BballJones 20:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - If large city councilmembers are kept, I would keep hers too - especially since she is vying to fill Delay's seat. WhisperToMe 22:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think she's notable enough. Quite a few google hits. I think it's a valid article. --DanielCD 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If you need evidence of at least national notability, see , , and . -- Seth Ilys 00:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep--However this article is biased in the extreme. This an encyclopedia, not a campaign board. Please just report the facts.Rockhopper10r 02:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Especially at the end, the article contains rampant uncited "facts" and extraordinary speculation. Examples: that the district is "heavily" Republican (could we see a link to an independent site with polling numbers?) and also that the "leans democratic" rating could change (okay, says which political expert?). Other examples exist. The article currently comes across as much more of an editorial rather than encyclopedic content. Support deletion or significant and substantial revision. Revision as of 05:09, 25 August 2006 Ihatenewsreporters (Talk | contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihatenewsreporters (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted - the article is spam, vanity, and is full of marketing for a pornographic comic. Lack of notability makes this speediable. The discussion below does not mention that this is the fourth time this article has been deleted, so I'm protecting it from re-creation. Richardcavell 03:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the List of webcomics grows increasingly larger day by day with superfluous fluff, I haven't been nominating too much due to a lack of spare time. However, I'll make a special note for this one. This furry pornographic webcomic can be seen here. The entire hosting service on which this website is found, furtopia.org has an Alexa rank of 120,000 of which this webcomic attracts approximately 1% of hits. A search for "The Anthroness" brings back 60 Google hits, none of them from a reliable respectable source. Then again, it is furry porn isn't it? The author of the article is a User:The Anthroness. - Hahnchen 02:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom withdrew SynergeticMaggot 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. Also, does not pass the proposed notability test for porn stars. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin close this nomination because the user who submitted the nomination has withdrawn it? will381796 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable, self-published writer with one book, Minnow Trap, to his credit. The claim on his website that 16,000 copies have sold, while unverifiable, is unlikely as the book is not so much as listed on Amazon.ca nor Chapters.Indigo.ca, Curiously, the author's website claims that the book is available through Chapters.Indigo.ca and that other Indigo-owned company Coles. Victoriagirl 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was a lack of consensus. --  Denelson83  21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is little other than completely unreferenced suggestions/advice/instructions on how to save energy while driving, violating the indiscriminate collection of information section of What Knowledge Is Not. This article may have merit on wikibooks. The rationale for deleting this page is almost identical to the rational behind the successful deletion of Consumer energy conservation strategies. Nova SS 03:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, poorly structured non-article on a non-notable. Victoriagirl 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable. His award-winning play Noam Chomsky is an Asshole combined with "Rosen" provides five unique ghits (this article being one). Victoriagirl 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Dicdef for apparent neologism. Returns 55 unique Google hits . Tracing some links, this post at Rootsweb claims coinage . The term has an entry at pseudodictionary and urbandictionary with the same example usages and multiple sites appear to take it from those two. Knowledge is not a dictionary and we have a guideline against Neologisms.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Confused entry that appears to be about one Wallace Gagne - and violates, at the very least, NPOV. Victoriagirl 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-traditional publishing. SARU PRESS INTERNATIONAL, founded in 1980 by the Society for the Advancement of Racial Unity, is an international writers cooperative. We are gradually building a large stock of poetry otherwise out of stock in the United States. Our books are available, for sale or consignment, to bookstores at a 50% discount in most cases. Individual orders can be made at the prices listed. Dlyons493 Talk 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — NN author and poet. I was able to find a paperback version of his Photopoems Of Japan, but from the looks of the sales rank it seems no one has purchased it. Dionyseus 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • In addition, Amazon sells many self-published works, and as such the presence of a work on Amazon is not evidence that it has been put out by a real publisher. — Haeleth Talk 10:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ekajati 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Assertions can't be verified; clearup template ignored for two months; doesn't meet WP:BIO's criterion for notability of a photographer; and an aroma of promotion hangs over this article. -- Hoary 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. I presume some of the content is merged already? - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most major colleges have hundreds of groups and do not need them listed on their pages or especially a separate one. Here is a link to an AFD debate about a similar page for Columbia University 1 Burgwerworldz 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NN Company, SPAM, de-prod twice by Thetoweldepot without explanation. 17 google hits. Irongargoyle 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

hello, well you cannot judge how big the company is by searching google and see how many links the company has I can get a web page generator and get millions of page listed in google but thats not how you judge how big the company is goto msn and see how many pages goto any other search engine and type wholesale barmops and you will see we are no#1 our yearly sales are 5MIL.

So by search engine you cannot judge, if thats how you judge companies than its very unprofessional. Now you are using you are not a company directory well if you search ritz camera you will see they are listed to inyour web site so that means you are listing companies on your web site it just a matter who you like and who you NOT like.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Thetoweldepot"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetoweldepot (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

About a group of posters on an internet forum. Violation of wp:vain, all google hits are just the forum it is based off of. Burgwerworldz 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — NN group. Dionyseus 04:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this piffle. -- Hoary 04:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: 21 internet buddies on a forum, I think, are pretty NN. Plus, the grammar. It buuuurns. --bī-RŌ 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patently not-notable. Not even an assertion of notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tries to assert notability through Knowledge, as in the line Knowledge, let us have our glory --Wafulz 16:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Previously posted as The -Cidal Squad, though I'm altogether too coffeed to check throughoulty whether or not this qualifies as db-repost. I think it still pretty much qualifies as A7. I'm not opposed to having this deletion debate up for a few moments, just to gauge how non-notable this group exactly is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP-why does this matter so much to you guys? It is just a harmless article about a group that made a pretty big impact on a message-forum that is no where near small. I will edit the grammar.--Andy_duke
    • Because we have to subject all articles to the same sort of standards. We regrettably have a some bar of inclusion and in order to keep the encyclopedia maintainable we have to separate wheat from chaff. The article may be "harmless" as in "doesn't need much server resources from Knowledge", but it fails to tell how notable the group is, and doesn't help a lot in regards of verifiability either. If you look around, you'll see that most articles about groups are backed by telling why should we really care about them, and sources that tell exactly why should we really care about them. So, can you back things up with some published sources? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion for a photographer who doesn't meet the photographer-related criterion within WP:BIO. -- Hoary 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an awful article on a subject that really shouldn't have its own article. It's original research and also written in the first person. It's essentially a college term paper. Woohookitty 04:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I speedied this, but the creator is complaining. So I'm listing it here to give him a chance to make his case. Abstain -Doc 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC) This was incomplete as there was a character issue with the é in Zé. Yomangani 23:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the shortcoming? Exactly what makes this insufficient as an article? I am willing to expand it. Keep -User:Ze'Manel

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  04:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I would have to say that an article like this is like me creating an article "John Smith" and then listing all of the people who have the name. Unencyclopedic in nature. Maybe an article on the nickname "Zé" and how it evolved from "José", if there is a verifiable history and if it is a very common nickname. Similar to what was done with the name Bill. will381796 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the non-short form if any of the mentioned people have articles. - Mgm| 09:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't really think that the article justifies deletion. One could be searching for someone known as "Zé Manel" and would find that page. Indeed it's a nickname, but it's a quite common one in Portugal. --Húsönd 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, similar to many disambiguation pages we have (e.g. Mark Stevens), but with a short explanation of the origin of the name. Its not standard or often seen here on Knowledge, but in principle nothing wrong with it (although it could use some cleanup of layout). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article should be turned into a real disambiguation page, i.e. the rather lenghty description of the people should go or be merged into their respective articles (if they have none, just create stubs). Keep but cleanup. Revisit in some time if cleanup is not performed. Punkmorten 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. This is an odd one. The author requested deletion, and per WP:CSD it should be deleted per G7. However, this is a fairly developed article on the author of a clearly notable poem, so per WP:OWN I'm going to disallow a G7. The nom and one of the Delete votes where basically based on "I don't understand what this is." I don't see think there should be any real problem understanding what this is, especially if it were rewritten. It is a rather odd case require a rather unique solution - a bio of multiple persons in one article under their shared name - but makes sense because for notability purposes they are linked to the one poem. Interesting case. A fairly clear Keep in my opinion if one discounts CSD G7, which I have chosen to do. Herostratus 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Is this an attempt at a disambiguation page or what? I don't really understand what this is about. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G7 (See comment by Chooper at the bottom of this discussion). --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 19:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep As per above, I'm not quite sure what this is. But if his sources are from the oxford dictionary of quotations, then these people might actually be notable and might deserve articles. Would need to do more research, though, and the article would need a complete re-write... will381796 05:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — me neither. Dionyseus 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Appears to have been a respected artist, poet and illustrator. See , . Google search is much more effective for him without the middle initial.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Articles on American Literature Appearing in Current Periodicals", in American Literature 1963, p. 123, includes a listing of an item by Gardner, Martin: "When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish", AR, XXII, 332-340 (Fall, 1962), which is described as being 'On "Evolution" by Langdon Smith (1858-1908)'. I can't find the abbreviations, so I have no idea what "AR" stands for, but I guess whoever is willing to rewrite the article may be able to decipher that. (I would have guessed American Review, but it doesn't seem to fit). Frederick L. Gwynn, "The Functional Allusions in Conrad Aiken's Mr. Arcularis", in Twentieth Century Literature 1956, p. 23, briefly discusses a reference to the line "When You Were a Tadpole and I Was a Fish" in the work under discussion. (Both references courtesy of JSTOR.) Google indicates that this line has also been recycled in a song on the Muppet Show at some point. The LOC catalogue has a few hits for Langdon Smith both as author and illustrator. up+l+and 06:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am open to the possibility of this article being deleted. It is admittedly crudely presented and the information must be regarded as unreliable as it clearly conflicts. It is not an attempt at a disambiguation page. It is a start which I will follow through on and which I hope others will support me on. To clarify my intentions for this article, it should become a biography of Langdon Smith, the poet and whatever else he was (sources conflict horribly). He is noteworthy for having written "Evolution," a well-read poem. I've been looking for more information on the man. It seems many people on various internet forums have expressed interest in finding out more about him. For this reason, I feel this article could blossom into something quite valuable. Then again, maybe starting from scratch with more solid information is the best way to go about this, so long as someone does it. I would like to contribute. Chooper 08:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having done further research, it seems clear that this will be a difficult case. Langdon Smith's life does not appear well documented. There are several strong resources I may be able to enlist over the next week to dredge up more information on the man. It may ultimately be best to delete this entry all together, and begin a new one under the little "evolution," which might be appropriately referenced in a disambiguation page for evolution. In any event, interest in the matter is strong, but centered heavily around the poem rather than the man. Therefore, an article under that title may be better. Perhaps this is something some of you may be interested in helping with. Chooper 09:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the life of Langdon Smith is not well documented, as Chooper stated, it seems to me that there should not be a Knowledge article about him due to WP:V. If, however, there is strong interest in his poem, I would not oppose the creation of an article entitled Evolution (poem). --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am away from my campus right now, so I've only had access to internet sources and my own limited literary sources. I will be able to say for sure whether he is well known when i return. For now, lets delete the article, and I'll begin writing a formal entry on the poem. Chooper 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The page for his 5 star matches has recently been deleted (see 1) and by default, this should be removed as well Burgwerworldz 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete as joke article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Convention never existed, people involved never existed. Complete nonsense article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nn wrestling writer, fails WP:BIO. Seems to have most notability for being on WWE television twice, playing a stripper. One time, he was just a background character, the other, he was caned by The Sandman. Gets around 200 hits on google and no member of the WWE creative team (see WWE Roster) has an article other than those who were former mainstream wrestlers. Burgwerworldz 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unnotable political candidate in a municipal election. Never been elected to public office. Nothing really distinguishing about this person. Does not meet criteria for WP:BIO. CindyLooWho 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article created primarily to disparage its subject. All of the subjects in the article are treated exhaustively in other Knowledge articles. The presence of the article cultivates "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" (i.e. connect the dots) behavior, which is prohibited under Knowledge policy regarding no original research. Morton devonshire 05:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep After reading the arguements more and re-reading the article, I'm now of the opinion that the problems of the this article can be fixed, even if that means a huge rewrite. --Wildnox 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge relevant info into George W. Bush. No reason for a separate article. --Tbeatty 06:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not per nom but rather per Tbeatty. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 06:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable enough for an article Æon 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tbeatty, or as a second choice merge into George W. Bush any content that isn't there already. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remember to attribute any merged edits (with a redirect if neccesary). - Mgm| 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because this article will inevitably violate WP:OR, and for that reason only. Batmanand | Talk 10:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. For an emotionally charged subject, the article does a pretty good job of keeping the POV under control. Also, to rebut Tbeatty, the George W. Bush article is already long enough; this was split off to give the subject justice. There is a section concerning public perceptions of George W. Bush in the main page; however, that is somewhat of a rump, and should remain so for those who simply want an overview of the President. As another note, I fail to understand how the subject is not notable enough for Knowledge, as Aeon suggested. Given the obsessive amount of attention given to Bush's poll numbers in the press and how his approval rating may or may not determine control of American politics for years, somewhat independently of actual criticism or support of his policies, the subject has more than exceeded notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainktainer (talk • contribs)
  • As a note concerning original research, the Jesus article tends to attract connect-the-dots behavior for the purpose of advancing a particular position. The solution is not to delete the article but to remove the original research. Captainktainer * Talk 10:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unencyclopaedic Smerus 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and TBeatty, --zero faults 12:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR - I'm not sure what else there is - it is a sourced, encyclopaedic article. Unsourced parts can be excised, but AfD is not the place for that, as at least some parts are well sourced. WilyD 13:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, whatever's worth keeping here has its own article. Gazpacho 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and trim. The only place I've seen the attack language used is WP:CSD#A6, and this is not that. However, the nom makes a good point about the sections about specific incidents being covered in separate articles. I suggest we trim out everything that doesn't have to do with his approval ratings and rename it "public perceptions..." or even "approval ratings of..." That seems like a fair compromise.--Kchase T 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable topic for an article. Gamaliel 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to "Approval ratings of George W. Bush". I think the current scope of "Perception and assessment" is too broad since you could find a quote for any type of sentiment which would nod towards WP:OR-synthesis. However there is worthwhile information in the article that if you tie down to the approval ratings would eliminate the OR concerns. Agne 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article. Of course you may boldly edit out any OR or add verifiable sources for it such as scientific polls.Edison 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Long, detailed, references, and quite frankly, there's too much at Bush's article anyway - merge impossible. Dev920 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — per WilyD. Dionyseus 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Deltabeignet 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's a good idea for an article, and the material is all notable therein. In fact, let's expand and create similar articles for each of the other previous presidents. rootology (T) 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for same reason as WilyD. NTXweather 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a poor concept for a subpage because it requires that most of the information be heavily out of context. Assessment and criticism regarding an event or action should be in the same place as the full discussion of that action, not all the assessment and criticism on one page and all the actual events and actions being criticized on another. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That isn't always possible for a long page. For that matter, while I could see that being an important guideline for a paper encyclopedia, Knowledge is not paper. Context can be aided by having one tab (or window, for those still stuck in the browsing dark ages) open with the main article and one open with the subpage in question. The George W. Bush page is just too long to go merging this in. Captainktainer * Talk 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There's no reason all this content has to be on the main Bush page, but a more reasonable division would be foreign policy/domestic policy/Katrina/the Plame scandal/etc. Then each topic could be covered completely in the relevant article, with its context. The fact is that unless our actual articles on Katrina, the Plame scandal etc. are very poor, all of this material is repeated elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. --musicpvm 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep per others plus I personally find this useful. --Oblivious 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- My suggestion for the article, should it go forward, would be to focus on the "whats" (i.e. what those mainstream media reported perceptions and reported poll numbers are), rather than the "whys" (i.e. piecing together his bad acts to show why he's a bad guy). In that way, we could objectively describe the current "public perception and assessments" as the article is named, and avoid argumentative synthesis. Thoughts? Morton devonshire 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment I agree totally. In it's current state, it's very OR-ish. Agne 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
— Possible single purpose account: 24.237.211.41 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Weak keep - Serves as a main page in a section from article George W. Bush. Needs some major changes, but necessary for now, because article is too long to merge into George W. Bush. Aran|heru|nar 05:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - important topic, even if it may need work. Mar de Sin 16:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above comments. Krakatoa 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep If this article needs to be better sourced and less POV, there are specific templates that can be used precisely for that purpose, and indeed some are. There is a lot of interesting material, it just requires some more work to make it more presentable, sourced and NPOV. Deleting it would be a waste. This article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-Bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter, independently from the POV within the article. Note that this campaign is being done in the name of NPOV, while clearly attacking a specific POV is POV in itself. PizzaMargherita 05:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just another article that is inherently prone to be a POV dump.--MONGO 05:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Captainktainer and others. It needs work, but I think that can be taken care of. —Khoikhoi 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Morton "All of the subjects in the article are treated exhaustively in other Knowledge articles." Good entertainment, unnecessary POV fork. SkeenaR 09:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice against creating a non-inherently POV article with a different title. This is an excellent example of when a POV article implies a POV subject matter. It is simply not possible to document all of the public perception and assessments of a US president. The selection of evidence is not possible to remove POV from, and the article structure itself is inherently OR. MLA 12:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Captainktainer and others. Ekajati 13:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Rmt2m 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Important information, but article as is needs a great deal of work.Hal Raglan 03:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate topic for an Encyclopedia article. Clearly notable (major news articles on this exact subject). Worthy of its own article as there is too much detail to be merged into the main George W. Bush article. Concern about not being possible to document "all" of the public perceptions isn't a valid reason for delete -- as editors we make such inclusion/exclusion decisions regarding all sorts of subjects on WP. If individual citations in the article don't pass WP:V or appear to be WP:OR, then edit those mercilessly. But just because any given citiation (or citations) aren't valid doesn't mean that the entire article should be deleted. Fairsing 05:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nn small festival/competition, gets around 600 google hits Burgwerworldz 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

nn band, possibly violates WP:VAIN. Does not appear to meet any criteria for WP:MUSIC and is not listed on allmusicguide. Burgwerworldz 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Dakota 03:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

nn musician, appears to violate WP:VAIN amd does not meet WP:BIO. Burgwerworldz 06:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Lines like "He is currently putting his degrees to good use as a Mad Scientist in Minneapolis" do not inspire confidence in notability, sorreh. :) May one day be notable, but at 108 Ghits, I don't think that day is today. Luna Santin 06:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Luna Santin. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking evidence of charted hits, multiple non-trivial articles by third parties (student newspapers, eh), and the album lists on Amazon somewhere below 687,000th? Tychocat 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable gathering Avi 06:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per request--Almost every band is redlinked as well, so most bands are not notable. I actually came to this from a speedy delete, and realizing this may be more notable than any individual participant, tagged it for AfD to generate discussion. As that is what AfD is for, I'll have no problem with this being kept is consensus is for that. -- Avi 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While the alexa rank is nonexistent for the festival site, a proper google search (coma montreal electro noise festival) yields 48,600 hits, and 18 of the bands, 11 last year alone, that played have been considered notable enough to have a site on Knowledge, as well as two of the record companies. I'm on the fence on this one, but I'm leaning towards keep. The decision would be a lot easier if statistics on ticket sales were available, but I could not find any. Fopkins | Talk 07:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Fopkins. If they have notable bands present, the gathering itself has to be somewhat notable too. I would like some more detailed explanation from Avi as to his reasoning. - Mgm| 09:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, In my opinion, just because one or two (barely) notable bands play a festival does not make it Woodstock. It may be a necessary condition, but not sufficient. -- Avi 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous comments. --C S (Talk) 09:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand — A requirement in WP:MUSIC for musicians is that they were previously a member of a notable band. Surely it works the other way - if notable bands play at a festival, the festival surely becomes notable. The article does however need expanding, with independant sources and some statistics and further information. Martinp23 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See response to Mgm. -- Avi 14:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a festival known internationally within the genre, and is indeed notable. I can't see any reason why it should be deleted. Twiin 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've made some of the contributions to this festival's entry and can assure non-industrial music fans that C.O.M.A. is indeed notable, but I'd like to point out that this particular genre, industrial music, is not only growing, but participation at several international festivals like this one are one of the ways industrial bands become relevant in Knowledge. Part of the reason some of those bands haven't had their own articles created is because the sheer number of people who listen to this genre (myself included) aren't spending as much time researching and writing those articles. MCalamari 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 13:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. 1ne 23:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The following articles have been relisted for nomination following a deletion review:


The original nomination can be found here (Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Sydney_bus_routes_100-199).

The original information that was said to be duplicated in the old List of bus routes in Sydney has now been deleted from the original page and there is no route information existing on Knowledge for bus routes in Sydney. I vote to Merge this information all into one new page called List of Sydney bus routes. This can be fixed up and historical information added where appropriate. I suggest a Queensland-bus-route style template so the routes can easily be appended to railway station and other attraction pages. (JROBBO 06:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Living in Tokyo, you probably don't understand that some of Sydney's bus routes have historical information that could be added (being former well-patronised tram routes etc). There are also many other articles from Australia and other countries that have lists of bus routes. Sure, individual bus routes or stops would probably not be notable enough to have an individual page, but a list of them should be fine. (JROBBO 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Living in Sydney, you probably don't understand that there is a larger world outside of city boundaries which doesn't have the slightest interest or use for information of purely local -- and a narrowly defined "local", at that -- and trivial detail best served up by the people in charge of it directly to their particular consumers and customers. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand my point - there is a place for having transport information about each city on Knowledge. For some reason, a lot of Americans on WP seem to think that it is their domain. Australian articles and cities are underrepresented. Sydney is one of the world's biggest cities with a complex network of buses, not a country town with a few buses every couple of hours. Why can't we list some of our bus information on WP to demonstrate its coverage? WP is not running out of space - there is plenty of room for lots of articles. There is no need for deletion. (JROBBO 07:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment Do we have notability criteria for transit routes and stops? I've noticed that every BART station in the SF bay area, and some of the muni lines all have articles. Jun-Dai 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It would probably be a good idea to have such a guideline, and would certainly help draw a line between what should be on wikipedia and what shouldn't be, as not everyone has the same interpretation of WP:NOT --Mako 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A silly request. This page will obviously be deleted. Those pages have as much right to be here as any others do. I will just play along until this silly request is thrown in the garbage. Ericsaindon2 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The short answer is per Metropolitan90, but I'll make some points:
  1. The content of these articles is indiscriminate - the only criteria for inclusion seems to be that they once existed. It should be obvious that creating lists of all scheduled mass transit routes that have ever existed anywhere in the world is impractical, and of questionable value, so some sort of notability criteria needs to apply.
  2. If the intention is that the criteria is "routes that currently exist" then there is an issue with these lists simply being a mirror (and WP is not a mirror) of information that is already available at http://www.131500.info
  3. While not usually grounds for (immediate) deletion, not one of the nominated articles contains a single reference. As the articles have presumably been assembled from a primary source (ie bus timetables or 131500) and not simply from the editor's remembered knowledge it is somewhat dissapointing that no effort was made to provide any references.

I'm not against information on bus services per se, but think that the information needs to have some sort of context. They should be something that someone can read and learn something from, and not just dry facts that are about as interesting to read as a bus timetable. -- Mako 08:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Nuke them all!. This is a perfect example of why WP:NOT is important. Anyone looking for the information in these articles should be looking at the primary sources instead of the Knowledge because there the data is much more likely to be up-to-date and free from errors. 11:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The bus routes don't change that much and there are editors who are happy to change them when they do. This is not an argument - it was already refuted in the first AfD nomination. You have not addressed the fact that there is valid historical information for some of these routes. And then there is the precedent that every other Australian capital city with buses has an article in the same manner, as does Hong Kong, London and other places as well, many of which have survived deletion attempts lately. I know there is no "precedent" policy on WP but it does give support to merging or keeping the information. (JROBBO 13:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
If you read my nomination, you would see that there is potential for these articles to be more than that. You have ignored the comment that historical information is available. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
It shows the extent to which bus transport exists in Sydney, and what suburbs are covered by that. As I have also said, some of the routes have historical information. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
I don't mind individual articles on routes that have some historical importance (having historical information isn't enough though, I have historical information on my family but it isn't worth including either). As for the rest of your response: again, what is so encyclopedic about that? Replace 'bus transport' by 'bakeries', 'post offices', 'amateur soccer teams', ... Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is a very good example of a series of articles that therefor shouldn't be on Knowledge. Fram 07:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How is a list of bus routes a copyright violation? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
    • If this list was created by someone else, presumably the bus operator, it is a copyvio. Copyright doesn't distinguish between lists, prose or poetry. Only whether it was copied in full or summarized. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • The bus information in the form listed here is not available from any one web site. 131500.com.au is a transport info site for Sydney - you have to look up each bus individually, and it does not give "via" information that is located on WP. These pages were formed by looking up the bus lines on the web site, looking at the street directory and ascertaining the suburbs in which the bus runs through. There are at least 15 bus operators in Sydney too, so it is not as if it was taken from a single website (as might be the case for an intermodal transport system, which does not exist in Sydney.) (JROBBO 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep. It seems quite evident, from the subcategories of bus transport, that corresponding lists for other areas have existed without objection, and some of them have evolved beyond a similar table format. I don't see a valid reason to delete this. —freak(talk) 19:37, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, as Knowledge is not a list; see Knowledge:What Knowledge is not. --Bigtop 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete all, per nom and WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
But I didn't vote to delete it. WP:NOT does not say anything about this article - what are you talking about? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete Clearly not of encyclopedic interest to have a copy of what is up-to-date onthe website of the bus company here, and rely on someone to update it every time there is a schedule change. Perhaps in some article about that city there could be a mention of what mas transit exists, with a link to the website of the company. Or a link to the city's website would be appropriate, and find transit info there. I would never trust route and schedule info copied to Knowledge. Edison 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The schedule information will be deleted. It's just a list of bus routes. There's nothing wrong with that. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
So there's nothing here that needs to be kept. Thank you for agreeing that this article should be deleted.
Knowledge is not just an American thing. There is notability to having locally-important things on here. That is not an argument. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete all If they aren't worthy of individual articles, they aren't worthy of lists. The contents are for travel guides, which Knowledge is not. GRBerry 01:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Where does it say in the guidelines that lists are not worth including if they are not of individual articles? (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • COMMENT - PLEASE READ - can people please address the issues at hand? I have clearly said that there is historical information available for some of these routes, which would make them notable. I don't have time to add them or research it at the moment, but they exist. There are historical remnants of the old tram routes along some of these bus routes, like old bus shelters and bus-only lanes which were used as tram lines before the trams were torn up. Secondly, this is NOT a timetable or bus schedule. I have said elsewhere that the timetable-like information would be deleted leaving just the bus routes and where they go, which has been established elsewhere as being worth keeping. Sydney is the biggest city in Australia. Why are its bus routes not worth keeping, whereas everywhere else is? Please answer that question and don't just quote WP:NOT all the time. There has been no non-notability established for lists of bus routes. Individual bus stops are not notable, but that is not being debated. (JROBBO 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
    • 1. I don't see how the existence of historical information of some lines translates into a meaningful argument for keeping those lists. 2. WP:NOT doesn't exclude bus timetable or schedules. It excludes directories. And according to the definition of directory (database) it links to, this list falls squarely under that category. ~ trialsanderrors 07:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
1. The historical information has been the way that other such articles have been kept. 2. It's not a directory - it's a list of the bus routes, used to demonstrate coverage of the bus network in Sydney. I have already said this. (JROBBO 07:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
So write an article with the historical information. The list, timetables, etc. should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - If the notability of these routes is based solely on them following old tram routes, then that should be included in Trams in Sydney (as it already is for some routes eg 308 and 309). If the intention is to discuss the areas serviced by buses, then wouldn't that be better as prose within Buses in Sydney? For example something like "Sydney Buses serves the North Shore as far north as Chatswood and East Lindfield, Frenchs Forest and the Northern Beaches. Main routes travel along Military Road and Pittwater Road, and main terminuses are Wynyard and Manly Wharf". To me that seems a lot more elegant, and a lot easier to read and understand than a long list. -- Mako 11:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not just the tram list. The bus routes have a notable history. (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
  • delete all per above. I voted to delete last time. Correct me if I am wrong, but the last vote was carried, and I fail to see why we're having this pointless discussion all over again about a bunch of pointless lists which ought to ∞%*@# well have disappeared by now. I certainly take issue with those who refuse to delete anything at all because by doing so would spoil the completeness and accuracy of the information, or those who want to keep something which they thing someone, somewhere, however remote might have a use for at some stage. Feel free to clutter up your own home, where no-one but yourself will suffer. Don't do it to wiki. Wiki is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. These lists subject to deletion are just completionists' nonsense for completionisms' sake. More up to date and reliable information can be obtained from the transport authority, although it may not be in the exact form "useful" to JROBBO or Ohconfucius. The fact that deletion lives outside Sydney is a red herring. In fact, it tends to impart some objectivity and stop self-centredness. If this merger proposal succeeds, imagine the nightmare to navigate the merged page of over a thousand lines. If anyone cares to produce encyclopaedic pages for certain historical Sydney bus-routes on the par with those which exist for some of the better London pages, I could be convinced to keep as legitimate entries. You could start with a page Historical Sydney bus routes and see how foar you get before multiplying it by several hundred. Stop this last minute appeal before the prisoners go to the gallows. Best pull the trap door, and light up a bonfire right now and add a few gallons of petrol. Ohconfucius 13:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment First of all, Knowledge is not paper, and perhaps while unnotable bus routes may not be deserving of their own articles, some of that information is of relative use. --Arnzy 14:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Being of use is no argument to include something in Knowledge. Look at WP:NOT: many things mentioned there are of use (travel info, genealogical entries, ...) and specifically excluded from Knowledge. Buslines that have a notable history deserve an article, other ones don't. It's basically the same rule that applies to people, hotels, bands, ... Fram 14:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Just because wiki is not paper is not grounds for "all inclusiveness", which these lists clearly are. We've been here before. The fact that the vote was carried last time should be sufficient to close this rapidly. Added that there seems to be only 2 or 3 opposing deletion on grounds which have been well trodden.Ohconfucius 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Why does this one fail then, when so many others pass? What makes Sydney buses less notable than any other city? (JROBBO 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
          • I thinkWP:NBD applies to that. Just because an article is regarded to meet (or not meet) WP's policies and guidelines one day doesn't mean that it will be regarded to meet (or not) the guidelines and policies some other day, when both the article and guidelines may have changed, and when different people are interpreting the situation. It's also worth noting that not all similar articles have survived afd, for example Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight Numbers. That's why we need an unambiguous policy regarding these type of articles (I know I should get it started myself). --Mako 05:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all, as recommended by nom. Such tables of bus routes on Knowledge, while not the most exciting of articles, do serve several important purposes. Such tables provide a place for the history of such routes to be placed, such hisotries which can be quite intriguing and usually not readily found on the bus company's web site. Furthermore, placing the bus routes in a centralized article deters the creation of stubs about individual routes. Finally, unlike these articles, I doubt the website of the transport authority is unlikely to be able to provide hyperlinks to articles on the neighborhoods in which the routes terminate or any comprehensive history, both of which Knowledge can provide.-- danntm C 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Knowledge should not become a collection of information on bus routes. Cedars 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article List of Sydney bus routes: I recommended to keep List of Melbourne tram routes, which is slightly, and I mean just slightly, more useful than these lists because it does include some history of these tram routes. Granted, I recommended to delete the Sydney bus routes, and given my subsequent decision on the Melbourne routes, I'm certainly willing to reconsider. There's much talk in this AfD about potential for improvement and historical info - but there's no action! I've seen AfDs completely change direction after article improvement rather than just saying "someone could add some history or notable info, but I don't have time". Even a tag or mention on the talk page of improvement promise may help save these articles (although the odds are fairly stacked against them). --Canley 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Failing that, merge them all into one article. --Alexxx1 00:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete plain and simple after reading the above and look at a few articles. This could very well exist in a travel wiki without any objections. Problem here is that this is an encylopedia. Vegaswikian 22:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (see similar London bus routes AfD voting). WP is not bus company website and has no resources or mission to keep this kind of information uptodate. Pavel Vozenilek 19:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Subject is non-notable and does not meet the standards of WP:BIO. SteveHopson 06:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus to delete the article. Just move and overwrite the copyvio version. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Talk:Joy English School/Temp.

public relations piece designed to promote a company Also see WP:CORP Wenzi 06:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. First Ghit is for wikipedia and the next few are job ads. Fails WP:CORP miserably. --Daniel Olsen 07:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nomination but am unhappy about Daniel Olsen's objection. If it's even half true that Joy school currently has approximately 10,000 students enrolled in various classes throughout Taiwan and China (as claimed by the article), then the company may well deserve an article. However, the article would be so unlike the existing one that the existing article can safely be scrapped. I'm unperturbed by the sheer lack of nature of the top "Ghits"; I'd expect the company to be discussed in Chinese, and of course in hanzi rather than roman script. Unfortunately I have trouble manipulating hanzi and I can't read Chinese. A disinterested speaker of Chinese may later wish to create a neutral article about this outfit. -- Hoary 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .... revised (see below) 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Daniel Olsen made no mention of the number of hits. It is you who are arguing based upon counting hits. Daniel Olsen's argument was based upon what the located web pages actually contained. Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading the web pages the Google locates is; and it appears that Daniel Olsen has been doing exactly that. Uncle G 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, good point. I was sleepy. But my larger point is, I think, intact. If this is an English-teaching company in Chinese-speaking nations, I see no particular reason why it should be described in roman script other than for potential teachers and among potential, actual, and ex teachers. It's not at all surprising that the top hits are job offers. I'm not knocking D.O.'s research, merely questioning the significance of his findings. And again, this does nothing to change my view that the article itself is horrible (quite aside from any copyright issues). -- Hoary 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup — The "Joy English School" deserves a place on Knowledge, just as many other schools have. The problem with this article is its tone - as noted by the nom, it reads like an advertisement - therefore I would reccommend the cleanup (perhaps rewrite) of the article to portray the group more as a school and less as a corporation. Also, independant, verifiable sources are needed drastically for the article to on wikipedia. I'm in the middle with my decision on this article, but as it is an article about a school - and the way it is written has probably contributed hugely to this AfD (the tone is like an advertisement), I'm leaning towards keep - with a huge cleanup. It's badly written, but the subject deserves a place on WP. Martinp23 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio: delete ASAP.
    Cleanup is too risky: too much of the text is copy-pasted from the Joy English School website. For example, compare the opening paragraph with this page, and the text under "Teachers", beginning with "In developing and writing the textbooks and other materials used within the schools", with this page. Every page of the Joy English School website bears an explicit copyright notice and "all rights reserved" statement. It is therefore illegal to keep this article. We must delete it, as quickly as possible, to avoid legal liability.
    Naturally, this would not prevent someone replacing it with an original article, if that could be done within the requirements of WP:V and so forth. — Haeleth Talk 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - copyvio pages should not be deleted through AfD - rather through Knowledge:Copyright problems. From WP:COPY:
      If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.
      If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Knowledge:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.
    • See also Knowledge:Copyright_problems#Instructions for instructions on marking copy-violations. Martinp23 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stubify. On the face of it this school is perfectly notable. Once the copyvio process has cleaned it out it should be stubified so it can be redeveloped from scratch. BlueValour 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup — There are many schools that have Knowledge articles, and so an article about a school might not necessarily mean it's a public relations piece, and can be notable. However, all the school articles are written from scratch and not copies of the school's website, and this article must follow the same rules. I suggest notifying the creator about Knowledge policy and informing him on how to edit pages (I volunteer for this task if the article is not deleted). –- kungming·2 | 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Blue Valour and the arguments listed at User:Silensor/Schools. I will lend a hand with obviating the copyvio issue by working on a new article. Silensor 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • At least three of those arguments are fundamentally wrong, being based upon erroneous perceptions of why we include or exclude other articles and an erroneous conflation of notability with personal importance to Knowledge editors. We don't exclude or include articles based upon how important they are to individual Knowledge editors. The WP:SCHOOL criteria, and many of our other notability criteria, are based solidly upon sources. Uncle G 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As copyright violation, the old text has to go via that route. The current draft at the temp page does not look promising. Claims that the school was founded in 1981 yet is one of the oldest schools on the island of Taiwan. Umm, where did people go to school 1) prior to the separation from mainland China and 2) in the two generations between that separation and 1981? Doesn't pass the sniff test for truthfulness. GRBerry 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course, but you are overlooking a small yet important distinction. It doesn't say it is the oldest school, it says it is the oldest English school. Silensor 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Uncle G. The text needs to go because it does not satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:SCHOOL. Copyvio or not, the text needs to be replaced. Also, how can it be verified that it is the oldest "English" school ? wenzi 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No one is arguing that the old copyvio text should not be removed. What this article needs is some additional outside sources. That shouldn't be too difficult to locate for a school franchise with more than 212 locations, although it would be helpful if someone fluent in Chinese would assist with that. Silensor 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is an interesting article which appeared in the Taipei Times: Silensor 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cedars 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 23:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this has no basis in anything. The first results in Google for "tooth fairy rule," aside from copies of this article, indicate that this concept doesn't exist except as nonce. The examples include:

  • As she sets off to retrieve her first tooth she knows that the most important tooth fairy rule is to never waken a sleeping child in the process.
  • ...we have a rule in our house that tooth fairy money cannot be spent on sweets - its the tooth fairy's rule!! My children get a pound but...
  • The Tooth Fairy Rule The child in the family always witnesses the supernatural events in a movie first and knows what's going on, but any attempts to tell the grownups will fall on deaf ears.

In searching Google groups, there does seem to be a concept remotely related to the one described in the article, but both of them appear to be nonce, or something close to it:

  • He notes that people such as Hapgood and Gallex have done similar work, but "violated the one rule that astrophysicist Richard McCray calls the 'tooth fairy' rule, which states that a credible theory can invoke a mysterious unknown agent ('tooth-fairy') once, but only once. The above-mentioined authors' works contained a number of 'tooth-faries'. As to his own tooth-fairy, and the says "The only unknown agent will be the postulate of transfer of Eskimo geographical information to Europe via Norsemen... I endeavor to supply a plausible basis for every other implication of a given interpetation".
  • Larry Niven is generally considered a "hard science fiction" writer. His knowledge of science is good, he always makes an effort to make his stories realistic, and generally sticks to "one tooth fairy rule" - a SF story may break one law of physics, but only one.

Interesting as it is, neither of these sound like general-usage concepts, and I can't find anything closer than that. Jun-Dai 06:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The assertions in this article on a photographer of underage cheesecake are hard to verify independently, and he doesn't seem to meet the photographer-related criterion of WP:BIO. -- Hoary 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

comment - Well, he has all of these books published in Japan: here
And he gets mention in a few places on the Japanese Knowledge. Jun-Dai 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Response. I hope you don't mind my slight reformatting of your comment. The former claim: As you may know, books of cheesecake photos (gurabia) come out in Japan very rapidly. There are so many that even the illustrious folk who dutifully write up articles for guraidoru (bikini models) usually don't bother to list them, but there is a list for the pneumatic Hanai Miri. Note how many books of photos of her there have been in just three years. This list is complete with the "Romanji title" of each, but the photographer isn't mentioned, probably because very few people care. Some of these photographers — e.g. Sawatari Hajime and of course Shinoyama Kishin — are of course known, and perhaps justly so. (I've seen excellent, non-cheesecake stuff by Shinoyama.) But the mere fact that Ishikawa has churned out the photos for a number of examples of this dubious species of photobook doesn't impress me at all. -- Hoary 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ..... slightly rephrased 08:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Hoary. I was going to say No Vote until an expert or a japanese speaker came along, but Hoary beat me to it. --Daniel Olsen 07:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations are produced to show notability meeting WP:BIO. The article names his "most famous" work: great, now all we need is some solid, reliable evidence that this work actually is notable in its field, and that he is widely known in the field as the photographer for it, and we can keep this article! — Haeleth Talk 10:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I thought it is interesting because his models are mostly western and from Belgium. In the Belgian context that is quite interesting. Highly disputed on eBay as well. A Sophie book goes easily at 500 USD. Hektor 10:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. SteveHopson 13:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are a few references: , "well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa" - On eBay I found the following sentence : "This is an extremely rare FIRST EDITION Near Mint Conditioned JAPAN PHOTOGRAPHY BOOK from the famous photographer YOJI ISHIKAWA book entitled " MON AME "" You may not like what he does, like you may not like Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Irina Ionesco or Jacques Bourboulon, but you cannot honestly say he is not notable. Collectors are fighting to death for his Belgian books of the eighties.Hektor 14:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: please don't quote Fleabay descriptions such as "extremely rare" or "famous". Even via Abebooks, which normally is considerably more civilized, there's at least one US dealer of east Asian books, a member of various serious-sounding organizations, who systematically describes every single book as "rare", "scarce", etc. I never even glance at Fleabay for books, but for cameras, even the Zorki-4 is routinely "rare". But yes, some people are paying lots of money for some of Ishikawa's books. Is this because of their perceived photographic value, or their titillatory (or other) value? As for the comparisons, offhand I'm not familiar with the latter pair, but I am hazily familiar with the Sturges and Mann. They're published (other than by publishers of gurabia, they're discussed, and they're exhibited. And Ishikawa? -- Hoary 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • And the other quotes ? you answer only to the Ebay one. We have here a verifiable non-Ebay Internet quote by Violeta Gomez, a notable photograph by your benchmark, since she has done exhibitions and been discussed, which says "well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa" . So should we delete Ionesco too ?Hektor 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Your first (Geocities) link lists various photographers and "the Belgian anonymous unpubescent girls who Yoji Ishikawa photographed twenty years ago" as coming to the mind of the writer (Soren Peñalver, a new name to me) as he views photos by Violeta Gomez (another new name to me). That's all that Peñalver says about Ishikawa. Your second one, by Violeta Gomez, says "the judge confiscated all the photographs and ordered a raid at my house seizing all my prints and negatives, the exhibitions' leaflets, as well as my literary works, videotapes and some art books by well-known photographers such as Irina Ionescu or Yoji Ishikawa." That's all that Gomez says about him. You make the notability of Gomez an issue. It's not fair to judge her merits by the single, Hallmarky photo on display at that second link, but "Violeta Gomez" (of course any "Violeta Gomez") gets just over a thousand Google hits, so she too hardly seems to be all that much discussed. And as for the question of whether to delete Ionesco too, let's stick to the issue at hand: Ishikawa. -- Hoary 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (minor revisions 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep - as notable. STYoto 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: STYoto (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. The fact he has books published is not automatic notability, since there is no indication the books are themselves notable per WP:BK (none have been adapted as textbooks, adopted as a major motion picture, been a best-seller, etc.) I might note to other editors the fact his models come from one country or another does not meet WP:NOT in any case, nor does the bald claim the subject is notable make it so. Contributor is an anonymous IP with an odd, if lengthy, history - every article before and after this one is about the French. Tychocat 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What is this strange way of reasoning that the notability depends from the background of the contributors ? I don't get it ? What about the about the French thing ? Hektor 06:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Did I say that notability depends on the background of the contributors? I didn't, and I'm not sure I understand what you're asking either. I refer to policy regarding WP:BK and WP:BIO in specific. I don't know what's up with the "French" thing - I won't speculate, but you can verify that on the contributor's user history. Tychocat 09:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Your line of argument looked strange to me. Contributors about the French are suspect ? Hektor 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Only to a far-right American politician or talk-show host, I think. Contributions about the French are fine. (Or anyway, I hope they are, because I make them.) But actually I've lost sight of who it is that you're both talking about. Not Ishikawa, I think; so let's stick to the issue: whether or not this article should be retained. -- Hoary 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, let me be more explicit. I think it should stay because it is an interesting footnote in the (awful) history of paedophilia in Belgium. I have found very interesting that this is a pre-Dutroux affair thing (I think that his 'collectible' body of work dates back from the early eighties), but when you look at the work he has done in Europe, it is always pictures of Belgian girls taken in bourgeois houses of Belgium, or in the case of Sophie, of Spanish holiday getaways. Why Belgian ? Is there something specific about Belgium ? Hektor 20:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I really don't know. But is it really a footnote in this history? If so, I'd expect to read this; however, Ishikawa is not mentioned in Marc Dutroux, or in the articles about him in the languages of Belgium: (fr:) Affaire Dutroux, or (wa:) Afwaire Dutroux, or (nl:) Zaak-Dutroux. Indeed, Ishikawa is mentioned nowhere in French, Wallon, Dutch or Japanese Knowledge. And even within en-Knowledge, his significance to photography, paedophilia, etc etc is so great that not a single article other than a disambig page and a list links to the article about him. -- Hoary 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoary makes a good argument. Not everyone who publishes a book or even many books is notable. Would need some more verification that this this guy is in some way not just another cheescake peddlar. Herostratus 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • So delete first and verify afterwards ? Hektor 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • That's right. Nobody can prove that somebody is not noteworthy. There's always a possibility that that person is noteworthy, and that evidence for this hasn't yet surfaced. It's for the advocates of the article to come up with evidence that the person is indeed noteworthy. If that evidence comes after the article is deleted, a superior replacement article can then be created. Simple re-creation of a deleted article is of course grounds for speedy deletion; but if this article is deleted because of a lack of evidence that (i) Ishikawa has published books notable for his contribution to them, (ii) Ishikawa's work is more than minimally discussed, or (iii) Ishikawa has had no substantial solo exhibitions of his work, and if somebody later creates an article presenting plausible evidence that one or more of (i)–(iii) is mistaken, then that new article can be written accordingly and won't be speedied. In the meantime, you may wish to make a copy of the article, and also of Image:Petites_fées.jpg (which is not used anywhere else in en-WP). -- Hoary 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The article can be re-created at any me IF it is substanially different from the existing article -- which it would be if it contained references and citations showing that this is actually notable. Herostratus 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotional advertisement for the website. Does not meet WP:WEB and has an Alexa rank of 672,216. --Hetar 07:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A photographer who may well go far but for the time being seems more notable for her pedigree than for her own achievements. Or that's what the article seems to suggest, and WP:NOT#the Social Register of_pop_music — oh, sorry, I made that one up. A claim that she's "renowned" was flagged four months ago with a CITENEEDED tag, which remains there, unanswered. No published books, just one minor solo exhibition (according to her website). Does not meet the photographer criterion of WP:BIO. And there's a hint of puffery about the article, pointing out that she's "talented": or do editors expect that untalented photographers too deserve articles here? -- Hoary 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete per the previously cited precedent as well as this discussion. (ESkog) 20:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. There is no way this list could be kept up to date. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Slam Champion was a WWE invention so this is just speculation and original research. No pages link to it due to the fact such a title has never existed and means there is no loss if its gone. Lid 07:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was DELETE. ChrisO 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling promotion with no assertion with notability and seems like an advertisement for the promotion. Also nominated are the related sub-pages:

Several wrestling promotions are listed in Knowledge. PWU has hosted matches unique to the pro wrestling industry & uses many names recognizable throughout the world & currently has more attendance than any promotion currently in the region. PSPhenom 03:19, 22 August 2006

Yes several other promotions are, and those have ascertained notability to their subjects. Your claim it has more attendence is flawed considering Combat Zone Wrestling does the most shows out of the ECW arena as well as being one of the top independent promotions in America. If you can provide evidence that it's name itself is known throughout the world and not simply the wrestlers in it then it will attain notability. --- Lid 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Except you forget that it's PWU running the most shows out of the Arena currently, as well as multiple other venues. CZW WAS one of the top. Now they hardly rank. They draw 150 people where PWU draws 500 SOLID every time they run, even before they were in the arena. --- unsigned 10:52 pm, 22 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.68.105 (talk • contribs)
Can I see a source on these claims? Also considering the recent ROH vs CZW invasion angle it's pretty hard to argue CZW has disappeared. In fact it plain doesn't make sense. --- Lid 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

PWU was featured in Mexican wrestling press because of their working relationship with the native promotion XLAW. PWU also was featured in overseas press when they recently ran a show featuring Japan's Dragon's Gate wrestlers. Most recently they hosted a rare stateside appearence of Hayabusa and several Japanese fans attended as well as Japanese press. They are also worth noting because of their Crazy 10 match which was a first in Pro Wrestling history, not an easy thing to do. The Crazy 10 match featured 10 men, a steel cage arena, rope swings and more. This year's version featured even more elements like chain ladders, tables and ladders. -Asher Katz. 8.22.06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.235.130 (talk • contribs)

Verify these claims with reliable sources. Claiming that "X wrestler appeared for PWU and PWU is more popular than promotion Y" is pretty empty if you can't back it up. –NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 05:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)
  • Keep all except CRAZY 8; Delete CRAZY 8 - my views on wrestling as a 'sport' are quite unprintable. However, whatever its merits, it does seem to be very popular. These articles are mostly factual and verifiable. Also, there is reasonable coverage in the wrestling press. I think that a consultation on these wrestling promotions to determine some notability criteria would be a good idea. Pending that, I see no particular reason to delete except CRAZY 8 which has little encyclopaedic material. BlueValour 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All per nom. -- bulletproof 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy userfy. -- RHaworth 08:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

An elected official from a small county (1665 population) is not noteworthy. Furthermore, the author is the subject himself and hence the article is a vanity --GringoInChile 08:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. —Mets501 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This station apparently doesn't exist. There's no listing for the call sign at the FCC database. I found this page searching for the call letters, but that links to which isn't responsive, and according to WHOIS, isn't owned; that it's in REDEMPTIONPERIOD since July 6, 2006. The article was created blank, got an Infobox, an expand tag, my link to the FMQ template, and nothing else has happened. Since I can't confirm it exists, it's either not notable, defunct, or a hoax. Mikeblas 08:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as per A1 and A3 --- Lid 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm trying to imagine how maybe some misunderstanding led to this situation, but the lack of an FCC entry is a very definitive indicator in my experience. Snacky 14:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm figuring the station existed at one time, but has shut down. I can't figure out a way to query the FCC database (interactively) for old licences, and haven't been able to find a news story about it. -- Mikeblas 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. See a source that lists the existence of the station. There are other sources. If the station existed, then going out of business is not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian 22:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'd be all for keeping it if it had an interesting history or was particularly notable before it went off the air. But I can't find any reference that gives a history, or indicates the station had a notable past. A vote to keep an empty article that won't grow is a vote to defer the inevitable. -- Mikeblas 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Was tagged as speedy without a reason, but can guess what it was. Filled with POV, mostly to disparage something or someone. Most of it has been covered elsewhere. Delete. - Mgm| 09:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Deleted by User:Kusma as a hoax. BryanG 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability is not established, probable hoax, unverified information -anyone got any reliable sources?? Kallygawy 09:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result wasHoax and obvious nonsense; speedied. -- Hoary 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable hoax, unverified. Kallygawy 09:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An entire article about a single Japanese interjection. This really does exist, although the first half of the explanation given for it in the article now is bizarre (or plain wrong). However, Knowledge is not a Japanese–English phrasal dictionary, no matter how quaint the phrases. Although we're told that "The phrase was arguably made famous in English", its fame has eluded the editors of the English dictionaries at my disposal — and anyway, Knowledge isn't a dictionary. I don't recommend transwikiing, at least until it's clear that the phrase is used in English (other than merely among devotees of Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater). Instead, I recommend simple deletion. -- Hoary 09:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep not really a dicdef so much as an interesting cultural peculiarity. Here is another article on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a very strange article. It appears to have been created purely as a vehicle for a snippet of banal MGS-cruft trivia.
    If it is kept, the trivia needs to go; despite the weaselling "arguably", the phrase is not famous in English in the slightest, as witness fewer than 1000 ghits in English, and while I feel sorry for poor Volgin being struck by lightning, I really don't think references as obscure as that have any place in a general-audience encyclopedia.
    It also urgently needs a citation that supports the claim that it's "often used in Japan when something is felt to be 'out of place' or 'not right'", since the sources I can find only support the lightning-charm usage; and to be perfectly honest I've never encountered it in any context whatsoever, suggesting that even the "often" is dubious, though it's quite plausible that I just read the wrong books. — Haeleth Talk 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - encyclopaedic content, not a dicdef, referenced - I'm not sure there's anything else to require? Since interjections can still be noteworthy as fuck. WilyD 13:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Perfectly relevant article, there are a lot less relevant ones on this site, keep it. The Haunted Angel 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge to Superstition as only the most significant superstitions get individual articles, or delete entirely as a non-notable phrase, especially in English. (Does the Japanese wikipedia already have an article on this? If not, we shouldn't. If so, we probably still shouldn't. GRBerry 01:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A6. Kusma (討論) 09:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability not established, WP:BLP, could be a hoax, anyhow needs verification. Kallygawy 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

delete per WP:VAIN and WP:VAIN. Vanity project for a person who may not be of sufficient stature for wiki entry. The subject started his own recording label to bring Armenian music to America. The label currently has 9 album catalogue. He is also a review writer for Global Rhythm Magazine. Ohconfucius 09:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Userifyed and deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 09:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic Arktos 10:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Userfied at creator's request- can be closed I think--Arktos 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A non-notable small company that produces podcasts. Some of its podcasts appear to be well-known, but I don't see that the company meets the guidelines of Knowledge:Notability (companies and corporations). I tagged the article a month ago, and its editors haven't asserted notability. Google hits don't seem to include independent sources of any quality. Mereda 10:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I think energy would be better spent editing the individual podcasts that have proven popular enough. This article adds little that isn't already directly addressed on the Farpoint Media homepage. An external link on the podcast pages should be adequate at this time. Ultimate ed 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. (1) Counting the nominator, and discounting puppets, the raw count is 4-2 Delete. (2) The strength of argument clearly favors Delete, in my opinion. The guy is certainly not notable as an academic, at least going by the article, and his activisim doesn't appear to reach the threshold of notability. Herostratus 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page of junior academic (Assistant Prof is usually the bottom rung). No indication whatsoever of notability as an academic, as his research (if any) is not even mentioned. Thinks Knowledge is his soapbox for some beef he has with the courts, along with Richard Albrecht, whom I have also nominated. Watch out for crude attempts at voting vandalism by anon sockpuppets---just happened on Albrecht. Leibniz 10:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Beware of pickpockets, tricksters, and academic swindlers, whether they may have got a Ph.D. or not, name themselves today Leibniz or Keks ]], tomorrow Nietzsche or Bahlsen. Moreover, please, look at ], ], and tell me whether this man should be a representative of the en-wikipedia-community any longer, or not; su, ma.beauty1atgmx.net 80.136.127.41 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Commentary There´s a very deletion-specialist self-naming “Leibniz” like that Good Old German Philosopher;-): please, do stop this chap: he´s a potential runners amok. -M. Falke, 060823
* That establishes he is some random guy who likes to sue a lot. Not notable. Leibniz 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vain minor academic on the hunt for kostenlos self-promotion. Pathlessdesert 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Can be evaluated and completed, taking esp. into account his civil right activities: freedom of information, patient right, fighting against any remake of German “Berufsverbot(e)”. - Nominator´s again speedy Leibniz - monkey business noising round for sock- and meatpuppets: three cheers for this chap – true believer ? prevented censor ? demiurgue of hazardous waste ? -, and lot of cigars, dollars, dreams, and dollies … M. Eser, Aug. 22, 2006— Possible single purpose account: 80.136.121.85 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep Keim, Delete Leibnítz - the only way to cut the Gordian knot. M.Falke — Possible single purpose account: 80.136.78.206 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Article is more expansive than the German one , it ought to be the otherway around, but that would make this a sub-stub. I'd need to see two independent reliable sources that I can read to establish notability in my eyes. Instead we see one source in a foreign language that I am not competent to judge whether it is either independent or reliable. GRBerry 02:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthbringerToronto's comment. Aye-Aye 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: freedominfo.org "one-stop portal for critical resources about freedom of information laws and movements around the world" mentions Keim as "expert on Freedom of Information in Germany" and has 4 links to his work. I have no account and sign with 4 tildes. 85.167.175.70 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, according to the article his most notable achievements are being an internet activist (which doesn't take much effort) and starting a geocities website along with 3 other people. I don't think that quite cuts it per WP:BIO. - Bobet 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Masqueraded plug for online business. De-prodded. Contributor(s) also linkspammed other articles with sierramtncandles.com. Femto 10:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Table-oriented programming is a Neologism invented by the infamous Usenet troll Bryce Jacobs masarading as original research. It is ineligible on both counts. Bryce Jacobs is also known to use the alias TopMind and Tablizer .

  • Although the principal proponent, specific terminology, historical pedigree and background of this article may be considered questionable (at least by some), some of the underlying principles do have independent merit. Certain aspects of "table-based" or "query-based" (or choose another term) programming methodologies have gained serious formal consideration beyond just the narrowly focused interests of one individual. For example, the introduction of LINQ into the CSharp programming language represents one noteworthy example of "table-based" or "query-based" concepts used to augment an established programming language. It would seem this article (or a more neutrally-presented, better cited version thereof) deserves some consideration at least on that basis.--Dreftymac 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I am with Dreftymac here. The concept of using tables (relations, decision tables, ...) as the main structuring tool is employed in the real world though it doesn't have a catchy name as OOP. Having an overview article comparing OOP and other methodologies with TOP (whatever the name) would be ideal. (The OR-mismatch article is too specialized for this.) The current text is not much informative and deleting it would make little loss.
I am not aware of anyone else but Topmind propagating use of the term "table oriented programming". It is, however, quite fitting term (compare with "concurrency oriented programming" invention by Erlang designers) and due to the trolling became known among those methodologists reading comp.object. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious pov fork. Even the title is not in accorance with WP:NPOV (or naming conventions for that matter)

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not clear on whether it is about the radio show or the host, but neither pass the notability guidelines at WP:BIO in that there is no independent media coverage of either the person or the show. I'm also concerned that the major contributor seems to be the subject (see history). The station is a community radio station in Sydney. Kevin 11:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was merge. Incidentally, and I've said this too many times to count, you can merge on your own, you don't need to — indeed, you really shouldn't — use AFD.--SB | T 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - duplicates, in an inferior manner, article Millennium Dome - also is invalid as title, as the building should be referred to either as 'The Millennium Dome' or as 'The O2' Smerus 11:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The article consists of a hopelessly NPOV Advert for some kind of staffing agency of no particular note. Suggest taking out a newspaper ad instead. Snacky 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable. If such a team exists, it's non-notable; I'm unable to uncover any evidence whatsoever that this "national team" has any players or intends to play any games. Notably, the NF-Board's website makes no mention of such a team. Geoffrey Spear 12:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note too that Bouganville isn't a nation (it is part of PNG). So it wouldn't have a national football team. -- Mako 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
These things to happen. The Iroquoi have a national lacrosse team, for instance. WilyD 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Bougainville is probably a nation, but not a state. Punkmorten 08:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete utterly NN. first nom. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This version was kept in the first AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Firsfron --Arnzy 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No evidence this band has ever done anything of note. In contrast, there is plenty of talk about the notable things that will surely happen in the very near future. prodded, author quickly removed prod tag without addressing issues. Snacky 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable fashion label associated with non-notable company. Product isn't even available yet. Prod removed by third party whose only edit was to remove it. --Merope 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC) I am also listing the following related articles for deletion for advertising a non-notable company and product:

--Merope 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(Denneval) So wouldn't this justify the removal of Windows Vista? I mean, I understand that Knowledge is NOT a "crystal ball"; Opus exists. I just don't understand the reasoning behind deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denneval (talk • contribs)

Windows is an established company with constant press attention--it thus satisfies WP policies concerning companies. A product still in development by one of the largest corportations in the world is in itself notable, even if it is never released. The argument concerning your company isn't just that the product doesn't exist yet, but that the company has received no attention (that I can tell) from verifiable and reliable sources. If I am wrong, please provide evidence of this by editing the article. -- Merope 20:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(Denneval) So a company with no media attention is therefore not a candidate for a Knowledge article? In the real world, this is called "prejudice". I'm so sorry that 24 kb is hogging up bandwidth from the online servers. Thank God Windows didn't have access to a Wiki in the 80s or they'd be nowhere today.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Speculative and badly-written original research. Self-described as a conspiracy theory, full of weasel words (which is the only way such speculative content can be written). Not even encyclopaedic. Title of article is not a candidate for redirect, as it is non-encyclopaedic and non-notable. Jdcooper 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Only those with a political view strongly supporting Israel wants this story deleted. This story is documented in numerous mainstream news sources like CNN and ABCNews. User:jasoncwward

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Insignificant shopping mall, no assertion of notability, no sources given or likely to be found. Delete --Huon 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment According to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities and shops, they are not, and I fail to see any reason why they should be. There are, of course, notable malls, but this one doesn't seem to be among them. --Huon 15:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly well-known city in Tasmania. Well I'm Tasmanian - I've never heard of this place, and neither has Google. This page was prod-ed as a possible hoax, and the prod was deleted by an anon IP. The logo was "created from scratch" by the uploader. The most famous feature of this alleged city is the "Rawson memorial beach", named after the city's current (and apparently still alive) mayor. Canley 13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Advert-heavy promotional page about a greeting card supplier of no apparent encyclopedic significance. Anyone think maybe it should be deleted? Snacky 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - The main significance is the way the greeting card market is starting to change with the new digital print technology and the internet. Remind4u uses both of these to allow Charity donations on any card to a charity you choose. That Charities logo is then dynamically printed on the back of the card. It is also a breakthrough for the Environment as a card is only printed when bought. The traditional market sends about 1/2 of the cards printed back through the system, with most of them getting destroyed. I think this should stay but with more information on the change of the market, environment, etc. Milesclee 13:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - That's very exciting but nearly everything there is to say about it is already said in the Carol Vorderman article (summary: Remind4u is promoted by an attractive British gameshow host with a VERY high IQ), and it's even mentioned on the Greeting card page! That's about two more mentions than it'd probably get in any other encyclopedia. Note: I'm not complaining about those edits, just pointing out that it should be more than enough, no need for its own article. Especially as your article lacks NPOV anyhow... Snacky 13:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Second Comment - In your strident reaction to this deletion attempt, your newer edits are mostly making the WP:NPOV problem even worse. Suggest you stick to the relevant facts if you want to see the article survive.Snacky 13:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
KEEP - I have edited to hopefully satisfy requests... Milesclee 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) you can not 'vote' more than once. --Brian 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable Wiki with no reliable sources and only 17 unique Google hits. Old AFDs can be found here: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/OrthodoxWiki, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/OrthodoxWiki (2nd nomination). Article was kept despite previously for the sole reason that it was a wiki and keep "voters" never addressed the nominators' concerns in either case. Delete as not meeting WP:WEB and with no reliable sources. Wickethewok 13:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When it was first nominated the article on Christian wikis either wasn't mentioned or I missed it. Now that I know of it I'd go with redirect to Christian wikis as well.--T. Anthony 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like to give my reasoning here: first of all, I may be new to this, but it seems to me that if the article has survived two prior attempts at deletion that it must be pretty solid.

Secondly, the number of articles the OrthodoxWiki boasts stands by itself as a strong indicator of the site's notability.

Thirdly, we are are in fact discussing a Wiki devoted to an entire religious subgrouping, which I would imagine merits at least some sort of mention. I cannot conceive of why anyone would wish to get rid of this. To those voting to delete this article, I would ask you to please thoroughly explain what led you to your decision, that I may better understand where the debate is.

SwedishConqueror 03:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

I voted keep when it was first nominated and considered doing so again. However it seems unlikely the article will ever be more than a stub. As such it can be dealt with in the Christian wikis article. There are several articles that work better as part of another article rather than on their own. See what Church of the Last Testament or Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon leads you to.(not great analogies I know)--T. Anthony 05:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Afterall, this page leads to articles concerning the second largest Christian denomination in the world. It isn't hurting anyone being present which leads me to believe that the root of this deletion process is some sort of religious persecution. Lets cut that out and quit going after something just because you don't like it. The whole point of an encyclopedia afterall is to have information regarding EVERYTHING. rlxdgrk17:30, 23 August 2006 — Possible single purpose account: rlxdgrk (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A completely useless word list. There is no reason for this article other than as a place to list whatever their favorite onomatopoeias are. A short list on the onomatopoeia page (which is already there) is all that is necessary. Delete as a useless list. Wickethewok 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a useful list for someone seeking a list of recognized onomatopoeic words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.75.87 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated: Kako Kandahari

This is a test AfD. Here are two articles of which sort there are dozens more in Category:Guantanamo Bay detainee stubs. These two gentlemen are detainees at Gitmo - and there's nothing more to say about them. Both articles contain their names, origins, detainee numbers, and the same stock paragraph with the same two external links. These two (and the dozens who will follow) fail the "multiple non-trivial published sources" test with gusto, and it is recommended that we Delete these articles. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Leibniz 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Government sources verify their existence. Government sources have been judged non-trivial for school AFDs. The article could give reasons for their detention at Guantanamo, and these reasons will eventually reach the public domain. Catchpole 14:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Article can easily be recreated once any real information comes to light, for now it's rather pointless. Artw 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis that being arrested on suspected terrorism charges doesn't automatically make you notable. If these guys do something important, or more information comes to light, then the articles will be useful. For now, it's just a prison record. --Wafulz 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --kingboyk 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of individual notability other than being a Guantanamo prisoner, which isn't enough, IMHO. Sandstein 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Guantánamo Bay detainees, which should at least contain the basics of name, origins and detainee numbers, but appears to have nothing on these two. I think the relevant WP:BIO standard is the one about renown or notoriety due to involvement in newsworthy events. If there is such renown/notoriety, then the articles should reference articles other than the government sources. I would disagree that there is nothing more to say; at least for Ibrahim, the link to the summarized transcript presents Ibrahim's statements during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, allowing at least a bit more to be learned. Absent the other side of the story, we can't write a NPOV version of these additional matters, so the article really can't expand more. GRBerry 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a good idea to list them there if they're real (are they? we have no specific sources as to these two) but I would hate to see thousands of redirects extended there from all these names... - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • We do have specific sources. If you look more closely at the links described as summarized transcripts, they are to two different pdf files, and the text around the link specifies the pages within them. (Not the same link as described in the nomination.) I followed that link for Ibrahim and read the nine cited pages - Ibrahim at least is real. I didn' follow that for the other, but I expect you will find enough evidence that they are also a real specific individual. Given the general difficulty with putting names of Afghans and Arabs into the English alphabet, there may be difficulties due to different transliterations being used at different times, but if so, there should be redirecting from the different transliterations to the most accepted one. GRBerry 03:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I actually read the Kako links, not the Ibrahim ones, and found a no mention of his name anywhere in the nine pages of interrogation transcript. Besides, why were these two not on the WashPost list and the list the DoD released pursuant to some court order, which were used to put together our list here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't know why the various lists are incomplete and/or inaccurate. The "Sources" section of List of Guantánamo Bay detainees definitely says that the Washington Post list contains about 420 of 750ish detainees. There is at least speculation that the DoD list is/was incomplete by specifying only military holdings, but that wouldn't explain people who had CSRTs. Also see Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list. GRBerry 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • So what's our bottom line here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Checking further, Kako is also listed in (page 10) and (page 11). So they are both real individuals. I suspect the omissions from the list are editorial errors/oversight. They ought to be on the list, which for these I think should be via merge/redirect. I tested 6 of the others in the category and found only 2 of the 6 in the list. Not a statistical sample, but I suspect that we have a massively incomplete list, and merge/redirecting the ommissions would be the fastest way to complete it. I also think that expanding the list to include the detainee numbers, painful as it might be to do by hand, would be the best way to check for duplications due to name variants and omissions. GRBerry 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Crazy Russian, there are many things about your plan to delete Guantanamo articles that I don't understand. Let me ask you to answer one of the simpler questions. you wrote, right above here that you read the Kako links. Are you really saying that you read the link to his transcript and could not recognize that it contained a claim of a terrible injustice? Can you explain why you don't think this claim of injustice is "notable"?
          • I expanded the article now. I have read something like half the transcripts. But I hadn't read Kako's until now. He is the fourth guy whose transcript I have read who was rounded up, and thrown in Guantanamo, for managing or guarding an armory.
            • Hiztullah Nasrat Yar and Nasrat Khan were not as articulate as Kako's boss. But the Tribunal told him they couldn't find Rahim Wardak, the witness they requested, who they said could substantiate their claim that they were hired by the Afghan Defense Ministry to guard the armory. The Tribunal described Wardak as "an official" in the Defense Ministry. He was then the Deputy Minister of Defense. He is now the Minister of Defense. Now maybe they are lying. But isn't it noteworthy when we learn that the US intelligence establishment hasn't made any attempt to substantiate -- or refute -- the detainee's claims of innocence?
            • Nasibullah, similarly, was sent to Guantanamo when he was found managing an Armory. He however was able to give a credible sounding description of the inventory control he maintained over his weapons, and he was one of the 38 detainees the Tribunals determined had never been an enemy combatant after all.
            • Now Kako, and his boss, may have been lying. I know Bush apologists assert that every detainee who claims he was tortured or abused, and every detainee who has a reasonable sounding claim of innocence, is really just an al Qaeda operative, who was trained to lie. But Kako and his boss sound like they had easily verified alibis. Surely it is notable that the US intelligence didn't make any attempt to verify their alibis? -- Geo Swan 23:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep -- Disclaimer: I started this article.
    • No offense to CrazyRussian, the guy who nominated these articles, but I strongly disagree with your interpretation that "there is nothing more to say about these guys". Of course there is plenty more to say about these guys. The articles are stubs, with a lot of room for growth. As GRBerry pointed out each of the references in these outwardly similar articles contains the information to find the detainees transcripts. There are transcripts for 354 of the 759 detainees.
    • Some of the Guantanamo detainees would be notable, even if there was total agreement, around the world, that President Bush was authorized to strip the protections of the Geneva Conventions from these prisoners. Abdullah Mehsud and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, for instance, former Taliban commanders, who "returned to the battlefield", following their release. Other detainees say they are simple farmers, or innocent humanitarian aid workers -- not combatants at all. Their notability arises because of the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who their transcripts establish they are. The Denbeaux study published a methodical, systematic, statistical analysis of the allegations against 517 of the detainees whose cases were considered by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. What they found was at odds with the grandiose Bush administration claims that the detainees are all terrorists. When the Denbeaux study researchers analyzed the allegations, in detail, they found that more than 55% of the detainees aren't even accused of association with a hostile act. (Note, this doesn't mean the 45% who are accused of association with a hostile act are guilty of association with a hostile act.) I was able to devote some time to start to flesh out Al Sehli's article since it was nominated for deletion. The allegations against Al Sehli are in line with the conclusions of the Denbeaux study. He is one of those 55% who is not accused of a hostile act.
    • Approximately a dozen articles about Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion so far. People leave messages on my talk page, or on the talk pages of articles about Guantanamo detainees. So, I have read lots of comments about how many of the detainees are notable. One user made the assertion when voting to delete one of the earlier article on Guantanamo detainees that ANY articles about Guantanamo would be inherently POV. and just an excuse for "America-bashing". I think that is nonsense. I think any topic can be written about from a NPOV, but that some topics just require a bit more effort. Based on the opinions of Users like that one, I have a theory that there is an inverse relationship between how firmly one of my correspondents accepts the Bush administration line that since the detainees are all terrorists it doesn't matter if they are stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law.
    • Sorry GRBerry, I strongly disagree with the position you expressed that since we haven't heard the intelligence analysts (classified) evidence against the detainees we can't write NPOV articles about them. The cases of these prisoners are highly controversial, so, when I write about them I make the effort to prove Zoe wrong, and prove that someone can write about controversial topics from a NPOV, if they make enough effort. People do challenge me. And I reply to all civil challenges that I am showing bias with a request for my correspondent to be specific about the particular passages they find biased. Except for some very occasional, very trivial lapses, my correspondents can't be specific. I think this means I have succeeded. I think this means that, contrary to the fears of contributors who were afraid that Guantanamo article would only be an excuse for POV America-bashing, these articles are neutral. -- Geo Swan 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, GS, way to go, but nobody has said a word about America-bashing. Why don't you write a comprehensive article about "the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who their transcripts establish they are"? With this many sources, it could achieve featured status. You can even use examples from dozens of these guys' bios. But to make individual articles about the person - only if they respect WP:BIO. I don't know about Commander Maulvi - but these two dudes Ibrahim and Kako fail WP:BIO. Let's keep this AfD debate local. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I am sure you aren't being serious. I am sure we all know that an article about the unbridgeable chasm between who the Bush administration claims they are and who the transcripts establish they are would be much more controversial than the existing articles, which let the bald, verifiable facts speak for themselves. It would be impossible to write much of an article on the unbridgeable chasm without indulging in original research
        • I am just looking at WP:BIO. The author of WP:BIO states it is not a real policy. The author argues that many wikipedians regard it as implied by three real policies. WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I don't believe there is any question that these articles were written from verifiable sources, do not indulge in original research, and are written from a neutral point of view. -- Geo Swan 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable information and documenting these people is an important public service. - SimonP 03:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep : the article is NPOV and follows the guidelines of verifiability. As to notability : any detainee in Gunatanamo is notable in my eyes. Their story may even become more notable, once the Bush Administration is gone and historical truth (whatever that may be) will emerge. JoJan 08:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody mentioned this above, but as there's a lot of indenting already I'll start a new comment. As I've just written on my talk page, I think that the unique information in each article merged into a list would be a definite keep. Indeed, as someone else has said, there's enough material here to make a Featured List. I don't however see the value in boilerplated articles about hundreds of people with dubious individual notability. --kingboyk 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per GRBerry. Most of the content of this article would be identical with that of several hundred others - that has "merge" written all over it. The collected article would certianly be highly important and notable. AnonEMouse 18:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, we have thousands of articles about American bank robbers, kidnappers and rapists - I forsee somebody googling the names of individual Guantanamo detainees sooner than I see somebody googling random North Carolinans convicted of 2nd Degree murder. Sherurcij 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding "solicitation"
    • I have created a table summarizing the dozen or so previous nominations to delete article related to the Guantanamo detainees -- here. Feel free to read the previous discussions. Executive summary? IMO a significant portion of the comments of those who did not want to keep the articles explained their votes in politicall partisan terms. IMO they wanted to ban articles that they felt reflected poorly on the current US executive branch policy, without regard to how well document it was, or whether it was written from an NPOV.
    • The Nominator has put notes following some of the votes, pointing out that I let some other wikipedians who had shown an interest in previous nominations to delete Guantanamo article know about this nomination. The nominator and I have had an exchange on our talk pages where he explained why he thought this was a mistake on my part. I am not sure I agree with his reasoning. But, in the interests of co-operation, if I learn of a new nomination to delete a Guantanamo article, or, if I learn of a nomination intended to serve as a test case to delete all the articles or some portion thereof, like this one, I will update this table. If you want to know when a file is being nominated for deletion you can put the file that contains that table on your watchlist. -- Geo Swan 19:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article has gotten a lot bigger since it was nomed but I'm not convinced all the detainees are notable enough for WP in their own right. Is there somewhere else this info could be transwikied to? It's not like WP needs the traffic. Delete or transwiki if possible. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The expansion was done (or at least doable based on my research previously) using only the second of the two links described in the nomination as stock. This implies to me that many of these could, given the time and effort, be so expanded. With 347 stubs remaining in the category these are a test case for, I certainly don't expect anyone to get all the expansion done right away. But, I also continue to believe that merging to the list is sufficient handling for those not meeting the renown/notoriety test and/or lacking other reliable sources. GRBerry 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • 347? The 6,000 pages of documents the DoD released contained transcripts of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings for 354 detainees. I know that a considerable number have already been expanded. I couldn't tell you if half have been expanded yet. Frankly, I didn't anticipate people would want to delete perfectly good stubs offering only the justification that they look too similar. Unless someone wants to count, the number of unexpanded stubs would be somewhere between one and two hundred.
    • Lar, you say you are not sure whether all the detainees are notable enough, in their own right? Can I ask you if you have read any of the articles where the allegations against the detainee and/or the detainee's testimony had been included, that you could offer as an example of a detainee who was not notable enough to merit an article? It would be helpful to me to hear what other people think is insufficiently notable to merit an article. I expanded Kako's article this afternoon. His testimony claims a great injustice. Now that his article has been expanded, are there any of those who voted to delete who still think he is not notable enough to merit an article? And, if you still thinks he doesn't merit an article, I would really appreciate an explanation. -- Geo Swan 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verified information, notable individual. --TheM62Manchester 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fella. Lincher 17:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page; non-notable. User has removed deletion notice twice. Stezton 00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - This article is vanity. The creator and only editor of this page is Ricopuestel (Talk | contribs). By reading the article, you can see that the page was most likely written by Rico. On top of this, most of the article on wikipedia is a direct copy from the about tab on his site. Definitely a candidate for deletion based on vanity. The links on the bottom of the page include two links where readers can buy records. Advertising gets deleted too. If the page wasn't vanity/advertising produced by Rico, my vote might change. Google search ("Rico Puestel") yields 7970 results, and he does have several records released/upcoming. I would say that he would be more notable than several musicians which have been allowed to exist on Knowledge. In summary, the article is blatant vanity/advertising as it was written by Rico, is a direct copy off his site, and links to two pages whose only purpose is to sell records. Keep per changes. Fopkins | Talk 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Web forum. No apparent reason why this is any more notable than a million other web forums that don't (and shouldn't) warrant their own encyclopedia articles. Anon removed prod. Snacky 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonnotable Internet marketer, seems to be using WP to promote himself and his business (see also Seoluv). NawlinWiki 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT at all surprised by this harassment from editors who believe the World revolves around the US.
This is not something that you understand therefore you want to delete it. This site is not an Internet Marketer nor is it non notable. Rare interviews from remote SEO firms outsourcing to the 1st World. I believe that there a more people that want to read this than you.
Author takes his own money and time and travels into remote areas that are on the United States State Department travel warnings list to secure interviews of very remote and very inaccessible Search Engine Optimization firms / sweatshops and give poignant views of the discrepancies between the cultures and the spread between the 1st World and the 3rd. This site serves as a caveat to all who would use fraudulent SEO firms in the 3rd World to attempt to garner priority and end up with nothing but getting ripped off.
This site is going to stay up! — Possible single purpose account: 210.5.119.202 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
It's hard to compete with being a journalist and willing to take risks to get the story.
Those posts probably not the author because unfortuantely webmaster radio is a magnet for spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.119.202 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. ChrisO 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonnotable search engine page, no Alexa ranking; article has virtually no content, but author removed speedy A1 tag. NawlinWiki 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This episode is unconfirmed and is based on an unverified, unsourced and perhaps fake 'spoiler' circulating the internet at the moment. SergeantBolt 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This AFD listing was incomplete, so I'm just completing it. Yomangani 16:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment My grounds was non notability Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable site, with an Alexa ranking of circa 134,000, which also happens to read like an advertisement. Prod removed by article creator. hateless 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Market News First seems to be an newly created news source for the viewing public to utilize at their own discretion. Without any charges or login reqirements, the site doesn't seem to be advertising their services on Wiki, rather simply stating facts about the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.69.162 (talk • contribs)

Delete, nn. Han-Kwang 22:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Market News First is in the infancy of becoming competition to a blend of Yahoo and CNBC. Relying on advertising revenue, as do Yahoo and CNBC, MN1 is making a move into territories not yet explored with the use of live video and audio webcasts via the internet, discussing up to the minute news relating to investments, sports, and entertainment. This is not meant to be an advertisement, just a factual source of information about this new company and its unique processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.69.162 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. ChrisO 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Final Fu competitors

All these people were participants in a U.S. TV show called Final Fu. Many are amateur martial artists. All these articles in this nomination violate WP:OR, WP:V, and ultimately WP:BIO as well. See also, Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Brian Hilliard, a test AfD. Recommendation: Delete.

List of articles nominated for deletion:

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Author of not notable book with Amazon.com Sales Rank: #28,881. Reads like a resume, promotes his book, companies and website. Paradigm V G-hitsG-hits for "Mercury Capital Corporation"Mercury Properties G-hits. Mercury Equity Group G hits. Not acceptable underWP:NOT, WP:SPAM, and WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim!~


Jeffrey Meshel's book sales are not as high as they were when he was featured on national television (several times) however, he is considered parallel, albeit newly emerging, to other "field experts" such as Keith Ferrazzi (who is listed in Knowledge, very similarly to the way Jeff Meshel is listed), and Harvey Mackay.

I am a little confused why Mr.Meshel's page is considered for deletion, when Keith Ferrazzi's is not. The issues up for debate are that it reads like a resume, citing his companies and achievements, however, Keith Ferrazzi's does the same. In addition, Keith Ferrazzi himself has commented in complete support and advocacy of Mr.Meshel's book and message. All the information is verifiable via the book's website and the on the book itself.

The issue also is that it promotes his book, company and book's website by including external links, however, Keith Ferrazzi's does the same. And if Jeff Meshel is considered by many within the field he is in to be highly reputable and along the same caliber as Keith Ferrazzi, (and Ferrazzi is allowed a posting of this nature) then a Jeff Meshel entry should be allowed as well.

  • Keep. Seems like his book is known well enough as a business book (which will have different sales trends), and the book wasn't published on a vanity press, so keep him as a noted author. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I see no need to invent notability policy when the existing policies cover the situation. A Google for "jeffrey meshel" gets only 183 distinct hits, mostly book listings. His book fails WP:BK, for lacking third-party non-trivial articles, not adapted for a motion picture, not adopted by a school as a text, etc. Mr. Meshel fails WP:BIO for also not having multiple third-party non-trivial articles, no national awards, etc. If the anonymous editor SamanthaSmith wishes to nom Mr. Ferrazzi for an afd, it will be considered as this one is. Alternatively, please see WP:BIO and WP:NOT for notability guidelines to shore up this article. Tychocat 09:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Could have been speedied as a non-notable biography, seeing as the article is a sub-stub length.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Recording engineer of uncertain fame. Original text of this page listed a few redlinked bands plus The Elected whom Jason was said to be "known" for working with. I prod'ed the page, saying, producer of four redlinked bands and one very minor band. does not meet WP:BIO. The prod was then removed and the page edited to say, Is a Record Producer/ Engineer who is know for his work with many redlinked bands, 2 very minor bands and Danzig. Well, Danzig is at least a notable band...

A search at Barnes and Noble turns up 29 albums, although in each of the ones I've checked I don't actually see him listed and can't see where the search is finding him. I checked a couple via allmusic, and I see that he is listed as Engineer on Danzig's Circle of Snakes , and Assistant Engineer on Social Distortion's Sex, Love and Rock 'n' Roll . From which I conclude that he is a working engineer, and is probably moderately well known in the field -- the equivalent, I would say, of a solid session guitarist. I don't think that this passes WP:BIO; if there were an engineer version of WP:MUSIC, I think only the very top echelon, like Steve Albini, would meet it. I don't think one becomes notable because of having their name in the credits in a notable album. Consequently, I am calling this one a weak delete, but I bring it here for your consideration. bikeable (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a category Category:Audio_engineers which includes well over 100 audio engineers. Granted, quite a few are notable for other things as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't seen that -- thanks. I picked four at random, and one I had actually heard of, one worked on many Rolling Stones albums, one worked on the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, and KISS, and one seemed marginally non-notable to me. Based on this limited survey, I think Jason comes in lowish in the ranking. Do you have an opinion on this? thanks. bikeable (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep I don't have a strong opinion either way really, although I would say that what we're really trying to determine is whether audio engineers in general are notable after having worked with major-label artists. I suppose I would say so, and at the very least having recording-engineer bios would make nice complementary material to our considerable coverage of music and records. Producers, remixers, and DJs with major-label work are considered notable, so this isn't much of a stretch. Weak keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow this is great! I was told today that I was (am) listed on Knowledge and that I was up for deletion, I say do it! However, this is the most hysterical thing I have ever seen. I want the debate regarding my importance to continue. Fantastic! -Jason

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

List is composed entirely of nn songs by the favorite subject of recently indef blocked user Reneec. (See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/David Saks.) For discussion on whether or not the songs are official songs of Memphis, see extensive discussion on the subject at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee (if you have a few hours to spare): here, here, and here. (The third is the most useful, IMO.) This looks to me like a third attempt to get Mr. Saks onto wikipedia, as consensus is against including the song in Memphis, Tennessee and his own article was deleted per the aforementioned AFD. -- Vary | Talk 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as proposed. Gazpacho 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason. Obviously, the subject matter does not satisfy notability standards and (as found in the lengthy discussions) is misleading. - Dozenist talk 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This information has nothing to do with Mr. Saks other than he is the composer of these songs. Anyone that has an opinion differing than the malicious ones on the "Talk Memphis" page is accused of sockpuppetry. According to the rules of Wiki, "Anyone can edit." It does not state that anyone can edit as long as it meets the criteria agreed upon by Vary and her cronies. Since February I have pointed out that this was never about Mr. Saks but about a heading for Official Songs of Memphis. As a former Memphian, this is both notable and of interest. The information has been verfied. This is why I contacted the Memphis City Council in February 2006, to verify how many official songs of Memphis there were. Sadly this has turned into a personal and childish attack against Mr. Saks by you, Vary, and your peers. It appears that Mr. Saks is the only name on the page that is not an Anon. I'd like to see you list as much about yourselves as we know about Mr. Saks. The malicious comments on the page are not "harmonious editing" (Saxifrage's adjectives to describe himself). As an Anon since February 2006, it was I who pointed out the following: 1. The name of the contact to the Memphis City Council to confirm Official Songs of Memphis 2. Voodoo Fest was not an annual event 3. Clarence Saunders is important to the history of the City of Memphis and should be listed on a Memphis page. Each time I tried to point out constructive crticism to you and your peers, you did not want to listen and continued to besmirch Mr. Saks's name. It was never about Mr. Saks but about Official Songs of Memphis. I can also attest the following should not be in the Memphis article: "William Faulkner wrote most of his literary works in Oxford, Mississippi." "Alex Haley, author of Autobiography of Malcolm X and Roots was from Henning, Tn." While interesting, this information has nothing to do with Memphis. The information pertaining to Official Songs of Memphis is of interest, verifiable and should not be deleted.--Boodro 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not delete! Two official songs of Memphis have been verified. Any other verifiable ones are of interest as well, Scribner. If you don't like the title "official", perhaps the title can be changed to Songs of Memphis, Tn.--Boodro 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The main reason this information is important is as stated under "Arts" on the 'Memphis" page,

Memphis is "home of founders and establishers of various American music genres". Because of the importance of the music industry to Memphis, Offical Songs of Memphis is of interest, verifable and notable and should not be deleted. --Boodro 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Link farm. Knowledge is not free advertising and not a random collection of links. :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep: maybe a non-notable minor Bollywood celebrity, maybe 'Bollywood Royalty'. I removed User:CrazyRussians prod from this because it seemed Eurocentric to quickly assume a Bollywood figure is non-notable without discussion. Searching on Rediff.com indicates that she has a kind of Nicky Hilton cachet, although with so much Bollywood publicity being print-only, it doesn't translate to the same kind of web-presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardjames444 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm tempted to go keep on this one. She does seem to be bigwig socialite type in India. If this one is deleted then a wider debate about the notability of all socialites would be needed so to avoid that keep would probably be easier. Keresaspa 14:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet another baseless charge of Eurocentrism. The article asserts zero notability. If she's got multiple non-trivial works about her - add them - and dispense with the prod without resorting to attacks. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Eurocentrism isn't an attack in this case, it's an interpretation or an observation. I've not made any other similar charges, so I'm not sure where 'yet another baseless charge' comes into play. En.Knowledge articles obviously focus on European and American interests, or non-native topics of interest to European and American audiences (otaku, manga etc etc), because that's where most of the editors and users live. I think that because of that, articles outside of the expertise of the core audience should be considered more carefully than the obvious vanity and nn cruft that is more obviously prod'able. I thought that it was more respectful to everyone to shunt the debate over to this forum than to simply override your prod. Richardjames444 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I would have been better off citing WP:BIAS as the reason for opposing the prod, since you are sensitive about Eurocentrism. Richardjames444 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Eurocentrism is likely the wrong term anyhow - given the majority of editors are not European, just like the majority of Anglophones, who live right here in North America. WilyD 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment-She is Amitabh Bachchan's daughter. Enough said.Bakaman Bakatalk
  • Merge Into Amitabh Bachchan or Jaya Bachchan's article. She is non relevant in her own right, except being the daughter the above two film actors. She is also married into a prominent film family and the sister of Abhishek Bachchan, but she is totally unknown outside of Bombay film circles. Also, she is not a big time socialite, since she is rarely featured in Bombay Times which is known for its coverage of social circles and celebrity gossip. But I would like to add, she is not non notable. --Ageo020 23:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, unless someone gets access to the above-mentioned print-only bollywood publicity. I find little other info apart from a verveonline.com mention. Merge if necessary. --Thunderhead 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough of a socialite. Her only claim to fame is being related to famous Indians. As about saving dolphins etal, many people are associated with such causes (includes me). utcursch | talk 12:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being related to famous people is not enough for notability, but it does go some distance. (see the discussion on royals above.) However, Shweta B-N is, in addition, married to the Escorts heir, and is an individual who thus controls a vast trust-based charitable empire. None of that's in the article, but, presumably, with time it will be. Deleting this would probably be WP:BIAS, its just that I'm too tired to search my mind for a Western equivalent that nobody would want to delete. Hornplease 04:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought the normal response to a lack of consensus was to keep? Normally re-listing is reserved for discussions that have been largely idle (only 1 or 2 votes). There are 6 keep/merge votes and 4 delete votes here already. Speedy keep as already finished. -- Visviva 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is always a closing admin's perogative to relist for more input. It is also any admin's perogative to decide that there is enough further input to close at any time after the relisting. GRBerry 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Socialite? Yes. Notable? No. Nothing she did makes her notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. So, I would say "Delete" without prejudice against re-creation, since she may become notable sometime in the future to deserve an article dedicated to her. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, minor Bollywood celebrity who gets media coverage and thus passes WP:BIO. Also speedy keep per Visiva. Kappa 08:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and please help counter systemic bias meets bio guideline Yuckfoo 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. A google search returns no content about 'Wessner star' or 'Wesner star.' The article cites no sources. It describes a procedure that students can use to randomly select a response to a multiple choice test, mentioning unverified evidence that it returns an average score of 86.3%. On a four-option format, the average score actually obtained by random guessing is 25%. The information in the article is not only false and non-verifiable, but also potentially harmful to naive students. Nesbit 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirected to Ring of Darkness.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a duplicate title of Ring of Darkness, and merging appears not to be an option as there is nothing useful/original in the Ring of darkness article DavidHumphreysABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Contested prod, flagrant WP:SPAM for a non-notable company. Knowledge is not an advertising service. VoiceOfReason 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Petros471 17:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole article appears to be an advertisement for a virtual airline that isn't particularly notable - Canwolf 05:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we please have a few more comments from established editors? Petros471 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  08:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable and borderline biased information, and vanity Lailaiboy 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete As much as Mr. Mohamed Jr. does for his community, and for the world, this is an online encyclopedia with an exceptional reputation for its unbiased information to learn about that they seek. The page in question is clearly a self-created biography and has no place in Knowledge Put your boastful bio on your own page, Mr. Mohamed. -Pollux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.192.103 (talk • contribs)
  • Done.
"I am also nominating the following related page because..." the founder made the page himself. (Smjr2000) Children's AIDS Health Program --Lailaiboy 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:Bio as Mr. Mohamed has not been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." For example: Toronto Star link is to a trivial mention, the Toronto Sun article is not avaialable without paying, and the Google news link doesn't work. The National Post article probably counts, but that's only one. A Google test turns up unimpressive results (863 hits, none that jump off the page). My guess is that the trajectory of this individual will make him notable from a Knowledge perspective at some point, just not quite yet. I wish Mr. Mohamed well, and also suggest that he read WP:AUTO. Fairsing 06:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Thank you for pointing out the problem with the Google News link. It has now beein fixed. The Toronto Sun article is a non-trivial published work which appeared in the Toronto Sun newspaper, as well as on its web site. The fact that the Toronto Sun charges for access to older articles does not change this. In light of these things, I think he passes WP:BIO and is notable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like the author (Smjr2000) has removed the AfD from both Shamin Mohamed Jr. and Children's AIDS Health Program ... again ... can someone please restore them and block him until this is resolved? --Dennette 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lailaiboy (talk • contribs) created Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Shamin Mohamed Jr. (2nd nomination). I would suggest that the "2nd nomination" be merged into this one. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would just like to state that all of the information mentioned about Children's AIDS Health Program is very credible. If you visit the main website, under About Us (www.LetsStopAIDS.org), you will see they are some videos from Significantly important Canadian Television Stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smjr2000 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 August 2006
Comment. Credibility has never been the problem; it's notability ... and your frequent vandalism of the pages under discussion is not helping your case, either. (Although your constant failure to comment your changes, or sign your comments, has adversely impacted your credibility. :-) Maybe after you've completed your five year plan and built the proposed clinic, it will be notable, but the organization has been around for less than one year, and it may not even exist next year. --Dennette 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - vanity entry.Michael Dorosh 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a mattre of fact, the organization has been around for more than two years, we are coming close to THREE years, in October. We have been around for awhile and we are established quite well. Visit http://southafrica.LetsStopAIDS.org , if you want to see proof from on-site locations. 70.49.221.171 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. First, this anon. user has never before made a contribution to WP except to support this AFD. Second, "We" have been around for two years, or three, or whatever, is not criteria for establishing that your organization deserves an article on Knowledge. The criteria, as has been stated above, is notability, which requires something more than being a local organization doing good works in the community (or in Africa, or elsewhere). That, in and of itself, is laudable and commendable, but not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. Links to your *own* organization's Web sites do not help to esablish notability. You need multiple, non-trivial examples of coverage by reliable sources. Fairsing 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many reliable sources of Children's AIDS Health Program, available on their website, espeicially Live Footage from RELIABLE tv stations, CBC and CTV. Today actually, the organization was mentioned on MTV Live (MTV Canada). A link off hand : http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=2c31e917-c965-4bba-9d9d-2c95d130dfdd , also, if you read the Kaisernetwork Transcripts, the organization's website is mentioned. As well, http://www.letsstopaids.org/en/content.php?page=aboutus , for a list. The notability of this information is valid. This is encouraging other youth to educate others about arts, sports, hiv and aids prevention and leadership. This organization is making differences, and has built a reputable credibility. Smjr2000 02:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In regards to the recent Toronto Sun Article: Articles cannot stay available for free forever, the full version of this article is available at http://www.letsstopaids.org/en/content.php?page=aboutus . Smjr2000 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete, Comment Don't vote Keep twice. It's obvious your anonymous posts are made by you. You're missing the point again. Because your organization does good works does not establish notability from an encyclopaedic standpoint. Have you been reading the references that have been repeatedly posted on your talk pages? The conflict of interest is born especially from the fact that you are the pages' creator. Understand that Knowledge is not a place for promoting your organization, or your achievements. It's not meant for human interest articles, but factual representation from a neutral point of view. I'm sure your organization will survive without the publicity it's garnering from Knowledge at the moment. Wait for someone else to write about you.70.24.144.235 02:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book, no references. Prod removed by page author. Quale 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non notable organization, Prod tag was removed without explanation so I am putting it to AfD. DrunkenSmurf 16:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. 19 members and less than one year of existence? It's not notable in the least. Srose (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per above. Wildthing61476 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is non-notable and borderline nonsense. --Wafulz 17:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wafulz. Moreover, any organization that proscribes one's using a pillow case stuffed with bricks has no place here. :) Joe 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sympathetic as I might be to the notion - c'mon. Rilly. - Corporal Tunnel 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Dennette 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find it but I know this has been deleted before; I nominated it. BoojiBoy 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Maybe revise? I'm not a regular enough Wiki user to know the exact criteria (even after reading them, it's unclear exactly where this entry falls). However, as a newspaper editor in Toronto who has no connection to the Pillow Fight League, I can tell you that it is real. Stacey Case is a (fairly successful -- his work appears in major US glossies such as Esquire) visual artist and musician, and the PFL is more of an indie rock art project than it is an actual sports league. Hence the confusion. Locally, the event is currently at least somewhat notable, but this article does not exactly put forward the entire obective truth about what the Pillow Fight League is all about. Hope that helps.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Contested prod, non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, author's only contrib, likely WP:SPAM VoiceOfReason 17:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete - speedied as recreation.. Shell 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article List of Xbox 360 games without region encoding was deleted according to this AFD entry (and subsequently redeleted three times), which this article redirected to at one point. As I did not see the previously deleted article, CSD G4 may or may not apply here, so I am listing it here. mattbr 17:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:N. --Vossanova 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and also delete The Precursors They're a group of non-notable people working on music for an open-source game port which does not have its own WP page. Fjellstad's page asserts no notability aside from working on this project. As a result, I see no reason either the person or the group need WP articles. To be fair, the guy is Norwegian, but his name gets a total of 105 unique Google hits, including WP and many' mirrors. -- Kicking222 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's not enough WP coverage for the projects in which Fjellstad is involved, so there's no reason for a separate article. I also tried to find evidence of any demoscene activity at all for a Norwegian person named Tore (Aune) Fjellstad and/or using the handle "VOiD", and failed. --Viznut 08:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

AJILE was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-13. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/AJILE/2006-07-13.

Non notable JS thingy Computerjoe's talk 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some people find it important, but that does not mean the article is notable enough to be kept. --Sleepyhead 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, sock or no sock. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Man-Faye was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-17. The result of the prior discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye.

Man-Faye has the same relevancy than other otakus from whom there are not articles about because they are not relevant. Crossplaying, being mocked up on tv, and being taken out from a convention are NOT reasons at all to be there (same accomplishments than the Narutard and many others). Goggle has tons of examples of men dressed as a female anime character, and none of them deserve a sole article. This article doesn't have anything to add that is not covered in the Crossplay article. DrJones 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Man Faye is notable, more so by far than any other cosplayer, and despite repeated claims that he is not, he has continued to pop up over and over in various media. Complaints of POV during the last nomination have been addressed, and the article is fairly solid as it is. Elijya 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Man-Faye is the more noteable of the cosplayers.crossplayers out there. The fact that he's been seen in national media (as opposed to fan sites a/or imageboards) is more than crediable enough to warrant inclusion.--293.xx.xxx.xx 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Deletion - The reason for the deletion is the subject of the article, not the content. Man-Faye utterly fails at accomplishing anything that makes him unique. The only point at his favor ? appearing on TV as a laughable random guy. Compare him with , who appears on the spanish News everytime he shows on any stadium, has twice the google hits of Man-Faye, is well beloved, and yet doesn't have its own an article (nor deserves it). Infamous local figures should also do something remarkably and positive inside its small group to deserve an article by itself. Having poor taste is not enough. An example of a remarkable local figure is Mike Long. Compare him with Man-Faye. DrJones 11:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Mike Long's only on here because he contributed to Magic: the Gathering. Much as Man-Faye has contributed to Cosplay (famously and infamously). Outside of the respective niche hobbies, how many times can you note Mike Long being on TV?? Or any televised M:TG matches on such formats like ESPN or Spike TV? None. No, MTV doesn't count, those M;TG spots were merely glorified commercial endorsements. Again, you've run outta steam. --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That is non-sense. Why would anyone care about them outside their "niche hobbies"? When someone looks for Gorbachov, he/she wants info about his job as a politician, not about the pizza spot in which he appeared. Second, having contributed is not the key point, but how much have they contributed. Mike Long piloted the first combo deck in Magic: The Gathering, developing an entire new strategy for the game, and thus creating a more stable environment denoted many times as rock-paper-scissors. He also has won multiple important tournaments and played a major role in the success of the Pro Tour. His contributions to the game redefined it. By contrast, the contribution of Man-Faye to Cosplay is so slim that makes me sad, unless he had done a major contribution that is found nowhere on the article. He isn't even the first crossplayer. DrJones 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You brought it up. I merely pointed out that your trying to validate one "insignificant" person who's fame is limited to one aspect of society, yet you want to delete an article where another guy's fame is limited to an aspect of society. I mean, by your logic, should we continue on deleting people who's fame is limited to one aspect of society? Should we delete all the noteable Magic Players, because only a handful of society knows them? Request a Speedy Close to this nomination page. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You still don't understand my words. My point is that people whose fame is limited to an aspect of society should have made something worthwhile inside that aspect of society. Man-Faye has done nothing thousands of people haven't done on carvanal every year. Also, you have refused all this time to give/write on the article just one major contribution of Man-Faye to his "area of interest". I hope the administrators read this and Speedy delete this article alongside this nomination page. :) DrJones 10:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIV please. Just because I never contributed to the article doesn't disqualify me from supporting it. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You keep missing the point (or I write horribly). I'm not saying you cannot support him, just that I have not seen any remarkable contribution from Man-Faye to cosplay neither on this discussion, nor in the article. As you defend he has, you should at least specify them. DrJones 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Elijya. 'Cause Manolo el del bombo now has an article, and deserves it. :) Dezro 01:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Without entering into debates about if Manolo el del bombo deserves the article or not (you have read my opinion about him already), that doesn't mean that Man-Faye also deserves it, because Man-Faye is far less popular both in media coverage and google results than him, which for an internet meme is disastrous. DrJones 12:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Elijya. Dionyseus 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Elijya. A notable figure both as a cosplay icon and as an Internet meme. Danny Lilithborne 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Repeating my vote from the previous AfD. I see no reason to change it because someone doesn't like him or thinks that Man-Faye should not be notable despite his infamy. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'll admit I'm a bit dubious of whether Man-Faye would actually pass WP:BIO, but I think it's quite possible to pass him under WP:MEME. Thoughts? Luna Santin 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    I think he meets the Knowledge:Notability (web), plus the article written as-is covered most of his "history" and doesn't seem to be a vanity article in the slightest sense. Likewise, his noteability stems from the fact that he cosplayed a very well known fictional character, and made a parody of it. Of course, the result....--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - At the end of the day, the Mr. Faye isn't a historical figure nor is he a beloved or despised person: Merely a mediocre footnote in passing trends. Half the memes on Knowledge are passing trends. It might be interesting to note which memes can stand the test of time, but it would simply bloat wikipedia trying to list them all. What Man Faye does is nothing new or noteworthy or particularly shocking. Let's try to trim wikipedia whenever we can; the rest of the Internet can carry on Man Faye. Emil_lang
  • Strong Keep - There are some articles on Knowledge that simply boggle my mind as to why they exist, yet I don't think they should be deleted simply because someone may come along trying to find information about it that may not be found elsewhere. For example, I bet there are very few people today who would remember a mediocre 80's cartoon like Turbo Teen, yet there is an article here about it. Knowledge is knowledge, even if it's trivial.Djseifer 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are a lot of articles about video game characters, like for example characters from Suikoden, you can get a synopsis on. I wouldn't say that this info is particularly important, but it is nice to have! So why not have an article about Man-Faye. The article is not about adulating man-Faye but to inform for example european cosplay fans about this "event" in american cosplay culture. Knowledge is a source of information, so why delete information, someone might be interested in? The article on man-Faye is well written and neutral in tone, so I say we keep it. 217.235.178.60 14:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed that this AfD was never listed on WP:AFD. It has now been listed --TheFarix (Talk) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Correction It seems that this was originally listed by the nominator but was then removed by Macarion. I'm not sure what the closing admins want to do with this, but the AfD is highly irregular. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is well known within his niche, the internet at large, and has made several cable network television appearances as well. RFerreira 21:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WARNING users on 4chan (/cgl/) are trying to skew this AfD towards delete.... LinaMishima 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although they are not marked as references, he's had TV appearances, which hence allow WP:V to be met safely. LinaMishima 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Elijya Aye-Aye 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep he passes WP:BIO- he's a cult figure whio has had specific media coverage. The article has been cleaned up since the previous AFD nomination. -- Whpq 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Some of the arguments for deleting the article is that Man-Faye hasn't contributed anything useful to his niche. That's not a reason for deletion. If being an attention-whore were to be grounds for deletion, there wouldn't be a Paris Hilton article. The fact is, Man-Faye has managed to be a successful attention-whore, and has been covered in media. One's opinion on whether the individual has made a significant contribution is irrelevant. -- Whpq 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Paris Hilton has entered the Guiness Book of Records as the most pointless celeb, though. That's quite an accomplishment no other attention-whore has achieved. I think a more proper analogy for Man-Faye would be this: . I think that the world has millions of weirdos that haven't done anything noteworthy and allowing Man-Faye to have his own Knowledge page lowers the bar a bit too much. DrJones 10:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment What your argument boils down to is not whether Man-Faye is actually notable, but that you believe Man-Faye should never be notable regardless of how much publicity he may have acquired. --TheFarix (Talk) 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I haven't said so. I have claimed, however, that he shouldn't have a wikipedia entry if he hasn't done anything remarkable (and that just going to conventions or appearing on tv on an irregular basis is not). The only remarkable things I can read on the article (and in forums) is: a) His cosplay is awful. b) He is somewhat popular. I can put here a link right now to a page with more than 300 people with awful cosplays (including sumo wrestlers dressed as Sailor Moons, with tested media coverage). Your only alternative, thus, is defending his popularity, which is a rather vague and POW term. My empyrical experiments with Google shown very low results for him (lower than obscure local figures), and many pages calling him a fad and an old meme (just like Bart Simpson on the above analogy), so I suppose I have the right to question his icon status. DrJones 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Knowledge's notability guidelines are to determine if he is notable, not if he has done something remarkable. If he is verifiably notable, then that is enough bases for most editors. You, however, are trying to create an entirely different standard, notable and done something remarkable, which isn't supported by the majority of editor. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we bring this to an end? I realize that an AfD vote is not strictly decided by popular vote, but the results here are overwhelming: only two votes for deletion, one by the nominator (who doesn't do much to disguise his bias), and one by a user with less than 50 edits. Most of the supporters have all provided reasons for their suggestions to keep, and countered the reasons for deletion. Forgive me as I usually restrict my activities on wikipedia strictly to article content, but would any kind individuals more familiar with procedure hasten this debate to it's inevitable conclusion to keep the article? Thank you Elijya 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the claims of notability are unreferenced or referenced only by a single source, which is an interview with the guy himself on a rumour site. That's not reliable, folks. Therefore, this article fails WP:V and WP:NOR, and must be deleted unless proper, reliable sources can be found. Just because he's infamous on some websites, and just because a lot of people seem to think the article should be kept, doesn't mean we can ignore fundamental Knowledge policies. — Haeleth Talk 10:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seeing there are numerous "pointless" articles on Knowledge (Ranging from insignificant car models like Keicars to Supercars that may never hit US shores ever to even TV shows that may never get seen on US shores as well), there is no harm in having this article on Knowledge. It's not a vanity article like some would lead to believe, and i'm not seroiusly convinced that those that oppose it have provided a valid reason. One contributor nominated the article twice for deletion (This AfD and one that ended up as a no consensus) and even Man-Fayes talk page has shown his apparent bias.--72.234.211.221 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No content, but since some people think it might eventually be an encyclopedia article, it gets a soft redirect to the same text in wiktionary with nothing stopping them from writing a real article. - Bobet 08:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

del. Nonnotable dicdef. It is just fear of surgical operations, not some rare disease. No reputable references besides lists of varuios phobias that swarm internet lately and inscrupulous psych websites which offer to treat you from prostitute phobia for only 1,275, see -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikka (t) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

del. Nonnotable dicdef: "fear of being scratched". the only reference provided is from a supposedlyreputable merck website, but there is one catch: the corresponding page contains a disclaimer " Merck & Co., Inc. is not responsible for this content." The rest is lists of varuios phobias that swarm internet lately and inscrupulous psych websites which offer to treat you from prostitute phobia for only 1,275, see -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikka (t) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong title, wrong content. This article is written as part of a campaign to Right Great Wrongs by WikiWoo (talk · contribs). It is a mixture of original research, agit-prop, complete bollocks and the blindingly obvious. I'm sure we have scope for an article on government tenders or some such, but this is not it, and fixing it would require wholesale removal of the existing content. Rarely have I been so tempted to simply delete out of process an article written by an adult, and only the involvement of editors who might take the trouble to fix it during WikiWoo's 48-hour block for disruption persuades me to give it the five days of AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

del. Nonnotable dicdef. "fear of moving or making changes". The rest is a psychobabble from a definition of a specific phobia. No reputable references besides lists of varuios phobias that swarm internet lately and inscrupulous psych websites which offer to treat you from prostitute phobia for only 1,275, see -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikka (t) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Likely hoax, no google hits, page creation is author's only contribution. RPIRED 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't minor sports teams quality as clubs and groups, as laid out in the template criteria for CSD A7? Without sources, I wasn't going to accept its claim of being an official national team just because it says it is. Anyway, change my selection to a simple Delete then. wikipediatrix 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - tonnes of single purpose accounts saying 'keep' — FireFox  16:42, 29 August 2006

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Knowledge editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Interested party removed prod (see article history) claiming author was notable but without adding sources to article. As of now his main claim to notability is that he has been a frequent presenter at the Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, run by the Association for Consciousness Exploration. You guys decide. Mattisse(talk) 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - nominator has an active complaint against her from two parties on WP:AN/I for inappropriate tagging, prodding, etc. over two separate vendettas she is conducting, one against pagan authors, so yes, this is relevant. -999 (Talk) 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline does not change the fact that the nomination was made in bad faith. Disclosure: I did not write the article, but simply stumbled on the tagging and prodding spree because she hit an older more established article on my watchlist.-999 (Talk) 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply How can you read the nominator's mind to determine her motivation? Even you say that the subject's notability is probably borderline, so how is that a bad faith nomination? That seems exactly the type of article that should go to afd. Further, the article's history indicates that the original author, Rosencomet, made just one intial entry and has not touched it since. Yet 14 of the 16 subsequent content-related entries (I'm including changing the article's name here) have been made by you, 999 (Talk), on a subject of borderline notability at best. So although you are not the creator, you are the major editor of the article. GBYork 14:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that the subject's notability is probably borderline makes me wonder how you could possibly have a basis to question the good faith of the nomination. If you have an issue about the nominator's good faith, start an RFC. And if you don't consider this enough to merit an RFC, then it isn't enough to merit comment here, either. - Jmabel | Talk 03:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - published author whose works are listed in article and are available from Amazon.com -999
My Aunt's cookbook is available from Amazon also, but that doesn't make her notable. Amazon will sell anything if you slap a bar code on it. wikipediatrix (Talk) 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepKeep and Expand. I'd say being frequently asked to be a presenter at two fairly large neo-pagan gatherings makes him notable enough in his area of expertise. His published works look verifiable to me, too.-Geoffrey Spear 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Per GBYork, changing to "Keep and Expand"; article needs expansion to cite verified sources for every word in the article. Geoffrey Spear 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Question - To Geoffrey Spear: How can unverified works "look verifiable"? I guess I'm asking how does an unverifed work have to look to "look verifiable"? GBYork 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Mu. The works are not "unverified"; they clearly exist. Geoffrey Spear 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply Geoffrey Spear, you misunderstand. Knowledge policy is that every article must pass WP:V, the goal of which is verifiabilty not truth. The fact you can see the book with your eyes (or whatever you mean by "looking") is not the same a verifing its existance through citing reliable unbiased third party sources. Seeing the book as a means of verification is OR and is unacceptable per WP:OR. You seem to be using OR when you say it looks verifiable. GBYork 13:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply Actually, for the first book cited in the article, I take the fact that librarians at 10 OCLC-affiliated libraries (Including the Library of Congress and New York Public Library) claim to own a copy of the book as verification. Granted, the second does seem to have been published by a vanity press. I've never personally seen a copy of either book to verify their existence through original research. Geoffrey Spear 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply So you have found a reliable unbiased source for that "fact" and cited it in the article? Read Hit bull, win steak's statements below on the Library of Congress reason for his Delete vote. GBYork 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply - No, I haven't made any edits whatsoever to the article in question, and I certainly don't feel compelled to make edits to support my position in an AfD. Geoffrey Spear 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply - Then you are missing the point of WP:V which is a non negotiable requirement for all articles. It's what is actually in the article that counts, not what you know in your head. Remember: verifiablity not truth is the guiding principle. GBYork 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Which criteria? How slightly? wikipediatrix 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per several. Atlant 22:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per 999 and Geoffspear. —Hanuman Das 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per wikipediatrix as lacking proof of author's notability through verifiable reliable sources. Footnotes 1 & 2 in the article go to New York Times best seller lists that do not mention his name or his books. Footnote 3 goes to his personal website. Footnote 4 goes to Maybe Logic academy faculty where he is listed as a faculty member. Footnote 5 goes to Starwood Festival 2005 list of speakers where he is listed as a speaker. The Reference section is a repeat of the last 3 footnotes. GBYork 14:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Go look at the books themselves. Chronicles of the 20th Century and Chronicles of America had dozens of contributors and only the editors were listed on the cover. The citations were a response to someone who requested citations that the books were on the NYT best-seller list. They were. -999 (Talk) 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO--MONGO 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Being a contributor to the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" and "Chronicle of America" is not the same as being a New York Times best-selling author. Having flipped through the "Chronicle Of The 20th Century" years ago it is in essence a single-volume encyclopedia (with 30 contributors as stated on Amazon), not something you can become famous for having contributed to. Unique Google hits for (FutureRitual Farber review) = 111 of about 430 . There doesn't seem to be any reviews of FutureRitual in any notable press publications, only DIY reviews like those found on online bookshops. Fails: Knowledge:Notability (people) as an author since his major work doesn't pass Knowledge:Notability (books) --  Netsnipe  18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: The author seems to be well known in a fringe group. His higher profile exposure is pretty minimal. More to the point, the article suggests merely that he writes about magic (with a k, of course) and then lists places he goes. This really tells us very little about why he would be known. The author might squeak by the line, but the article doesn't. Geogre 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only one of his two books is in the Library of Congress, and they only have one copy; this reflects poorly on the impact of his authorship. Also, I'm not coming up with external media coverage. Seems like he might be an interesting guy if he hangs out with Genesis P-Orridge, but he just isn't sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, not notable. TomTheHand 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete who?--I'll bring the food 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's an innovative author, widely published as a journalist, apart from his books. Very well known in NLP, hypnosis and magick communities - in fact, one of the top presenters on these subjects internationally.
— Possible single purpose account: Foolio93 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep I don't care whether he's the current incarnation of the Horned One (Pagan) or the Horned One (Judeo-Christian). As long as he has something even partially original to say that doesn't involve unnecessarily insulting anyone and has some merit to someone, the entry deserves to stay. "Notability" is irrelevant. The only yardstick that matters is credibility, which in turn is based on the verifiable results of other people investigating his statements for themselves. Credibility should not rest on his social circle, or taste in clothes, or how much he makes from his "day job".
— Possible single purpose account: Thausgt (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep He's a great author with some unique ideas. I'd enjoy reading more about him. --Corwin8 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally beside the point of human existance....how we think and process and interact in our reality systems? How those belief systems cross over each other and affect evolutionary changes in culture and thought? Ridiculous! And lets go ahead and delete that Joseph Campbell guy too. What the heck is he going on about?71.74.199.30 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Thomas
  • Comment - Hope no one is losing sight of the fact that Knowledge is aiming to be an encyclopedia. The last five voters seem to have lost track of the non negotiable requirement for all articles, WP:V and appear to be voicing personal reactions rather than an objective evaluation of the article's success or failure in meeting the required Knowledge criteria. NLOleson 12:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, 999 (Talk). You totally eliminated my note under the nomination. What's with that? Is that allowed? Mattisse(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've read his work and googled NLP, his name turned up almost as often as Richard Bandler's. Phil's work is very interesting and important on different levels. He takes into account the esoteric, but also says it can be dismissed for purposes of trying out his work without those particular mental conditionings. He writes for both the lay man and the scientific commnunity. Its not easy to explain NLP to people, but I always recommend looking up Phil's work when people ask me what NLP is about. beatrix216.194.56.15 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Phill has been active in publishing on the subject of NLP and Magick for over 10 years now. He was an Early adopter of the web as a form of online publication with the webzine Paradign Shift in the early 90's. He also has participated as a speeker at several national conferences on Hypnosis and NLP. His books are real and only his early works were published by a small press out of chicago called eschaton books. They still have a web site http://www.eschatonbooks.com/, though I think they may not be doing much these days. His works have been endorsed by the Likes of Robert Anton Willson and Genesis P. Orridge - Brendan Merritt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.246.144.78 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, I've heard of him and the article appears to have been much improved and more verifiable since the nomination. Looks like it can be brought up to WP standards. Ekajati 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC
  • Philip Farber deserves his place here. His published books and live workshops constitute a further evolution of Milton Erickson and Robert Anton Wilson. Pretty important and valid work. m2141.149.107.140 14:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 14:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Notability standards (as I understand them) are fairly subjective, this person seems to meet mine. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ekajati. —Gurunath 18:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If his notability in NLP even vaguely approaches Bandler's, there is nothing in the article to bear that out. - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course he's notable. Just because it can't be proved is no reason to vote against him. Besides the article doesn't say anything anyway. You say he is not notable just because the references in the article are stupid. That is discriminating against Farber because he didn't write the article. Gjeatman 09:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
— Possible single purpose account: Gjeatman (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
— Possible single purpose account: AgastNeey (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep. I don't think there's any reason to question it anymore, now that his listing has been beefed up. I'm sure more data will be added as time goes on, too. He has several DVDs out on Magical, Psychological and Entheogenic topics, and has appeared far more widely than has been expressed here so far. I believe he may have more writings than listed here as well. If not, he will in the near future. I think he's a keeper. RosencometRosencomet 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Farber is an interesting figure in the Aquarian movement; the combination of NLP and magickal techniques alone is significant. I note that today's "Featured Article" on the Knowledge Homepage is about "Illuminatus Triology" - and given Farber's association with Robert Anton Wilson this alone would indicate he's Knowledge-worthy.
— Possible single purpose account: Ricrya (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

del. "Fear of number 4". Not a single reputable source for a supposedly widespread supersition in China and Japan.. 41 unique google hit. Reeks hoax. `'mikka (t) 18:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • While I have seen several sources regarding a cultural superstition regarding the number 4, that is a wholly different subject than what Tetraphobia claims to be. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I vote delete. 204.15.220.162 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Syngenesophobia could be expanded, but this has too few G-hits, and it looks like a hoax. --Nishkid64 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be at least a notable widespread meme. A search for "asian superstition 4" gives us a useless GHit number but looking into the links its comes up with, added with the reputation of asian (esp. Chinese) societies to be superstitious with numbers, it seems to confirm the idea that such a superstition exists. hateless 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    As somebody who is Chinese, I can assure you that the supersition, along with a bunch more do exist. My mom was very concerned that the house I bought did not have a four in it. Houses in Markham, Ontario which has a very high Chinese population can command a premium just by having eights in the house number because eight represent prosperity. -- Whpq 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to 4 (number). The phenomenon is verifiable, definitely not a hoax, but I've never heard anyone call it "tetraphobia." -- Visviva 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Citations are needed, but the basic claims are not false (I can't speak for specifics). Merging into the number article would be difficult; the number article already has a few sentences on the phenomenon with a link back to this article, and there isn't room for more without unbalancing it, so a vote to merge is effectively a vote to delete. The only valid argument to delete that I can think of is that "tetraphobia" is not a widespread term, and may be a neologism; that could easily be solved by renaming the article, rather than deleting it.
    Note that the only pure "delete" votes are all flawed: the nominator and Nishkid64 are mistaken in their belief that this is a hoax, and Arkyan's claim that this article is "nothing more than a dicdef" is simply incomprehensible; a dicdef is a one-sentence article that does nothing but define a word, while this article is nearly 400 words long and goes into considerable detail about the phenomenon, which is precisely what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a dictionary. — Haeleth Talk 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    It is a hoax in its present form. There is no google hits, man. For an ancient asian supersition is is quite unusual, don't you think? `'mikka (t) 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    It isn't a hoax. It's unsourced, and the name of the article is a word that doesn't appear in the dictionary so googling for tetraphobia doesn't turn up as much as googling for Chinese numerical superstition (and variations thereof). -- Whpq 20:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article content is essentially correct but needs to be sourced with stuff like and . I do have a problem wtih the title as it isn't a word I've found in the dictionary or in wide usage. It may be better off moved to something such as Asian superstitions or broken up by country since the genesis for these superstitions are that these numbers are homonyms for words repesenting both bad things and good things. -- Whpq 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly rename or move per Whpq: one of my closest friends is Chinese and has verified this phenomena for me, but she doesn't know the exact name of it (she moved here when she was 4; the superstition is largely held by her parents, but is of little significance to her). The link provided by Whpq has convinced me. Srose (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable phenomenon like triskaidekaphobia. Maybe move to Fear of number 4 or something like that. Kappa 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this attempt is ridiciulous; it is a latin description of an asian belief. ask a roman what's a ghit. User:Yy-bo 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

del. Nonnotable fresh coinage. "fear of relatives". No reputable references besides lists of varuios phobias that swarm internet lately and inscrupulous psych websites which offer to treat you from prostitute phobia for only 1,275, see -phob-#Phobia lists. `'mikka (t) 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. You could definitely expand on this. By Googling it, you can see pages with causes, symptoms, and treatment for the phobia. However, Knowledge is not really a dictionary for every random word, including the thousands of phobias that exist in the world; lack of G-hits too (703). --Nishkid64 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote to Delete. --Nishkid64 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion under non-existent criteria (please don't do that). Bringing here as I question this notability of this "meme". ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's plenty of sources... I'm close friends with a few of the people behind it all... but the rest of your statement is true --DemosDemon 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a non-notable, contextless, purely speculative sentence about a work that doesn't exist. The article cannot be expanded. Let's just close the AfD and forget about it. - Richardcavell 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia for a future work by a possibly non-notable author. The article name and related book title also return zilch Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Northern Irish discus thrower, still a few days short of his 17th birthday. Lots of youth-level accomplishments, but I don't think that's enough for notability. NawlinWiki 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Check out his What links here ... looks like he has usurped a page for a much more notable individual of the same name. Dennette 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically no content other than "there is a Wallis and Futuna national football team." As with Bougainville national football team, listed above, the team's entry at national-football-teams.com is empty. NawlinWiki 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From RSSSF , this team exist (or existed) and have played games. So I'd say keep, and incorporate the info to this page. Chanheigeorge 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

College clubs are not notable. The historical information is already included in the National Party of Scotland article. - Delete. BlueValour 18:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Del. A fork of "Racism" article. Or redirect there. `'mikka (t) 19:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability not established for this obscure Christian-country musician. Reads like vanity. Fails Google test. wikipediatrix 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

proposed delet of non notable person's entry per WP:BIO. The subject has 51,700 Ghits, and none on the SRI international search engine. The article appears to be a vanity piece for the subject. It is possibly self-created, or could violate (in part) the article posted on Shift in Action. Ohconfucius 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 19:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as "advertisement", but since that's not a criterion, I'm bringing it here. I want a stronger consensus than PROD, since the company has been around since 1988. Obviously written at first as promotional material, but maybe they're encyclopedic? They are the first thing to come up for JDQ on a Google search, and "JDQ systems" gets 2000 hits. Duplicate article posted at JDQ and JDQ Systems, Inc. - Experts in Business Process Improvement, which I redirected here. -- nae'blis 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. They provide world-class expertise in areas of business process improvement. In other words, they aren't going to be specific about what their services entail. And they have posted several duplicates of the original unencyclopedic advertisement. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever the fate of the other articles, I cannot see how the redirect at the third title given in the nomination is in any way an article title that we should retain, even as a redirect.

    As my small contribution to the Herculean labours, I've searched for non-trivial published works sourced from other than the company itself. I've found plenty of Yellow Pages and business directory listings, press releases by the company congratulating its own president, and advertisements for expensive breakfasts that don't say anything at all about the company, but nothing at all that can be used to create an encyclopaedia article. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 00:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a neat program, but can't see any way it even comes close to passing WP:SOFTWARE - official site looks to be a user's page on Comcast, and has a total of 16 hits, by its own counter... -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment surely one item in a collection of more than 23000 cannot be notable simply because of its inclusion in such collection. Valrith 22:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A quick guide to what I think about Debian popcon by_inst:
  • <5,000 - probably very important
  • 5,000-10,000 - likely to be at least somewhat important or popular
  • 10,000-20,000 - probably only marginally notable, maybe a list entry or merge candidate
  • >20,000 - probably nonnotable, or old version of something, or some other chaff.
Just a very very very rough breakdown. My point is, #9258 by install isn't that bad. If you peer down from the list, you still see articles for software that are worse than that, above 10,000 line, for example, DokuWiki and Axiom. Granted, it starts to get chaffy at this point... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Forget the counter, the windows port page has probaly been kicked around due to going over bandwidth - the MacOS (original/author) and *nix/nux ports need to be considered too. If it can't stay here, suggest Transwiki to F/oss wikia. Ace of Risk 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this singer and her first her two "albums" for deletion. The first album was never released because her single "performed poorly", the second is apparently forthcoming but there's no sign on Amazon just yet - just 2 singles which can be picked up for a cent a piece. I believe she fails WP:MUSIC. kingboyk 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Kiley Dean - Apparently she has charted , which is good enough for WP:MUSIC. If the albums are verifiable, then keep those too. --Joelmills 01:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete She charted one single at #54 on a hip hop-only chart. In my reading of WP:MUSIC (which uses the word "hit" in reference to a song which has charted, and I wouldn't call #54 a "hit"), that does not assert sufficient notability. And since there is (literally) no other notability asserted in the article, I have to say delete. -- Kicking222 23:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. agree "hit" is poorly defined, so would pass under a liberal definition. Don't think it saw the main Billboard hot 100, so fails on the strict definition WP:MUS. First album pulled, and no sign of the second album, which may (or may not) await the same fate WP:NOT crystal ball. Ohconfucius 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't believe I'm spending so much time on a flash in the pan singer I've never heard of, but that's the beauty of AfD. According to a reference I added to the article, she had two songs that reached the Hot 100. Also, she sang the natinal anthem at the Pro Bowl. --Joelmills 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yanksox 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's not complete nonsense then it certainly is original research (see talk page). Delete. Thanks/wangi 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete as yet another re-creation (It has been deleted several times, according to the log.) of the same content discussed at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Awkward turtle. The article cites no reliable sources, and there is no evidence presented that the lack of verifiability mentioned in the last discussion has changed in any way. {{db-repost}} is the correct tag for this, by the way, not AFD. Uncle G 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Protologism, only reference is the uncyclopedia ˉˉ╦╩ 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. »ctails! =hello?=« 21:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previously deleted article, per Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bucket and spade. Still not notable. If this AfD succeeds, I'd suggest protecting the article after deleting it. Valrith 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge is not a user guide. Author de-prodded. Sparsefarce 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was redirected. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Hedge End is about the same community and is more developed. I have transferred relevant information from Hedge End, Hampshire to Hedge End, so no information will be lost Eilif 21:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tag removed, and I suppose there's a claim of notability. Supposedly a notable Canadian model. Web searches fail to find any evidence that a model of that name even exists. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V. -- Fan-1967 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. Google hits for "tim leonard" programmer = 391, "tim leonard" phoenix = 478 (most of them not about this guy). I've got a comparable number of google results, and a much more distinctive name. I definitely don't deserve a Knowledge article. Delete. --Moe Aboulkheir 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

He's the press secretary for US Senator Lindsey Graham. And a former real estate agent! But still I question the notability of this one. Staecker 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Merged and deleted.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Non notable rap act DieHard2k5 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Closed and moved to Miscellany for deletion.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is outright Muslim proselytizing not to mention unreferenced original research--CltFn 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that this page contains much ambiguous, unencyclopedic information. One might also argue that it is disparaging to the various places listed. SweetNeo85 22:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Online gaming clan. Gives zero Google hits besides itself. It doesn't even have its own website. Prod with prod2 was removed. IceCreamAntisocial 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote for deletion as well... Actually i created the damn guild, i should have a say of whether or not its on Wiki... So I vote toss it, hell most of its wrong anyhow :| Edit, fubar never done wiki so um if anyone cares to make mine match the rest uber thanks.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

ROM Hacking program. Newspaper98 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Deleted. Will contact the author to see if they want the content moved to their Sandbox in order to categorise the articles accordingly.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

According to WIkipedia:What Knowledge is not, Knowledge is not a directory and I think this article is a directory of software that use Bink Video. OrbitOne 22:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete concur with nomination. —ptk✰fgs 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and catagorise as much as I like non-raw lists, and this one has information within that cannot be detailed in catagories (at the moment), this list will almost never be complete, given the popularity of bink video. As such, it would be more easily maintained as a catagory. LinaMishima 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A musician article that does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. May be notable, and has an interwiki link, so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. Grandmasterka 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This should probably be deleted, the subject appears to be a relative of Leslie Hall but has not yet attained the same level of notability. If someone is able to locate reliable sources to the contrary, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. RFerreira 23:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I speedied this page, but the author protested, so I'm bringing it here as I probably should have done in the first place. This is an apparent "internet celebrity", it's up to you to decide if she meets WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC. Grandmasterka 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone involved... The version I deleted wasn't this well-referenced, but I should have waited longer (I usually do.) I found the page because it was one I had had deleted before (a much worse version) and it was on my watchlist. If the delete votes will withdraw, we can end this. The other two AfDs still stand. Grandmasterka 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Granted, not everyone has heard of Leslie Hall, but she is a notable internet celebrity as evidenced by her verifiable coverage provided by TechTV, Bust Magazine, Instinct Magazine, The Boston Globe, and her leading as one of three celebrities of the same ilk selected to represent net neutrality at wearetheweb.org. Seeing as how this figure passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC with flying colors, it would be appreciated if you would kindly provide some sort of rationale for your current nomination beyond someone protesting an invalid speedy deletion made no more than thirty minutes into editing an article. How stifling. RFerreira 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Is this a vanity page? Clearly doesn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. One mention in the Boston Globe human interest section doesn't do it. —ptk✰fgs 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    The Boston Globe article was not a mention, it was a full length interview. Have you bothered to review the sources? RFerreira 22:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    It was a "local interest" article. Carrying on for three pages doesn't mitigate the triviality of the interview. —ptk✰fgs 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    The article currently cites three articles, not one. Unless you're suggesting that coverage in Bust Magazine and Instinct Magazine are of local interest only as well. There are additional citations which can be added in from this page, but this is an incomplete list based on my own Google searches. RFerreira 23:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I came to this page to find out who she was after seeing references to her out there on the 'Net. I'm quite let down the few times that wikipedia can not tell me the details on a reference. That's most of what it's here for. - aa

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A page I speedied, although I probably should have brought this here first. This article actually has a long history, which is surprising to me because it has no direct evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. If it does, add a citation to the article. Otherwise, this ought to go. Grandmasterka 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Afterwards, I will redirect to Racism as reasonable editorial choice. Xoloz 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such phobia. This is a fork of "racism" or "xenophobia" at best, and original research at its best. See also the equally silly variant, negrophobia. Ezeu 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Previous AfD discussion result was keep on April 14 2005.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  23:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Previous AfD was 1.5 years ago. This is a new AfD with a different justification. Ancient AfDs are irrelevant. New "keep" or "delete" arguments are required. --Ezeu 23:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as it stands. User:Nazikiwe added sources during the first nomination, but they've never been tied into the text. Gazpacho 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 23:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — per nom. wikipediatrix 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep substantial Google hits. I agree that the term is nonsense, but unfortunately academia is littered with similar nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 00:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Counting Google hits is not research. In the prior AFD discussion, several of the web pages that Google Web finds were put forward as sources where people are discussing this purported phobia. (See also the critique of several of those sources by Rossami.) It was also mentioned that a lot of the web pages that Google Web turns up are joke lists of phobias, where this phobia is defined as a "fear of the return of 1970s hair styles". So ... Which sources are you actually referring to with your Google Web search? Uncle G 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not putting forth the Google test as research, only to show the word isn't made up. Searching -"fear of the return" still gets over 100 hits. And as you said in the previous AfD, afrophobia isn't a real phobia, it is a political buzzword and the article should reflect this. It shouldn't be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Showing that the word isn't a protologism is necessary for the dictionary article afrophobia. For an encyclopaedia article, we need to show that there is source material for an encyclopaedia article to be written. So ... What sources are you referring to? What sources discuss this political weapon? Uncle G 01:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Afrophobia is a word, a meaningless and inherently misleading nonce word without any real contextual meaning, that gives the guise of describing a phenomenon. Google turns up all kinds of made-up words, need we make wikipedia articles of them all?--Ezeu 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even the sources cited in the article do not agree on the definition of this word. It can mean either fear of doing business/conducting foreign policy in Africa or racism. In other sources it's used as a synonym for racism. Anyway, the material in the article is all either POV, unsourced or OR. JChap2007 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In the last deletion discussion, I argued that it should be sourced or deleted. Reviewing many of the recent versions, my concerns about sourcing and verification remain. While several references have been provided which use the term "afrophobia", they still do so in significantly different and inconsistent contexts. I can not yet find evidence that this is an accepted term with a stable definition. It appears more to be a neologism that each author makes up independently to highlight a point in his or her particular article.
    The contents of this page (prior to a recent and very severe edit) were unsourced and had many of the ear-marks of original research. There has been ample opportunity for this page to be properly sourced. If it can be sourced between now and the end of this deletion discussion, fine. Otherwise, delete. Rossami (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Merge to racism, phobia or xenophobia. --K4zem 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I suffer from this condition myself and I can assure you it's very real. I'm also afraid of a number of other hairstyles too, to the point where I'm sometimes unable to leave the house. I urge you all to do a service to other people with this condition and help document it as best we can. Alternately, if what we're after is an encyclopedia rather than a comedy routine, we'd better delete this for having no particular established meaning, per above. Friday (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is empty now but the older version was something as essay about newly invented word. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was : already deleted because of copyvio by Uncle G. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1.Copyvio from 2.Self promotion of personal website Parthi 23:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The personal website refers to sangeetonline.org. The site lists Vijay Chhajlani: hitchingpost@comcast.net as the director of the site. This is obviously the editor of the article. The editor of this article has been inserting this url in various articles relating to Carnatic music and Indian Classical music. Also, what about the copyvio?- Parthi 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
See , - Parthi 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The copyvio can be resolved by rewriting the article. As I said earlier:
the article can be rewritten to remove the copyvio, preferably by someone with a greater background in music history and musical performance than me. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep The evidence presented by Japanese sources clearly turned the tide of the discussion to favor retention in this case. Xoloz 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese equivalent (notable awards and magazines, mainstream work, etc etc.) Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. What more POV a list could you think of? (particularly when it includes e.g. Robert Menzies) Absolutely no need for such a contentious list. Slac speak up! 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirect. Crossmr 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This page is not noteworthy for the broad audience of Knowledge. "Main St" does NOT refer to Main Street of Niagara Falls, New York. ~Kruck 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be. Not only did I not see Main Street, I didn't even notice that "St" was abbreviated in this article name. Mea culpa. Redirect per 216.189.165.232. bikeable (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Insignificant pro wrestling cruft Dsreyn 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑