Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 4

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Draicone (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 4 July 2007 (Wrong position in list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:07, 4 July 2007 by Draicone (talk | contribs) (Wrong position in list)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< July 3	July 5 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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 keep. John254 02:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet security

Article is practically a guide to internet security, as discussed on its talk page, and not an encyclopedia article. Draicone 07:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite notable concept, but article clearly needs rewriting as it is origional research.--Sefringle 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Needs cleanup, and I cannot believe that first sentence has survived for nearly three years, but then again AfD is not the place for this. —Xezbeth 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --Breno 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup this article. --S iva1979 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite, this article can be improved, I do not see reasons to burn. Carlosguitar 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Legitimate topic. Osomec 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean, although it may be that it is better placed in Computer security that also requires clean up an expansion. Pedro | Chat 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite; it's notable; but it is written as a guide. Tim 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki I think this article could belong in Wikibooks. The one, the only FrogTape 00:52, 9 July 2007 (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 result was keep. Company is sufficiently notable and article has references to prove it. Edit wars are not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; rather to request protection. Nominator has made all of 50 edits since joining Misplaced Pages on June 23, primarily to article, talk page and this AfD. Assuming good faith, he may not fully understand policy yet. Daniel Case 04:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Video Professor

This article does not satisfy the notability guideline. This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Masaimara 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, well-known for their advertisements, and there are quite a few references in the article. Corvus cornix 06:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Advertisement alone is not a criteria for notability. Also an edit war has been started by the company employees(but that is not my reason for nomination). Please also see the discussion of this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- — Masaimara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Dear Cornix, Please read the Full discussion of this page and you will understand the reason for few edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Video_Professor Masaimara 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
keep notable. There are commercials on TV for this program.--Sefringle 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete — the company is not very notable, rather borderline, and the article is bound to be plagued with POV problems. Not very much useful content currently in article, may as well delete to avoid wasting everyone's time (protecting then calling sysops to make trivial edits especially). --Draicone 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lame but notable: that references section is pretty darn convincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete This software company is not big enough to be in wikipedia. Not worth wasting people's time to work on this. LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)— LovelyRitaMeterMaid1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- How is it "not big enough"? There are plenty of references and sources to make it notable, and I assume you're using the terms as synonyms, since a small staff doesn't mean anything in the deletion process. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This page was obviously started as a soapbox. Tried to re-do article folowing Microsoft article's example, however got into an editing war with some users. Too much time is being spent on this, so I vote to just delete it and stop the non-sense. Skporganic 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. History and Talk pages show that the two main contributors have agreed to file for deletion rather than continue to argue. I think its history of consumer complaints (including my mom's!) could meet the notability requirement but who is going to create the necessary balanced article? Canuckle 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep although some cleanup is necessary. I can imagine a lot of users looking for an article on this after seeing the ads. I can imagine circumstances where deletion is preferable to wasting everyone's time fighting, but in all of those cases the subject of the article was ill-defined or so POV that coming to an agreement was impossible. (I'm thinking of articles with titles like "Allegations of..." or "List of (some subjective thing)". There's no reason that we can't write a neutral article about a software company. GabrielF 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Edit wars aren't really a good reason to just give up on an article that meets guidlines as encyclopedic, whether through fame or infamy. This is a notable, yet widely criticized and derided company according to many of the references used. Obviously some of the references don't cut it, particularly the one to the companies own webste, but this really needs cleanup and watching, not deletion.Jim Miller 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep The annoying commercials are omnipresent on US TV, and the company is well known. The article has a number of references about the company and its business practices, so WP:N appears to be satisfied. Deletion is not always the solution to edit wars between people with different points of view. Edison 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
delete page is not suitable for wikipedia. Company is not very notable. Crrockford 15:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) — Crrockford (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Although the founder's bio was deleted in 2006 following this discussion, I suggested keep there, due to the obvious ability of someone to advertise themselves to notability. Video Professor has done that. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Size of company is not the sole determinant of notability. Just the controversy about this outfit appears sufficient to make it notable. --orlady 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up/resolve conflicts. There are enough references that notability is asserted, and I'm sure there are more out there due to the popularity and name recognition resulting from Video Professor's commercials. When judging a topic on its encyclopedic merits, I don't think any of the arguments, edit wars, etc. are relevant -- notability isn't subjective and how the article is written is a subjective way of judging a topic. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Zorba (trance group)

Not clear that there exists reliable third-party coverage to build an article on. What is clear is that the creator of the page works for (or is) the band's promoter which raises serious concerns of conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson 06:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. If WP:RS can be added, keep. Otherwise, delete AND delete their other group, G.M.S.. Precious Roy 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - After a detailed search, I could not find any WP:RS's to add to the article, not even upcoming appearance press releases. There does not seem to be reliable third-party coverage to build an article on. I have serious concerns of conflict of interest. Everyone who wanted to participate in this AfD already has. Closing this AfD with Delete would be supported by consensus. -- Jreferee 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The most notable mention I could find was this source (and a MySpace link). But there has to be multiple, reputable sources so this still doesn't make the cut. Spellcast 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. C. Logan says it better than I could. No substantial improvements in wake of first AfD. No edits to article that could have established better claim to notability than "Jewish American woman who converted to Islam" during six days on AfD. Daniel Case 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maryam Jameelah

AfDs for this article:

the article itself shows no evidence of any notability. While there was a previous afd, no notability has been established within the article. Most of the "evidence" is claims of notability like "notable convert", or "important convert," but no notability has been established or shown within the article itself. Sefringle 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: writer of many books. Hu 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

are any of them notable?--Sefringle 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete She's written books, but that doesn't mean she's a notable author. Also, a very important thing to take note ofis that the article is not about her biography as an author, it's about her conversion to Islam. The article presents itself in such a way as to suggest that she is notable as a convert to Islam (as written in the first sentence), and that her books are simply a detail ofher conversion. I say that unless it can be substantiated that she's a notable author the article should be deleted, but if it's kept then it would need serious cleanup/rewording so as to focus on her career rather than her conversion.Calgary 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - very few individuals are notable for their conversion, and the attempt to force notability in instances such as this is a bad sign. Conversion is non-notable, except in instances like Abdul Rahman's. Writing books as well does not make you notable- it's not as magical as everyone things it is. This seems like an ordinary woman whom certain individuals felt was rather worth noting, and I believe agenda has a lot to do with it. Unless something with more substance can be provided to verify notability, then I'm afraid this lady, no matter how prolific she may be in writing her books, needs to go.--C.Logan 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not very many ghits (for an American). Most links are in the range of Jews for Allah anyways.Baka man 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete No notability, no credible sources.Proabivouac 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep on the basis of WorldCat, showing that her major works are each in about 75 or so university libraries. I don't think this is enough a a sole criterion, but it suggests there will be reviews. ...to continue tomorrow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trophenhorn

likely a hoax or minor local joke - Google finds nothing but pages relating to the article Lars T. 05:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

db-nonsense Hu 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Clearly a joke. Magic does not exist in any measurable way. The artist's interpretation is just a couple of pictures of ram's horns pasted over a picture of a trophy. Calgary 06:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. There should be a CSD criterion for the deletion of such obvious nonsense, but unfortunately A1 specifically excludes even obvious hoaxes from its remit. Thus AfD or ProD are the only way, sadly! Kim Dent-Brown 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There's good reason for excluding it--every week or so we get an article or two here nominated as a hoax, but which turns out not to be--and in some cases turns out to be quite notable. I prodded one myself when i was new here, and learned from the comments that were made. DGG 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dexter Yager

Non-notable Amway distributor. Has already been deleted once, a year ago, still not notable. Corvus cornix 05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The claim of WP:NOTABILITY is the size of his distributorship, but no cite to support it. Instead article states that no specific info is available (i.e., cannot be supported) and attempt to support it is written in clear WP:OR language (as it would have to be, given that's what it is). Only hope is some WP:RS that publishes this claim. DMacks 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable--Sefringle 06:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep: The guy has a mixed record: http://www.merchantsofdeception.com/casestudies.html and http://dexandbirdieyager.com . At the least the page needs a complete rewrite into English, NPoV, and with sources. Hu 06:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Apparently a very successful salesman, but doesn't pass WP:BIO on his own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete scope is too narrow. Sr 13 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies

Listcruft. Misplaced Pages is not the yellow pages. I am also concerned that the use of the logos in this article is a violation of fair use. Corvus cornix 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the logo's so its not an issue now.

Strong Keep

Wiki Policy states that stand alone List are Encyclopedic. See Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists).

Further, there are literally thousands of Stand-alone List on Wiki. This is a standard and accepted wiki practice. see a few examples:

...

If you don't believe me click here for a complete list:

List of Search

List of

Thus, that is a completely bogus rejection! If you think this is not encyclopedic then you guys had better get busy deleting the thousands and thousands of similar lists on wiki that were approved. example:

...

List of Companies on Wiki

You are missing the point. even an encyclopedia needs indexs and category for looking up information. A "list of" is just a more organized category and its accepted practice on wiki as noted by the nomerous example provided. If you were going to research 'Indian Outsourcing Firms' using wiki, how are you going to find them if you guys delete the index for it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianofficebuildings (talk • contribs) . Corvus cornix 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the merits of this article without discussion of other articles. WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not help us to come to a consensus on this article. Corvus cornix 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

now you have changed your mind and are rejecting the page because of the logo's? ohh come on... you are just looking for excuses to delete this article because you are biased against the topic. In that case remove the logo's. butm don't delete the page for something silly that can be fixed in a few seconds. you are just wasting people's time if you do that.
- I didn't change my mind. I haven't edited my nomination since I initially wrote it. The list is listcruft, but on top of that, the use of the logos is a fair use violation. Both are problems. Please don't take a nomination of an article personally, read Misplaced Pages's Notability guideleines. And please read WP:AGF. I have no feelings one way or the other about this topic. Corvus cornix 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I disagree, this article is not listcruft. all the articles referenced by the list exist in wiki and the category of the list is useful, particularly if you are researching Indian outsourcing firms for whatever purpose: Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing---either way the information is useful from both points of view. Further, I have already removed the logos from the article so that you cannot use that as a way to reject the article.
    - Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing. I think you mean opponent, but, no , I'm neutral on the subject. Corvus cornix 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I think he meant whether. Calgary 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I cannot believe someone actually created an article on this. People will create articles on anything these days no matter how unencyclopediac the topic is.--Sefringle 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Its not a directory, its a standard blue linked list not served by a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete There is a category for outsourcing companies. Where they are based is not a particularly good criterion for categorizing or listing them. GassyGuy 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete My concern here is that it is a list that is too narrow to be considered worthy of it's own article. It's not a list of Information Technology companies located in India. It's not a list of Information Technology companies that outsource their labor. It's not a list of companies of varying industry that outsource there labor to India. No, it is instead a list only of companies, all of which are Information Technology companies, all of which outsource their labor, and all of which outsource their labor to India. I just think that that's a bit too narrow to be notable. Also, I'm pretty sure that there are more than just 10 companies that do this...either way, maybe if it were expanded to companies that outsource their labor, organized by country, or something like that I would support it, but I don't see how the current article merits it's own article. Also, I think the title is rather misleading, as it suggests that the companies themselves are Indian, as well as requiring decapitalization...Calgary 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete better as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't really in indiscriminate list, but I don't think it's a valuable article. As I said in the prod, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. eaolson 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - transfer to a category. Crazysuit 04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fuck Emo

Non-notable song. Corvus cornix 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, was not a single, didn't stand out. Punkmorten 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable album track by a probably-non-notable band. Precious Roy 08:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- it's just a song, not particularly notable. --Haemo 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else.-h i s _{r e s e a r c h} 10:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Carlosguitar 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Certainly not notable for an individual article and it can be easily be put in the artist's article or related album (if notable, which I doubt considering, it does obviously not appear to have extensive radio air.--JForget 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. Wizardman 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Futurama products

A list of jokes people noticed while watching Futurama. Unreferenced, no hope for references other than personal observation of the show itself, and wholly unencyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: nom seems to be contradiction vs WP:EPISODE guideline ("An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research if it is used to verify a fact."). However, any non-obvious interpretations about what the products spoof do need citations or removal, per the followup part of that guideline ("However, the episode cannot be used to justify an interpretation.")...can't remember if the commentary track on the DVDs has any info for that. DMacks 05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an indiscriminate list of jokes, based on idiosyncratic criteria, and it fails WP:FICT's standards for sourcing (commentary independent of the subject itself). Nobody has ever felt the need to comment on any of these jokes in particular or the whole in general; why should Misplaced Pages be the first source to comment? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep As opposed to all the other lists up for deletion, this has well defined criteria and a limited possible number of entries. As to the concern about citing only itself, pages on characters are almost always written "in universe." Recurring dreams 09:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of problematic articles that need fixing or deleting. That's no reason to ignore WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Macks and Recurring. Mandsford 14:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately; all the sources for this article are from Futurama episodes, which are primary sources, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources asks for independent, third-party sources about a subject. Unfortunately, while some of these products are clever, they don't have the sources to meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per DMacks and Recurring dreams. Lugnuts 18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. This is a tough call, but after thinking it over all day I just can't see how this list would work. It could focus on people with advanced mathematics training who chose other careers, but frankly so many people receive graduate degrees in things that have nothing to do with how they achieved notability that I don't see what makes mathematics special in that respect. Advanced mathematics study doesn't commit one to a career in the field (not like, say, seminary would).

A list of people with advanced math degrees who do things other than math (like Art Garfunkel) would have to have a title more intricately worded than this, and such wording would probably more easily expose the triviality of the subject (while the current title is, as the keep votes admit, overly broad). I can see where the keep voters are coming from, but ultimately while this is interesting, it would belong better in a wiki focused on math, not the general Misplaced Pages. Daniel Case 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

List of famous people trained in mathematics

Essentially a trivial list amounting to listing people by "what they studied in college." If it had any bearing on reason for notability, perhaps it might pass off. But as it stands it doesn't. List of famous people trained in history would be endlessly long, and include tons of people who's link will only come down to trivia such as: Did you know Conan O'Brien studied American History? Bulldog123 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete So basically, this is a list of people who studied something they are not known for? Resolute 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete list cruft. Not much need, if any, for this sort of thing. What's next? "List of famous people who studied English at some point in their loathsome lives"? (Can you imagine how large that would be?) "... who drive Mercedes"? "... seen drinking wine"? Allow lists like this and Misplaced Pages would become a list of lists. Besides, define "famous" and then patrol it, if you have a millenium to spare. Hu 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete list would be endless as "famous" would be by wikipedia's notability guideline which would include just about everyone. Not to mention the current list is origional research.--Sefringle 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I understand the objection, but I don't think that it's fair to apply to the whole page. Only the third section refers to people who merely studied math "in college", and I agree that that section is a marginal case. However, the first section especially addresses an interesting question that has arisen in many conversations, namely people who are actual research mathematicians but who are famous for unrelated things. There aren't many such people, they do have something interesting in common, and the list is unlikely to grow much longer. I don't know about you folks, but I think that it's fascinating that there could be someone like Frank Ryan, who could be an NFL quarterback and in the same year prove new theorems in mathematics. Greg Kuperberg 09:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Members of the list could be verified, but the problem is that the list is too broad, and if it included all possible entrants could stretch into the thousands Recurring dreams 09:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Comment But I still don't understand why people have this all-or-nothing attitude, so that instead of narrowing the list only to mathematicians with research careers, people want to delete the whole page. Why is it necessary to go all the way? Greg Kuperberg 11:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Greg pretty obviously put keep twice so I changed this to a comment. Bulldog123 15:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article is not about mathematicians, but about persons who have degrees in mathematics and whose notability is in other fields, such as Frank Ryan, or politicians, etc. Granted, the title is awkward and does not reflect the limitations of the list. As Recurring points out, the title is too broad, since, technically, everyone has been "trained in mathematics" to some extent. As others point out, this might "open the door" for truly crufty lists, and for that reason, this type of article should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I would strongly vote to delete articles about persons who majored in English, political science, business, history, fine arts, economics, etc., most of whom had to declare a major to get their degree. I think many will agree that there are fewer persons who obtained degrees in mathematics, chemistry, etc.; and still fewer who made their mark in a field unrelated to their education. Surely there's a broader Wikiprinciple that covers this topic... Mandsford 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - if these people are not specifically known for being trained in mathematics, then listing them together means this is WP:NOT loosely associated topics. Crazysuit 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Many of the people in the first section are specifically known as research mathematicians, in the mathematical community, even though they are more widely famous elsewhere. Again, I totally understand the impulse to clean up Misplaced Pages, but in this case I think that it's heavy-handed to delete the whole thing. The solution that I suggest is to rename the article and restrict it to people who got at least a PhD in mathematics. That is the right level of interest, and I can assure you that it won't end up being a huge list. Greg Kuperberg 05:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep if edited as Greg suggests. DGG 09:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep but drop BAs, only keep MAs and above, to get list out of trivia category. Gandalf61 13:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
EDITED Ph.D's and professors are now listed first, followed by M.A.'s. Some of the more notable B.A.'s are at the top (James Garfield, Sergei Brin (co-founder of Google), Paul Wolfowitz). Original author can restore deleted names by going to article history. Mandsford 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Mandsford. Big improvement. (Well, it was a big improvement until your changes were reverted). Gandalf61 08:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you *really* think it's an improvement, then restore the changes. Myasuda 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, I have restored Mandsford's changes. Hope that is okay. Gandalf61 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

hhhhgraA Good article, either way. Mandsford 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Just needs sourcing and pruning. Why delete what you can fix? --Hemlock Martinis 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. List of famous people who have something irrelevant to their fame in common. Pavel Vozenilek 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete, unused former template. NawlinWiki 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mount St. Mary's College/Infobox

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mount St. Mary's College/Infobox

Subpage used to independently keep the infobox out of the main article space. Infobox has been incorporated into the main article. --fuzzy510 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete template not used in any articles, but template deletions should should go to WP:TFD not afd.--Sefringle 05:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but it's not in the template namespace. The template link itself is just a redirect to this page. --fuzzy510 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If so, then it should probably go to WP:MFD--it is not in article space, and this is articles for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not a fan of calling for deletion for a nomination on the wrong page (this should be WP:TFD, as it started out as a template) - but no point in process wonkery. This page isn't even used. The Evil Spartan 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Xzibit's seventh studio album

An obvious violation of Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. The album is not even named yet and alot can happen in two years. Delete Jaranda 04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination or merge into the main article. All based on a single rumor. Hu 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete until such a time as the album's confirmed title, tracklist, and specific release date can be verified through reliable sources independant of the artist and the production compamy. People need to WP:CHILL, there is no need to be the first. -- saberwyn 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep It He will confirm it within the summer ends. Football97 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When or if he "confirms it" would be the appropriate time for the article, not now. Hu 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete But still it is too early for an article. Per WP:CRYSTAL.--JForget 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Timway

Non-notable company, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete, unless certain changes are made to the article. In the talk page, the original editor hinted at some notability with its rankings in terms of Hong Kong-specific search engines. However, those aren't backed up with citations. The article is a keeper if good sources can be found for those stats, and if they support the assertion that it's a major player in the Hong Kong search industry. As the article stands now, though, the assertion is not properly expressed in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think it qualifies as a speedy delete because it "does not adequately assert notability". Hu 06:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Timway" gets only 97 non-duplicate GHits . Chinese name is 添達, which gets only 202 GHits . Their founder's Chinese name is 俞添/Tim Yu(too common to be a useful search term), but his name plus his search engine's name gets only one page in either language What's weird is that despite the lack of notability, I see lots of trivial mentions in the same breath as Yahoo and Google. Incidentally, I use their web directory a lot, and I'm pretty surprised by the complete absence of independent coverage. cab 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 08:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Tim 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The word play

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:V. east.718 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Article does not adequately assert notability. Hu 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Page does not pass any of the points of WP:N. --SteelersFan UK06 12:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete there is enough content in the main article. Sr 13 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sol Kadhi

WP:NOT - Misplaced Pages is not a cookbook. No references, no notability asserted or established. Seems to be nothing more than a short recipe with a commercial external link. --Hetar 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Oh my, this is laughable (I mean, I'm actually laughing). Okay, that may not be the nicest thing to say, but honestly, these are cooking instructions. Blatant cooking instructions. It doesn't even attempt to disguise itself as an encyclopedic article. Calgary 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Oyster guitarst 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Recipes don't belong on wikipedia Recurring dreams 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge salvageable content with Malvani cuisine and Transwiki the recipe to WikiBooks (wikibooks:Cookbook:Cuisine of India). Sol Kadhi is an important part of Konkani cuisine -- Google with alternative spellings "sol kadi", "Solkadi", "Solkadhi", "sol curry", "sole kadi" etc. utcursch | talk 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above - not a cookbook Corpx 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Tdmg 06:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge per utcursch. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mearns Castle High School

Non notable school , no particular significance or Notability. Said "new systems" to tackle latecoming are carried out by majority of schools. WP:N states in Note 5 that "..articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located". I feel this is the case for this article. SteelersFan UK06 02:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability or what makes this high school any more notable than the average school. TJ Spyke 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep All high schools should have an article, and thousands of them do. Vast numbers of users think that high schools meet the notability requirements, as has been demonstrated in debate hundreds of times. Osomec 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Its fine that those hundreds of schools meet the notability requirements, but in case you haven't noticed, there is nothing notable on this articles page. --SteelersFan UK06 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment. "All high schools should have an article" is only your opinion and there is no such a guideline.--Svetovid 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This high school is not notable at the moment.--Svetovid 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to the school district but not plain delete.--JForget 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep details regarding awards received by the school have been added, with appropriate sources. Article will greatly benefit from additional expansion. Alansohn 03:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep since all high schools are notable, as I argue here. Noroton 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep since recent details have been added with reliable sources this shows notability. Yamaguchi先生 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete & Redirect to Newton Mearns. Nothing is asserted about this school that convincingly passes my views on school notability. Eusebeus 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete they didn't win awards, they were just finalist a few times. That doesnt mean much in the way of notability, and there is nothing else. DGG 09:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep All high schools are notable. Greg Grahame 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep — RJH (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This high school is notable as indicated by its status as a semifinalist in a Scotland wide award program. The article provides reliable and independent secondary sources. ~~High schools/secondary schools are notable, often more notable than some of the smaller communities that feed into them.~~ -- DS1953 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Once again high schools and secondary schools are inherently notable. --Oakshade 14:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep the school has won a national award, and that is sufficient to bring it out of hte group for notability.--Kylohk 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. List is too broadly defined, cruftprone and likely unmaintainable. Daniel Case 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Halloween songs

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics, WP:NOT#IINFO, and largely Original Research. Indiscriminate list of songs that have no connection, other than having titles that might sound a bit "spooky". Or song titles that have the word "moon" in them, or the word "night"... etc. Hardly any of the songs are Halloween-related either. Masaruemoto 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete By far the majority of the songs are not related to Halloween, most of them don't even deal with the supernatural/that sort of thing. I'd support the existence of the page if it were in some way accurate, but as of now it's worthless. Calgary 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Oyster guitarst 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Calgary. For some of these songs, I don't even know what the contributors were thinking. "Whip It" by Devo? "Mama" by Genesis? "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)" by Meat Loaf? Is October 31 a summer night? --Metropolitan90 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth (Hot Summer Night)" Holloween connection is that it's on Bat out of Hell :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant delete - I was so hoping that this would be an actual list of Halloween songs instead of an OR-ridden list of songs "directly or indirectly related" to it. Damn. Otto4711 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Another Reluctant delete... Like Otto, I had high hopes before reviewing the list, and it's clear that any song with witch, goblin, monster, etc. finds its way on here. Other than the Monster Mash and a song by The Shaggs, I don't recall any song actually about Halloween. I hope that people who are planning a Halloween party will download this one, and for that reason, I'm sorry that Masarue nominated this one in July, instead of waiting until September or October. On the other hand, putting it then might have invited a lot of "Keep" votes by people swept up in the spirit of the season. I agree with Mas, that this doesn't really belong in Misplaced Pages. Mandsford 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but add references. A good list of Halloween songs, i.e. songs associated with a major holiday with many years of tradition is unbelievably valid for an encyclopedia, but we should require references. So, add reference tags, but too important to delete. --164.107.222.23 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
BOOt this article (delete). For most of these, the association with Holloween is tenuous at best. The ones that really make sense could be added to Category:Halloween songs, but that's about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per the afd nom.--JForget 22:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

StarFighter: Quadrant Wars

Misplaced Pages is not a game guide, cites no reliable sources which either support, or assert notability. Subject is a non-notable flash game. Contested prod. Haemo 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep: I think this should be kept. We can try to ship things up to make it not Game Facish.Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the content in the article is sourced and most of it is not encyclopedic. Leebo /C 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Oyster guitarst 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep because we can get it sourced. Specifically, we could ask Ben Olding to set up a webpage about it...would that be good enough? Is Ben Olding a good enough source? You know, the guy making the game? As for the popularity, the game has more than 100k views and earned Daily 5th Place on Newgrounds. I hold firmly by the belief that less popular games have had Misplaced Pages pages. No, I can't cite any, because I don't frequent Wiki'. And as for the topic of whether or not it's encyclopedic, it can be edited. DavidFrickinPiersol 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — DavidFrickinPiersol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - just a comment that notability is not the same as popularity, and other stuff existing is not an argument (if it does, which it may or may not). In addition, Ben Olding's personal website is not a reliable source that could help with your notability problem. --Haemo 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no independent sources cited and none appearing via a Google search. Non-notable Flash game. To answer DavidFrickinPiersol, no Ben Olding's webpage would not be a good enough source. As the inventor of the game he is not independent and his endorsement does not make the game notable. Kim Dent-Brown 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Eventhought this game sounds like its not popular it should have Misplaced Pages page cause ppl do watch it and play it. Here link Here, Go search for it on Google. PLEASE KEEP THE ARTICLE. Its not fair.

Delete This flash game is certainly not notable. The fact that it exists (as noted by DavidFrickinPiersol (talk · contribs) has nothing to do with this nomination.--Svetovid 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I qant u guys to know there are games in wikipedia that are less popular than this! Also I have posted notes about this game. Can we atleast make a StarFighter Wiki? we can fix up the article any way u want!Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has already !voted above --Haemo 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Several members of the StarFighter Community contributed to this article trying to keep the article good... We can make it less like a game guide if that would be ok... Additionally the game has some notability, as Tom Fulp - Creator of Newgrounds ( has interviewed Ben Olding about the game's upcoming sequel... - Moo12321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo12321 (talk • contribs) — Moo12321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong KeepMany members of the Starfighter commuinity have contributed to it,I myself being one have to.The page should be kept because it has a way of informing people,it is popular,and it is NOT written as a game guide...-Jawa2.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawa2.0 (talk • contribs) — Jawa2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentThe game is a notable flash game, if you do a Google search for Starfighter: Quadrant Wars it would show up on the list as the top one...

Comment The Misplaced Pages notability guidelines don't state "being at the top of a Google search" as a criterion for notability. If you search for Leebo86, I get the most hits for people who use that handle on the Internet, it seems. But that doesn't amount to anything at Misplaced Pages. Leebo /C 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete This is just another flash game. There are no major mentions/reviews of this game at any major media site, failing WP:NOTE. Everything in the article is from the creator or people invovled with the project. Corpx 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
20-Mule-Team Delete: I just went through each and every unique Google hit on this game (given that there are only 44, it didn't take that long). Not a single one of them is from a reliable source. For all the SPA partisans claim that they can source this article to reliable sources -- and for the record, we're talking major gaming magazines, mass media, and the like -- they've yet to do so. The game's website isn't even on the Alexa chart. I'm quite willing to believe that there are a dozen fanatics who demonstrably really love this game, but I'm waiting for anyone to state the criteria at WP:V or WP:WEB this obscure game meets. RGTraynor 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and give RGTraynor's mules some carrots, as his comment looks to be bang on. Fails WP:WEB at present. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Very strong delete. No assertion of notability is presented, nor are there any independent sources provided to back them up. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but even though I'm tempted to speedily delete it (NN web content), I'll let the AfD play out, so the community can clearly express where it stands—and possibly provide some borax, erm, salt for RGTraynor's mule team. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment and Strong Delete It's easy to get a top result on Google if you type in the exact name of what you are looking for. Strong Delete because it fails WP:NOTE, there are no independent sources, and fails WP:WEB. Klytos 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article shouldnt be deleted cause of these reasons. Evnthough waht u ppl are saying is corect its not right to dele it cause of that. We worked hard in making this article. And if ppl go and pass by this article they may want to join the games. Why dont u search up other flsh games u have on this website??/ THEY ARENT EVEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE AND YETU GET TO KEEP THEM!Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please calm down. There is no reason to SHOUT. Secondly, the other editors are citing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines as their reasons to delete. As far as deletion discussions are concerned, these are the only types of arguments that matter -- ones that cite policies or guidelines. Other reasons, such as "we all worked really hard" and "we want to use Misplaced Pages to advertise our game" are not acceptable. Lastly, if you find articles about other non-notable flash games, nominate them for deletion. Leebo /C 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. All North American area codes are notable. Daniel Case 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Area code 856

Looks like a directory to me. --trey 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This seems to be encyclopedic information not readily available elsewhere. --Eastmain 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N. I'm not sure how this could be construed as encyclopedic information. -- Kesh 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete WIkipedia is not a phone book Corpx 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per corpx. Oyster guitarst 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article is about an area code, and describes the evolution of this area code as part of the North American Numbering Plan. It contains no phone numbers, so it's not a phone book. Nor does this article does NOT meet any of the criteria of WP:NOT#DIR, which includes 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) No; 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. No, or; 4) Sales catalogs Not even close. I assume the confusion revolves around the phrase "phonebook entries", but the policy specifies "Misplaced Pages is not the white pages", which clearly refers to listings of phone numbers, and this article (at best) only contains the first three digits of any phone number. WP:NOT is often used to mean virtually anything, but in this case it has absolutely no relevance to the article in question. Alansohn 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the area code itself still falls under category 3, as there's no real "history" detailed here. However, it's certainly not notable, so I've appended that to my !vote. -- Kesh
  - Huh? 201 was the first area code ever assigned, 609 was split off this, and 856 was a further split off 609. That's a clear and encyclopedic history. As far as notability, there are now several sources, so it meets WP:N. Dhaluza 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic information on area codes is a well-established standard on wikipedia; I think we have all of them currently in use. If we aren't planning on deleting all of them, gotta keep.Deltopia 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING are relevant here. -- Kesh 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - These are references to an essay, which is not policy or a guideline. The arguments against deleting random items from a comprehensive category are relevant, and not rendered moot by these references. Editors have obviously worked hard to make WP a comprehensive reference in this area, and they are to be commended for it. Sharpshooters taking pot shots at things like this are not helping make WP reach its stated goal of providing access to "the sum of all human knowledge." Dhaluza 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and improve. The history of the area code is good, especially since the area code is a new one that split off. Some explanation for non-Americans is a potential improvement as is a map. Fineday 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or delete the bunch Looks like one of dozens of area code articles — nothing that singles it out for deletion. Lars T. 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep This needs to be argued at the Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainally a stub compared to other Area code x articles, but still I'd say keep per Alansohn's points above, NOT#DIR doesn't apply. --Breno 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, absolutely harmless, referenced article, and the links to various WP: acronyms do nothing to convince me otherwise. —Xezbeth 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or delete all. With these kinds of articles, it's either all or none. --_Hdt83 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep as part of a wider series of limited but genuine value. Osomec 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep-Area code articles seem common enough that the question of their inclusion should be settled elsewhere, AfD is not the correct venue for such wide-reaching decisions.--Fyre2387 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep as reasonable article describing the area code - no directory present that I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to List of North American area codes 132.205.44.5 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep unless you nominate the rest of the other US codes.--JForget 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Note - Many of these comments need to read up on WP:ALLORNOTHING. "Keep or you have to delete these other articles" is not a valid statement to make here. We are considering this article. The others can be dealt with (or not) on their own. -- Kesh 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Kesh. Misplaced Pages is not a directory. This article also fails to show the area code in notable, since only one reference is presented. The fact that there are other articles about area codes only invites adding them to the AFD or nominating them separate, in keeping with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Edison 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sourced article of almanac-type information. Useful article for those seeking more information. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. We keep all of those state highway articles, like Minnesota State Highway 121, under the rationale that if the highway department assigned a number to the road, it's notable. Similarly, if the North American Numbering Plan Administration assigns a number to an area code, that ought to make it notable as well. I bet more people are served by area code 856 than by Highway 121. (Besides, it's unlikely that we'll ever have an edit war over the names of area codes.) --Elkman 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a populated place. Thousands of people live in and use this area code. Obviously Area code 212 is notable, and there is no sense trying to set some arbitrary threshold at which an area code becomes notable. Assigning area codes is a political and bureaucratic process, that generates plenty of WP:V info from primary and secondary sources, so WP:N is moot. References to WP:NOT#DIR are also way off the mark here. Dhaluza 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Neil ╦ 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Del Padre Visual Productions

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

User's own self-created page. Nominated for aFd for: content not suitable for an encyclopedia and for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline. Mplauthor 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete I cannot evaluate the significance of the awards given to the company because I am not familiar with the subject. My first impression is that these are "in-house" industry awards and they do not confer notability. Shalom 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak Keep~~ - References given are fairly vague, but may satisfy company notability guidelines. More importantly article does appear to be biased. The main article editors so far may have conflict of interest issues. Optigan13 08:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Although the article may satisfy corporate notability with the awards and reviews listed, it is very difficult to assume good faith on this one. I think the bias that I see is enough where I would go with a not a self-promotion objection to the article. The two registered editors (Writerjax(creator), and Delpadre) as well as the IP editors (75.193.208.39 and 68.116.161.142) have only worked on this and the Riley Martin article which had stated that this company being discussed here as working on his new website. The first edit by the admitted company IP put the official Riley Martin Website and Store in the article. That makes feel very strongly that there is a commmercial interest in the edits being done here. While the awards may establish some notability the article appears to be created by individuals associated with the company, which while not outrightly prohibited is strongly discouraged because of the financial bias which, although you (Dvp543) may try to avoid will always be present. I don't think you personally go through this article and make every edit, but I do have a strong feeling that it is individuals with whom you are personally associated. When I read through the article it reads like a web-development company's portfolio of work. Although written in the third person, this article is structured with a "they made this, then won this award, then they made this, then they won this award" style. I also see peacock terms, such as "high-end Web design", "a highly visual interface", "high-end sound reproduction and unique, full function remote control". You also appear to be taking this argument very personally and because it is your company, you feel a sense of ownership of the article, accusing individuals of being bitter former business associates, and taking offense at being called a lone web-developer. If you think this is bad, wait until your article is kept and these same individuals mercilessly edit away at the article. So I would say delete, without prejudice, and the editors involved should request the article and wait for an uninvolved editor to create one. Also, although your assistance would be appreciated on Riley Martin's page, you should work on that article via the talk page, to make sure that your edits are filtered through someone without a financial interest in the subject. Optigan13 05:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Article is biased. The so-called awards appear to be in-house, and there are obvious conflict of interest issues given the fact that the article was written almost in its entirety by a user named "delpadre." Dogtaag 09:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- — DogTaag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - The edits by user 68.116.161.142 on 4 July 2007 and 5 July 2007 are clearly DelPadre himself. This is nothing more than an autobiography and should be deleted. Misplaced Pages does not need a posted autobiography from every freelance web designer in the world. The same user has been seen repeatedly vandalising the Riley Martin page, reverting the same old poorly written paragraph (about DelPadre himself) after numerous users have reverted his edits. User:Lbgh050104 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- — Lbgh050104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Autobiographical article with conflict of interest issues which does not seem to meet WP's notability guidelines. User:YankeeBankee 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- — Yankeebankee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep As per Optigan13, the references do seem to satisfy WP:CORP. The article has been tagged for the other concerns which can be dealt with without deleting the article. --Nick—/_Contribs 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Article titled "Del padre visual productions" was previously deleted on 20 March 2006, as was an article titled "Nino Del Padre". User Delpadre (Nino Del Padre) came back and re-created the article after it was deleted and the user has since been banned See page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Delpadre. He appears to have re-created an account under the name dolphinsafetuna and is vandalising this page and the Riley Martin WP page. From delpadre's talkpage: "(UTC)17:58, 20 March 2006 deleted "Del padre visual productions" (content was: advertisement created by delpadre (talk · contribs)). I rest my case (and I feel like such a detective). User:64Sateen 14:37, 7 July 2007
- — 64Sateen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Nick—/_Contribs 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Hello, this is Nino Del Padre. I want to address some of the incorrect information that has been said on this talk page.

Shalom: The awards I have been given are not “In House Awards” for instance the Telly Awards and Addy Awards are some of the world's largest and arguably toughest advertising competitions. I have added links to the actual awards and a link to information on the program we created for LEGO that changed the way that they sell products to their clients. We have been on the cover of two industry magazines for the “LEGO Virtual Showroom” and the system has been in use by LEGO since 2001. You can Google “LEGO virtual Showroom” to get more info.

Optigan13: I have added better refernaces and have improved the page the not to be “Biased”

Dogtaag: This person is obviously a bitter former business asscoitae of Riley Martin as his profile reads “My goal on Misplaced Pages is to give objective viewpoints in discussions concerning pages up for deletion.” However the only two pages he has worked on is mine and Riley Martin’s. His only contributions have been to erase any mention of Nino Del Padre on the Riley Martin page and demean me. He is obviously the one with a “Confilict Of Interest”

Corvus cornix: Yes, I did fix some of the incorrect items written in the original article but I didt not write the article.

Lbgh050104: We have 11 employees and 7 interns working at Del Padre. Yes 68.116.161.142 is our IP address. That does not mean that I sit around all day and make changes to these articles myself. I take offence to your comment that “Misplaced Pages does not need a posted autobiography from every freelance web designer in the world.” I am not a freelance web designer sir, nor am I a single person that has created all of the notable work for the Fortune 500 clients listed in the article for the past 16 years. We have a team of talented designers and programmers that have help achieve this. If you do a Google search for Del Padre Visual Productions you will see 230,000 results. We have documented the STS 107 NASA mission before the tragedy on February 1, 2003 when all the astronauts where killed. We worked with Industrial Light And Magic on this project and was nominated Rob Burgess, Chairman and CEO of Macromedia and member of The Chairmen’s Committee, for inclusion in the 2003 Media, Arts & Entertainment category of the Computerworld Honors Program, Honoring Those Who Use Information Technology to Benefit Society. Our case study now becomes part of a collection of over 300 case studies in ten categories from 33 countries. See: http://www.delpadre.com/html/awards/heros.htm for more info.

YankeeBankee: I am certain that my company meets the notability guidelines.

64Sateen: “Article titled "Del padre visual productions" was previously deleted on 20 March 2006” Yes this is true as it was poorly written and we did not have sufficient notability at that time so it was re-written. “user has since been banned See page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Delpadre” It was banned because of the username matching the subject matter. I have no idea “dolphinsafetuna” is. Again I am not a sole person sitting on Misplaced Pages all day to make myself look good.Dvp543 21:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC) — Dvp543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete without prejudice to coming back with an encyclopedic sourced article. At the moment I am unconvinced about compliance with policy or notability. For example, Nino Del Padre above says " ...Addy Awards are some of the world's largest and arguably toughest advertising competitions". Fine, but they have not won the Addy award. The source that they provided here says "Del Padre Visual Productions ... is among the winners of the first tier of competition for this year’s ADDY Awards". The ADDY site here makes it clear that all they have achieved is getting through the local stage, the first in three levels. If they actually won the award that would be different! Bridgeplayer 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Addy Awards = notable, right? This company has got one. Giggy _UP 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes you are correct; we won a regional Addy Award. However I am not basing or notability on this award. You can’t overlook one of the awards that we received that I am most proud of, “The Computerworld Honors Medal of Achievement” “The Computerworld Honors Medal of Achievement is presented annually to men and women around the world who have made outstanding progress for society through the visionary use of information technology,” said Patrick J. McGovern, Chairman of the Computerworld Honors Chairmen’s Committee and the founder of International Data Group. You can view the info on their site here: http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=4411

Below is a complete list of notable awards and case studies that have been written about Del Padre Visual Productions and projects we have done for clients like LEGO, NASA, TAMA, Ibanez, etc. We have been on the cover of three trade magazines.

Aegis Awards Winner 1998 DVP Demo Reel http://www.aegisawards.com/1998_winners.html Blue Chip Enterprise Initiative Award The BCEI award is co-sponsored by MassMutual, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Nations Business Magazine. The program recognizes businesses that have effectively utilized resources to overcome adversity or create opportunities.This notable achievement was earned by the rapid growth and creative way that DVP has positioned themselves in a very competitive market, working for some very concerning clients along the way. Aegis Awards Winner for "Recovery" project http://www.aegisawards.com/2000_winners.html

Favorite website award for robertcharlesphoto.com http://www.thefwa.com/ Nino Del Padre Interview with the FWA http://www.thefwa.com/?app=interviews&id=31 Matrox NAB 2003 User Reel winners http://www.matrox.com/video/products/footage/home.cfm Top 100 Producers AV Video Producer for three consecutive years For the past seven years, we have chosen the 100 individuals who represent the best producers in our business. Producers like those in the Top 100 have raised the standard for non-entertainment media. Each spring we call for nominations from your peers and clients, asking them to tell us about the producers who they feel exemplify the highest standards in our industry. 2006 Creative Merit Award from the Advertising Club of Western Massachusetts. http://www.delpadre.com/html/2006_Creative_Merit_Awards.html

2004 Creative Merit Award BAE Systems Digital Business Card http://www.adclubwm.org/downloads/award_book_2004.pdf 28th Annual Telly Award for SpeakerCraft “I am MODE” http://www.delpadre.com/html/2007_telly_award.html

Favorite website award for delpadre.com http://www.thefwa.com/ LEGO “Virtual Showroom” case study featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2434&loc=en_us NASA Space shuttle Columbia STS 107 cd rom case study featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2777&loc=en_us

DVP's Digital Business Card design featured in the Macromedia Director Showcase. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=casestudydetail&casestudyid=2852&loc=en_us LEGO “Virtual Showroom” featured cover story in AV video multimedia producer magazine. http://www.corporatemedianews.com/2001/11_nov/features/lego_oct.htm Nino Del Padre Helps Macromedia introduce director MX. http://www.adobe.com/products/director/productinfo/reviews_news/ MX Developer's Journal Cover Story: Lego Virtual Showroom. http://mxdj.sys-con.com/read/45947.htm

PhotoSpin puts the SPOTlight on Nino Del Padre. http://photospin.emsix.com/free_tips.asp?archiveID=79 Studio Monthly magazine cover story. “One Giant Step Closer to the Elusive Film Look” Redrock Micro M2 review. http://www.studiodaily.com/studiomonthly/currentissue/7749.html

Dvp543 01:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. John254 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Couples for Christ

Seemingly NN. A Google search brings up 877 hits, the vast majority of which seem to be CFC splinter sites. While the Google Test isn't the be-all end-all, it definitely reflects a lack of possible secondary sources. Since the article doesn't seem to be a copyvio, and is just this side of the CSD A7 line, I figured I'd bring it here for some form of discussion. Action Jackson IV 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The three articles in the "see also" section should also be listed here for consideration. Shalom 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The number of participants alone does not make this group notable, but I don't have any other unique feature to associate with them. Shalom 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Exclude the "global mission foundation" from the search string and you've got 58,000 results. TheCoffee 12:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This seems to be the main root article for all other CFC articles (Youth, Singles and Kids). Dragonbite 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article is in very bad shape though. --Howard the Duck 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, totally non-notable--Greatestrowerever 18:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm confused on how people are finding CFC non-notable. It's recognized by the Vatican, has a 25 year history, with nearly a million members spanning 160 countries. TheCoffee 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconding the above comment by The Coffee. Dragonbite 23:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - clarifying my seconding-the-motion above on comment by The Coffee; mine is definitely strong keep Dragonbite 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Merge this main article with the "see also" articles. Dragonbite 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - CFC's project Gawad Kalinga is endorsed by ex-Senator Kiko Pangilinan and was also a feature in one of our top broadsheets . CFC on its own was also featured in this broadsheet . It also seems that our president recognize the group . I wanted to add this info to the article but I believe the person fixing the Gawad Kalinga article will find these soon.--Lenticel 01:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. And guess what? Gawad Kalinga (one of the projects the CFC is sponsoring) is also producing a movie that is now being advertised in mainstream Philippine media. This organization has been around as far as I can remember, and in the Philippines, it's as notable as, say, El Shaddai. You can regard CFC in the same way as other lay Catholic movements such as Focolare and Opus Dei (although the Opus Dei is arguably on a different level). But I'd still push for a clean-up as the current article looks like it was written by the CFC's PRO. --- Tito Pao 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Sky Harbor 11:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep although it is not a very nicely written article. Magalhães 10:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The information in the CFC article can be found in the book "Renewing the Face of the Earth" ISBN 978-971-93571-0-0. CFC is arguably the single most influential Catholic Charismatic community in all of Asia, and does actually have an active membership number of 1 million (give or take) worldwide, including all CFC Family and Social ministries. For the sake of information, let's not delete this article. 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ryanenage

The result was Speedy keep, fairly obvious consensus here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Chick Publications

Article has over 30 reference links, all but 3 of which simply link back to the article subject's website. It has been tagged as needing 3rd-party citations since November 2006, but none seem forthcoming. Unless citations can be found indicating its notability, it should be deleted. At the very least, all these self-referenced claims should be removed as it reads mostly as a fansite, not an objective encyclopedia article. Whydoesthisexist 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep Indisputably notable (if bizarre) religious publisher. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- well, if something hasn't been cleaned up in over 6 months, what are we to do? Just let inferior articles persist? --Whydoesthisexist 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to clean it up, or bring it to someone's attention at a Wikiproject. Bad writing is not a criteria for deleting an otherwise blatantly obviously notable organization, at least not until the writing becomes so incoherent it isn't certain what the article is actually about. This is not anywhere near that bad. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

We work on cleaning it up, either by ourselves or using the cleanup process. Cleanup and deletion, however, are seperate paths. If someone is feeling unwell, they visit a doctor, not a mortician. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but that article needs major cleanup, from a personal who is familiar with the subject Corpx 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable, but needs cleanup. Andre (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per clear and obvious notability. Doing a Google News archives search pulls up stories (all behind paywalls, unfortunately, but sources need not be online for free, or even online at all) from everything from the Kansas City Star to the Washington Post to the Valley Independent, all in articles specifically about Chick Publications. AfD is not for cleanup; it's when notability and verifiability are absent or uncertain. --Charlene 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I get it now. But how is the notability "obvious"? As far as I could tell reading the article, it provides no claim of notability other than links to its own website. --Whydoesthisexist 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Non-notability doesn't mean that the article isn't sourced; it means that the article can't be sourced, because there are no third-party reliable sources anywhere to be found. Editors should ideally do some basic searching (online or otherwise) before submitting an article for deletion when the sole reason to delete is non-notability. There are over 75,000 Google hits for "Chick Publications", and many on the first five pages of the search are from notable universities, newspapers, and religious organizations discussing the tracts specifically and critically. Google News archives search finds over 9,000 hits (although to be fair, many of them are court proceedings). If sources are available but just not in the article, the editor should either clean the article up himself or tag it, or even submit it to a Wikiproject. --Charlene 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with every opinion I've seen expressed by this company's tracts, they are nevertheless notable. Keep. TheLetterM 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable. Needs cleanup.Oyster guitarst 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable loon. Corvus cornix 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well known in its own way. If the article needs cleanup, it should be reduced to a stub, not deleted. Brianyoumans 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If there is trouble finding sources, one could begin with the 600+ Google Books results for "Chick Publications" (not to mention "Jack Chick" and other variants). --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article certainly needs work (Chick tends to polarise people, something that attracts a lot of poor-quality editing from both sides) but notability is in no doubt. --Calair 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see I didn't do this correctly. How do I retract the AfD? --Whydoesthisexist 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable organisation. Misplaced Pages requires patience. Osomec 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Iconic, notable nut and publishing company. The article is in serious need of cleanup, though. --Fightingirish 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, publisher whose comics have been firmly entrenched in US culture and folklore for as long as I can recall. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of equipment pairs

By popular demand, another "pair-related" list of loosely associated topics. As with similar lists, such as List of famous pairs and List of food pairs, this has no possible encyclopedic value. Masaruemoto 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - this is also trivial; why is an "equipment pair" important? Why are these on the list, and not others. What even is an "equipment pair"? --Haemo 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information and I don't know if anything else fits this criteria better. Corpx 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep IF this article is linked with an article on the English language and a brief mention of the use of pairs. For example, a pair of scissors may not be used in every language (Spanish, German, Japanese, etc. anyone?). The first part of the article is potentially ok but the bottom part is just opinion. Whose to say that there aren't other pairs (made up by anyone) such as computer/beef, Ford/Toyota, winner/stalemate, wikipedia/msnbc, etc. Fineday 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete it's also just trivia. Oyster guitarst 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is an addition I was looking for when the nom AfD'd some similar lists. "Indiscriminate" says it all. Deor 13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ugh! Even I, the "defender of crap", can't find a silver lining in this one. This includes "everything but the kitchen sink" and even that's probably on here as "kitchen sink & garbage disposal". Even a pair of pliers is on here. Mandsford 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of famous fictional pairs

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO. Cagney & Lacey; Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort; Kirk and Spock; The Jets and the Sharks, and... Mary & her little lamb. At least this one is entertaining in its badness. Masaruemoto 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- trivial; why is a "pair" important? Why do we care? Why are these pairs "famous" and not others? What is a "famous pair"? --Haemo 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete The inclusion criteria here is so loose that any 2 characters from any show could be considered a pair. Also, this would be an unmaintainable list Corpx 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, hardly makes sense as an article title. Andre (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Hmm, didn't I already vote on this: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 3#List of famous pairs? --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- That AFD is for the similarly-named, but even more ridiculous, List of famous pairs. Masaruemoto 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is just trivia. Oyster guitarst 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Gregory House and Wilson? How is that any more famous than House and any other main character on the show? Recurring dreams 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is just a trivial article, to say the least. --S iva1979 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I enjoyed reading this one, and maybe can see it coming back in another form. This one is going to get deleted, but unlike the "ketchup and mustard" type lists, this one has a few points in its favor: pairing of characters is actually a common literary device, from the days of Adam and Eve and Castor and Pollux; second, the phrasing generally shows an author's intention about which of the two partners is the more important. No need to shout me down on this one, since it's going to be deleted, but part of literacy is to recognize that we don't refer to "Jeff and Mutt" or "Eve and Adam". The arguments against, of course, are as listed above, and the redundancy: no need to identify each pair as "fictional" when that's what the title says. Save it to your hard drive, Karategal. Mandsford 15:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete all. Sr 13 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Prolyphic

Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- no reliable sources which assert or support notability. --Haemo 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non notable artist - No mentions from independent sources found through Google search Corpx 01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable artist. Oyster guitarst 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not a notable artist. A google search does not have any reliable hits. --S iva1979 10:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anyone wishes to categorize, they may. Sr 13 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can heal

Listcruft at its worst. Indescriminate collection of information, collection of loosely associated topics, broad and poorly defined criteria, virtually impossible to maintain if it ever tries to be complete, questionable utility, etc. Indrian 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

delete and turn into a category, would work better that way. Kwsn 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep or bring back the category which was deleted so that this list could be created instead. --tjstrf talk 01:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - categorize. --Haemo 01:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is not the place to categorize everything that fictional characters can or cannot do. Up next would be List of fictional characters who speak English Corpx 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can rationally explain the notability of the article and how it can be linked to articles that people read and search for. List is also incomplete. Star Trek had some healers. In a way, all fictional characters can potential heal the audience from their daily troubles while they are entertained. Fineday 02:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - while a bit of a stretch, I could see an academic argument for the value of a category for characters with restorative powers - but as a list? No, thanks. --Action Jackson IV 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete then turn into catagorize. Oyster guitarst 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete and turn into category. That article needs a better title. I thought everyone can heal. --thedemonhog talk • edits 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

keep- no this was a category before and it was decided to be a list, dont touch it! -hotspot
Delete and leave the category dead too. GassyGuy 06:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete Indescriminate and far too broad. Fictional characters come from movies, tv, comic books, video games, anime, Dungeons & Dragons, trading cards, theatre, folklore, etc. This loose list wouldn't do much good in a category either, unless perhaps they were refined into subcats. Still, I don't see the usefulness in associating articles in such a way. --Breno 07:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - consider turning it into a category. Tim 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - categorize. Bart133 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment For those arguing to convert this into a category, please be aware that this, along with a series of similarly named lists, were created as a result of a CfD where the result was that those specific cats be converted into lists and the cats deleted as overly broad, hard to maintain, and, generally, unwieldy in title length for usability. If the same, or similar, arguments hold that a list is also unacceptable for Wiki, just trash it and be done with it, let's not bounce it back and forth between the two states, which is very likely to happen. - J Greb 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we need to categorize fictional characters in this detail. List of fictional characters who wear underwear over their pants ?? Corpx 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of you are misunderstanding what the list/category is for. It's not for anyone who can recover from a wound, nor for doctors, it's for supernatural healing abilities, white mages, etc. (We have another list for supernatural regenerators.) This is not a trivial categorization at all, and the purpose of creating a list was so that we could have a more properly defined category. I wouldn't particularly mind moving back to the category system, now that the definition has been worked out. --tjstrf talk 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Sherlock Holmes' "good friend, Dr. Watson" would fit into this nonsensical list. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- So his medical doctorate, as well as that any fictional physician, constitutes a "paranormal or superhuman ability"? And yes, that criteria has been part of the list text from the out set. Make you wonder if the title was the only thing noted before voicing an opinion... - J Greb 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Qualifications that make the list no longer match the article title are useless and don't serve any meaningful function other than to try to skirt AfD's - and may well be ignored. Notwithstanding that, some of Dr. Watson's cures according to A.C.Doyle his creator were near miraculous, seems superhuman or paranormal by most normal uses of those words. Carlossuarez46 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. And unfortunately, categorizing fictional characters by their powers is considered blasphemy over on CSD, so we'd likely just continue this vicious cycle. --Hemlock Martinis 08:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sr 13 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of band names with date references

Violates WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics and WP:NOT#IINFO. Stupid examples from this list include; "40 Below Summer", "The Futureheads", and "Queens of the Stone Age". Almost as bad as the all-time classic Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of bands beginning with the word "lemon". Masaruemoto 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete as pure WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT#IINFO, just plain useless and unencyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - indiscriminate trivia that has no serious bearing on anything important. --Haemo 01:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete The item is trying to group together bands when their names are not intended to be grouped like this. What does "Zero Hour" have in relation to "October Fall". This categorization is extremely loose and in violation of WP:NOT. Up next would be List of band names that start with a noun Corpx 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete I prefer List of band names with one vowel for every three consonants, myself. Not even useful as a category. --Action Jackson IV 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Haemo. Oyster guitarst 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, since I'm holding out for List of Bands With Names From Science Fiction Audiobooks, List of Bands With The Word "Head" In Their Name, and last but not least, List of Bands. Period.

I'm only kidding. Delete this. TheLetterM 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one better would be List of artists who choked to death on their own vomit. I loved that Hackers movie. --Breno 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per everyone. --Breno 07:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Makes as much sense as List of people named John (yes, that was an article!). How about a list of bands who's name has the word 'the' in it? Get rid of this pointless original research listcruft.--Fightingirish 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone Bulldog123 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary trivia.--JForget 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per everyone, is it WP:SNOWing yet? Carlossuarez46 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; note that most of the band names listed don't even have date references, just references to days of the week, lengths of time, any other reference to time, no matter how vague... Iain99 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as copyvios (CSD G12). Yes, copyright persists over translation. Plus, these crudely machine-translated articles would need complete rewrites anyway, if they're notable in first place. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Playa Chica

Referred from the AfD queue as cross-language copyvios (URLs are available in history). Not sure copyvios can be considered across languages, so I'm bringing it here to check notability. theProject 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Delete this. This is right up there with one of the most stupidly unneccessary articles I've seen. Where on ANY wikipedia policy would you need to know where a "good spot for fishing" was? This is stupid. Killllll it. --SteelersFan UK06 03:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete: irretrievably messed up. If the beach is at all notable, then soon enough someone will start a real article. Hu 07:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. These are just a few of the numerous articles that a single user has created out of machine translations from a copyrighted Web site. Many have been speedied as copyvios already. These should go too. Deor 13:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)