Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 20 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 20 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:18, 20 December 2006 by SPUI (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< December 19 December 21 >
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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

VirusBurst

VirusBurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A prior AfD closure as "Keep" was overturned at deletion review and is now back here for reconsideration. Please consider the prior discussions, especially the lack of tangible evidence in the first AfD cited as reason to overturn the closure. This is a procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because the article fails to establish notability of this particular threat. The link to Symantec gives the risk as "medium". I don't believe Misplaced Pages should become a repository of every possible piece of malware. I would like articles in this genre to meet the WP:SOFTWARE criteria and to have the very highest risk level designation of one of the major anti-virus vendors. JonHarder 03:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability in the world of malware and viruses isn't really set as such, but unless third parties are writing about it (other than say Norton and McAfee...) it doesn't really have much notability in my opinion. A quick scan of the definitions list for your antivirus software shows well over 50,000 known virus profiles, if each of those is worthy of an article... ouch. If, however, it's been written about in news sources or such, and the sourcing can be provided, then I'd say keep. As it is, delete with no prejudice. Wintermut3 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As JonHarder states, it is only a low level threat . However, it does get 190000 ghits , mainly on ways to get rid of it. As per WP:CORP it would pass as there are many more than 3 reviews (albeit the reviews are all negative). However, as WP:SOFTWARE it's really only a minor player, alexa =8974, and how many of those are people looking to get rid of the maliscious adware. . I agree with Wintermut3 that only the most notable of these would be worthy of an article. SkierRMH 06:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no sources at all - no article. See WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi 11:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete seems spammish. Just H 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not spam; the first sentence clearly states it is a fake application and a rogue software. If it is spam, they're doing a terrible job of promoting themselves. Wavy G 23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that it's not spam, but do you think it's notable enough for its own article? -- Satori Son 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I had my own run in with this a while back, and when I was looking up the fix for it, I discovered that it seemed to be a pretty big to do at the time. Then again, the consensus here seems to be that it is not that notable, so what do I know? (That's a rhetorical question; don't answer it.) Wavy G 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wavy G. Bigtop 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE notability guidlines. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article makes absolutely no claim to notability - and in a quick search, I was unable to find any support for such a claim anyway. --Krich (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Or Merge this into a larger article. Perhaps Malware. Charlie 22:38, 21 December 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. --Coredesat 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

İTÜ Sözlük

İTÜ Sözlük (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable website, no indication of how it satisfies WP:WEB, internal information about the site's membership is WP:OR, no external sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:26, 20 December 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 13:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sawtooth Grin

The Sawtooth Grin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. yandman 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't even list the last names of the band members. NawlinWiki 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Change vote to weak keep. The page has since been improved by authors - good call. Google research (see the article's talk page) pulls up just about 10k ghits that aren't here or on Myspace, so there's something of notability. Little on Misplaced Pages links to the article, but that may be irrelevant. I can't say better than weak keep for the grounds that it's notable within its genre (case in point: much of the furry related deletions that have happened here on WP), but I can no longer in good conscience at all say delete knowing that there's just about 10k ghits and therefore some notability. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:27, 20 December 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. Cbrown1023 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pixel script

Pixel script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

A page essentially based around advertising competing pixel advertising scripts. Prod tag removed so brought it here. Mallocks 13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:28, 20 December 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

John McBon

John McBon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Hoax biography for an actor/researcher who doesn't exist. Google search only references pages from and linking to Misplaced Pages, and no entry under his name exists on IMDb nor the show pages for his alleged roles. Nate 00:27, 20 December 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. Punkmorten 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don V. Plantz

Don V. Plantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Google-search for "Don V. Plantz" gets 22 hits, most of them seem to concern an economist. The article in question is the biography of a geologist and a teacher (with a Ph.D.) at Mohave Community College, Mohave Valley Campus, Bullhead, Arizona (Google-search for "Don Plantz"). Notability? Oden 01:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:29, 20 December 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 per CSD G11. Naconkantari 04:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Maid Marian Entertainment

Maid Marian Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Non-notable web-based software company. Fails WP:WEB: no more than trivial coverage, no awards, no other notable achievements. Almost all Google hits are press releases, advertisements, and Misplaced Pages mirrors. Article reads like an advertisement from start to finish; I don't see any neutral and notable content worth keeping. Kafziel 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:30, 20 December 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:HOAX - Smerdis of Tlön 05:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sceabhar na dheasa

Looks suspiciously like a hoax to me, and there's nothing on google which indicates verifiability there. Anyone with the Gael who can translate the title, at least, to give some indication of what we're dealing with? Grutness...wha? 00:34, 20 December 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. Punkmorten 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

French Teen Idol

French Teen Idol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Notability-tagged since June. "french teen idol" "andrea di carlo" -wikipedia -myspace gets 19 unique ghits. De-prodded without comment. Pan Dan 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:43, 20 December 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 per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad Wallace

Note: orphaned AFD. I have no idea what's going on, but am simply adding it here. --Calton | Talk 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I started this article. Brad Wallace is a musician who has appeared on literally dozens of contemporary DIY hardcore punk recordings. This article simply needs more work and I have just gotten in touch with people who will improve it. --Driscoll 17:17, 19 December 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. Overwhelming consensus that the band is both notable and the article can be verified. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Goblin Cock

Goblin Cock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Has released only one record on minor label, has gone on one sub-national tour, and gets insufficient press coverage so that it does not meet WP:BAND; previously speedied twice, but this time at least asserts notability . JChap2007 01:11, 20 December 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 Naconkantari 20:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pydance

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- completely functional DDR simulator written in Python isn't quite 'non-notable' sendmoreinfo 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a DDR clone written in Python may be an interesting curiosity, and a testatement to the creativity and doggedness of programmers, but I don't see this as passing WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no claim to notablity made in article - and I was unable to establish such via a quick search. No sourcing, only references the software project's own page. --Krich (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Stepmania and Flash Flash Revolution are the only two DDR clones anyone cares about these days. - Chardish 09:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. No offense, but I think FFR is much more notable for its forums than the game itself, which is more of a sort of community activity than an earnest DDR simulator. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really. At any moment in the day there are about 1500 people on the site. vBulliten says there are "79,874 active members." Not too sure how vBulliten judges that, but I'd say about only 1,000 of those "active members" use the forums at all; maybe about 150 of them are long-time users. Just a rough guess. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No offense taken, and the FFR game gets played 100,000+ times per day. That's far, far more than the number of daily forum posts. - Chardish 08:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into something, maybe Dance Dance Revolution or perhaps Stepmania. I doubt it deserves its own article, but I think it's worth a mention somewhere. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, Popcon by-install rank of #11186 out of 61725 for package pydance. Not really all that impressive but far from abysmal. Might be merge material... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Do we really have to have 15,000 articles for the top 15,000 Debian packages? Ashibaka tock 19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Popcon is not exactly that straightforward to interpret, while it is simple in principle; think of it as a glorified Google test. You can set a rather vague limits and interpret accordingly. WP:SOFTWARE suggests as much about its use, only that it can and should be used to gauge software's notability. My interpretation is that software above 10,000 line is notable and anything below 15,000-20,000 is probably chaff, and there's a buffer zone that fluctuates depending on what time of the day it is and how much coffee I've had. (See also below for time of the day.) You can probably find some other AfD where I'm pulling different figures out of my sleeves - it's all based on a gut feeling. My current idea, solidly on this gut feeling, is that if we include 15%-20% of what Debian thinks is their most remarkable software, we're sailing smooth and not including utter garbage. Also note that this thing tracks packages, not software; Debian compiles one source tarball into one or more packages. (There (at least used to be, if not still) packages celestia, celestia-common and celestia-gtk, and it's not uncommon to see -common and -data packages, not to even mention -doc packages!) Different versions of software can get into separate packages, should the maintainers keep them around to ensure compatibility. (There's mediawiki1.6 and mediawiki1.7.) There's pseudopackages that just depend on other packages. In the upper end, there's Software You Can't Remove Lest Stuff Would Break. And libraries and -dev packages, well, it's better not get into them, or we'd be still talking about them tomorrow. My point is, popcon by_inst <10,000 is much less of work that it sounds. And remember that MediaWiki is pretty darn remarkable and popular and it's still in the 7000s, last I checked. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • (The following is 60%-serious tomfoolery, not a point or anything.) I see the nom's "No reliable sources" and raise "Press mentions to save an article no one will likely ever care about" (I'm sorry it's past 01:30 here and I've never had any clue about this smooth poker lingo ever, and I've never even read the article on this fascinating card game. I'm just a poor geek kid that was raised with Mario instead of Proper Manly Games.) I was pretty sure my chiss-sweesed brains had actually remembered that there was a mention of Pydance in some Linux magazine. Looks like they have a list of press mentions, but this one lists somewhat trivial mentions from print side (I have no idea if Linux Format covered it aside of just shoveling it to CD) though some online mentions are nontrivial. However, the article I'm remembering isn't here. (I'm thinking of Linux Journal, probably Marcel Gagné's column, but my memory is probably completely messed up in this regard, and it is, as mentioned above, past 01:45). Therefore, I see no other resolution but change my recommendation above from solid Weak Keep to extremely firm Weak Keep. (You know, because that's still based on notability rather than verifiability.) It's not the most remarkable DDR simulator or even influential, even when it's pretty impressive someone pulls this off with just Python - and like other people said, Stepmania kind of stole the show on this genre of software on OSS side. I'm just saying Carthago must be deleted. I mean, "lack of sources" argument is a bit funny argument if I waltz to the home page and find press rave. Now go forth and do the right thing anyway. Oops, I shouldn't use logic. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) ('round 02:40 here, unless this clock is lying)
  • Delete. Not a notable DDR-clone. Like Chardish said, the only two DDR clones avaliable on the computer anyone cares for are Stepmania and FFR. --68.192.68.55 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not voting for obvious reasons, but I will mention this existed long before Stepmania went GPLd, and even longer before it worked on anything not Windows (you can verify that with the release dates of the programs; not sure what "no reliable source" means in reference to free software...). Certainly not a popular clone, but does Misplaced Pages want to have articles on popular software, or historically notable software? That being said, Misplaced Pages has too many stupid free software articles, including this one. piman 04:49, 26 December 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 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Text Text Revolution

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 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 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Dance With Intensity

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 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, delete, delete! - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

VeggieTales: Dance, Dance, Dance

No reliable sources listed or found. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 20 December 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.