Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 10

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. Vassar

Non-notable student vanity bio, re-created persistently by known vandal (see: [1]). Joho1 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete why not tag as db then? M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not quite enough of a nobody to speedy, IMO, but I wouldn't complain if others disagreed. Fan1967 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Verified as a student (class of 2007), it is pure vanity. Ted 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article claims notability, but I can't find any Google hits of this person (with middle initial). Possible hoax. Fagstein 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Fagstein and TedE. --BrownHairedGirl 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Nick Y. 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, vanity -- PageantUpdater 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but IMHO not clear-cut enough under speedy delete criteria for speedying. Metamagician3000 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN--Eva ^db 09:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2 Google hits cannot get notability.--Jusjih 13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really speedy as notability is asserted, but the assertion does not really stand up. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, pointless, non-notable and slightly egocentric DannyM 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above Perimosocordiae 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. -- Caim 05:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, fails many guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 07:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian folklore

• Redirect to Itihasa. The topic deserves better treatment than this elementary-school-level substub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redir per starblind M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge Merge into Itihasa. Redirect would lose content.
• Weak Keep and Revert to 13 September 2005 version. Bad writing (or extremely bad writing) in and of itself ought not be the criterion for deletion. Indian folklore is certainly a more intuitive title than Itihasa. Fluit 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Folklore is not the same as history. Redirecting it to Itihasa is incorrect. It definitely needs some attention, though. Ted 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until someone comes around to write a real article. Keeping this won't help, and not deleting it may actually hurt. Somebody who stumbles across this randomly may form a bad impression of Wikipedia. Brian G. Crawford 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized that we'd better be very careful about labeling someone's living religion as mere "folklore." That's what the stub as it is now implies. Am I the only one who thinks that could possibly be offensive? I really think this ought to be left to an expert who is qualified to separate Indian religion from folklore. Brian G. Crawford 02:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way the article is written now, it isn't even clear what is being identified as folklore. Hence the need for a major re-write and expansion. Edit: How can we leave this to a qualified expert if we delete this article? -- backburner001 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the subject is notable, the article should stay. Tag it for cleanup, edit for NPOV, and keep it tagged as a stub. -- backburner001 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Backburner. Who knows, this could, one day, after only being a faint gleam in the eyes of some, become a featured article! Morgan Wick 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important article that got vandalized. I have reverted. But still needs lots of expansion and illustration. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Horribly written but should exist and be expanded. The current attempt is a major failure and is almost devoid of savable content. I can go either way on this one but the artilce should exist but the author has, without bad intentions, completely failed. Major rewrite.--Nick Y. 02:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It is definitely an important article and there are a number of books available on same book. However I am not knowledgeable or have no interest on the subject. Someone has to come for its rescue. Deletion may not help. as I feel. User:Malapati
• Keep until someone gets round to paying it proper attention. In the meantime, tag it appropriately. Tyrenius 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep expand and cleanup. Notable topic but definite room for improvement in the article. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup tag --Astrokey44 03:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, topic is notable. --Terence Ong 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-fluentials

This formerly had a transwiki tag on it, but I don't think that's an option here. Seems to be original research to me. TheProject 00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete pernom M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (OR) —Mets501^talk 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No transwiki. I don't think neologisms should automatically be dumped onto Wiktionary. If someone wants them there, let them do it. Fan1967 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable (though Google suggests verifiability/notabilty may not be far off). Fagstein 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Nick Y. 02:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google search shows it is not original research. It is a term that is being used by different organisations. Tyrenius 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nothing I could find on Google tells me exactly what makes a person e-fluential. The term isn't well-defined -- everybody has their own definitions of the term -- so I still think anything Wikipedia puts on is someone's original definition. TheProject 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind you'll have to point to at least one reliable source. Google hits are less than a dime a dozen these days, and don't necessarily mean it isn't OR. Fagstein 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest starting with one of the surveys commissioned by Burson Marsteller. However, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the nature of NOR (which I have encountered on more than one occasion). NOR refers to the Wiki editor, not to the data that the editor collects. To quote from the policy: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." To attempt to synthesise a definitive meaning for "E-fluentials" would be specifically barred under NOR. The necessary approach would be to cite the differing definitions of the term, citing sources. Tyrenius 07:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 100% persuaded by Tyrenius. Vizjim 10:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure I agreee this is a WP:NOR violator, but it does appear to be a WP:NEO that is not used outside of viral marketing websites and a few Tucker Max fancruft sites... no opinion yet.
• Delete per Tyrenius and others. This is vanispamcruft masquerading as a neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment...err, Tyrenius voted Keep, in case you guys didn't notice that. Teke 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Hey, either these people are commenting on autopilot, or my "keep" argument is so bad it's convinced them to "delete".Tyrenius 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That's pretty funny. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's marketing cruft. If I had a penny for every word these people make up... -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stands this article is probably copyvio. See bm.com delete ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was d313t3. Mailer Diablo 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Speak

NN internet language. Essentially fancy leet, article makes no claim to notaility. Seems more like vanity than anything else -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete This page doesn't seem to be notable. However, wikipedia excels at all things internet. The page may yet improve and be useful to those who hear of the concept.--Chaser 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most certainly NOT leetspeak, as this is randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a merge to leet is in order? It clearly is a derivative, and if it is somewhat notable, that's the better place for it then a delete. --Lakhim 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Merging to leet would be good Zoan 9:05, 10 May 2006
• Delete and maybe merge. Apparent vanispamcruftisement. Morgan Wick 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' "Zero isn't very widespread. It emerged somewhere around in 2005 and in 2006 has gained little popularity...".  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable cruft -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable invented language, I can't see how this is any different from 1337sp33k. JIP | Talk 08:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. Any article which starts off by telling us how the origins of some new form of supposed speech cannot be traced is already well off the cruft-o-meter. Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or give it a line at leet, seems like a few highschoolers who want to outdo leetspeak. Lundse 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• {)|[[_|[7|[ or in english Delete This is 100% grade A number one CRAP Aeon 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pile on - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please. quickly. make the bad article go away. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete, nn-group. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschherrenklub

non-notable club; deleted from German Wikipedia, now it's here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. {{nn-group}}. Dr Zak 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. If the German wikis got rid of it, there's no point in it being in the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser (talk • contribs)
• Speedy delete nngroup per above unsigned M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn group. Ted 01:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't read the German wikipedia, but one reason why it might have been deleted from there was because it's illegal to promote neo-Nazi philosophy in Germany. I'd suggest that the article does not assert notability, but otherwise its political flavour does not qualify it for deletion. - Richardcavell 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it was the same version that I deleted here before, taken directly from their homepage. Choice quote: "Wir sind der transzendentalen Idee des ewigen Zustandes der Deutschheit verpflichtet, denn die Deutschheit ist unser Reich." (We are committed to the transcendental idea of the eternal condition of Germanness, for Germanness is our realm). The contents are not illegal in Germany. There are some Google hits for this group, all from either nationalist or anti-fascist websites. Nothing really notable though. Delete. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 170 unique ghits, a fair amount of those in guestbooks, never made news anywhere. The German colleagues deleted it as patent nonsense. "21:02, 9. Mai 2006 Dickbauch hat Deutschherrenklub gelöscht (wirres Zeugs)" Dr Zak 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete NN group--Nick Y. 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kehlog Albran Non-notable &/or not verifiable &/or vanity &/or hoax. Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must have misspelled "Kehlog Albran" when I did my google query. This is one of the reasons that I never do speedy deletes. Thanks Tyrenius for catching my mistake.

-- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Team work Tyrenius 07:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the book doesn't have an article, the pseudonym for its author definitely should not. —Mets501^talk 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mets501 M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Mets501. Article also appears to meet WP:SPEEDY A7. --BrownHairedGirl 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment FYI the book was published in 1973 and is now out of print, but still returns 10,100 Google hits. It achieved a certain frisson at one stage, as a parody of Gibran's best selling The Prophet, and I can certainly remember looking through it. Kehlog Albran doesn't merit an article, but should certainly be kept as a redirect, probably at the moment to The Prophet (book) where it is mentioned. I fail to see how it could be suggested that it is not verifiable or a hoax or even vanity.Tyrenius 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use as redirect. Tyrenius 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mets501, fails to assert notability. --Terence Ong 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use as redirect.Vizjim 10:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mets501. DarthVader 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable spoof of The Prophet. Amusing name, though, involing Kelloggs Allbran while being similar enough to Khalil Gibran. Made me chuckle, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is there a redirect now? Is this AfD over? Smerdis? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Ihcoyc made it into one. Tyrenius 02:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shay

Unelected candidate for local elections (non-notable person). Furthermore, the page contents are a copy of candidate's promotional website ([2]). Jadriaen 01:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Richardcavell 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete for copyright violation. It is a copy from the website. Ted 01:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. No speedy delete because it is most likely that the article came from the candidate himself, so it would be released (or at least, good faith should be assumed) --Lakhim 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio. Lakhim: copyvios of the author's own material are still required to be explicitly released, IIRC. TheProject 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well aware, but I'd rather give them a chance to do so it if there is a chance that it may be released in the future rather then SDing it. Lakhim 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lakhim, but even if the copyright gets released... the person is described on the page Maryland General Assembly Election, 2006 (with too much red links to non-notable persons) as "Carpenter, skipjack captain, environmental advocate from Churchton". Quite non-notable to me. Jadriaen 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly pedantic, guilty as charged, but I like to follow guidelines :] Lakhim 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable person --Nick Y. 02:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, WP:NN, WP:COPYVIO. If the article is from the candidate himself, it's WP:VANITY. Morgan Wick 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it should not be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. It is not less than 48 hours old and it is not from a commercial content provider, two things that A8 requires. Speedy deletion as non-notable might be possible. -- Kjkolb 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A8, A7 --Terence Ong 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. A7. DarthVader 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas J. Voigt

I speedily deleted this before. The person is certainly non-notable as an author (the book isn't even available on amazon.de) and I don't think his notability as a neonazi leader (the articles about his nationalistic clubs Kreuzritter für Deutschland and Deutschherrenklub were deleted from the German wikipedia as linkspam; he also opened a neonazi cafe once) and criminal (apparently he was jailed for injuring an ex-neonazi), which is not talked about in the article at all, is sufficient. Delete. Kusma (討論) 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN and as per nom. Lakhim 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the article does not assert notability. It is not the case that he should be deleted from en-wikipedia for his political leanings. - Richardcavell 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the exemplary lack of notability. Dr Zak 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nn -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a recreated article. Badgerpatrol 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable--Nick Y. 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD G4 and Badgerpatrol, recreation of deleted material Morgan Wick 02:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. DarthVader 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, already been deleted on a previous occasion, so must be viable for deletion again and non-notable DannyM 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Perimosocordiae 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete die nazi die, I mean, delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Nazi soapbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Stadium Arcadium. It has actually already been done by an anon IP. Good deal. Proto||type 09:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snow (Hey Oh)

Delete by WP:NOT crystal ball. Tony Bruguier 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as possibly notable. I don't think crystal ball applies here, as it is clear that the song is going to be released (the single part is pure speculation, to be sure), so it becomes a notability issue. Is the song justified as notable beyond a possible single?Lakhim 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is crystal ballism. I think the song just isn't notable. As of now, the only single from the album is "Dani California", so unless this song becomes a single- and then a hit single- it doesn't have the notability to be on WP. Otherwise, every track from every album would have its own page. -- Kicking222 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kicking222. After review of the song criterion for notability, this song currently fails, my fault for not reviewing it first. It can always be restored later. Lakhim 01:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium until notable -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium until notable. Definitely not a crystal ball issue. —Mets501^talk 02:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Stadium Arcadium, crystal ballism, nn as for now. --Terence Ong 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium per User:Mets501. JIP | Talk 08:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I always redirect random songs to their performers - why not. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Stadium Arcadium. There is no real reason for this song to have it's own page untilit is at least confirmed as a single.- Sabbre
• Keep due to the other information concerning the song presented in the article (this is NOT a crystal ball issue) and the article's potential for even more info. Why delete, saying you can restore later? Space isn't an issue. » K i G O E | talk 00:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but expand. 65.43.218.53 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Ave

I am unsure about this one, but it doesn't look notable. It is just a street. Hit me up if I did something wrong. Tony Bruguier 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN. Lakhim 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If by some chance it is kept, definitely needs to be renamed to be specific. Based on the title, I thought it was an article about the Magnificent Mile. - Fan1967 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above: WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl 01:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of notability, and because the article is garbage. -- Kicking222 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The businesses are most dense between Central and Livernois where someone can eat at their choice of fast food, sit down, Chinese, family restaurants, and more. You can do your laundry, rent a movie or furniture, eat ice cream, get hydraulics for your ride and still make it home by 9pm -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as NN. --Ragib 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN. See also WP:NOT section 1.7 - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Morgan Wick 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Michigan Avenue in Detroit is a major street -- it is U.S. Route 12. However, as I am not from Detroit, I can't make a judgment in the article's notability. Perhaps the text should go into Southwest Detroit, but I don't know if that's an official neighborhood. The author has also created Michigan Ave-Corridor, with the same text as this AfD. Someone who's an expert on Detroit has to look over all of Z180's contribs. --Tinlinkin 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm from the D. I'll have a look.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to U.S. Route 12 Michigan Avenue. US 12 is a major route and but I can't see any good reason to break out one little section of a US Route by it's in-state name. Besides... the article is only about one tiny section of Michigan Ave... US 12 is called "Michigan Avenue" all through the state (and possibly into Chicago). Still, a redirect would be the best solution here because at least in Michigan, it is always referred to as "Michigan Avenue".--Isotope23 13:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think a redirect is a good idea because there have to be many different Michigan Aves. I know there's one in DC, and I think there are other places where groups of streets are named for states. Fan1967 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ah that is interesting... Michgan Ave should probably redirect to Michigan Avenue then; which should disambiguate to U.S. Route 12, Michigan Avenue (Chicago), et al.--Isotope23 14:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No redirects to disambigs. Morgan Wick 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and Michigan Ave-Corridor has appeared too. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prod'd Michigan Ave-Corridor, though since it is a carbon of Michigan Ave I have no objection if the nominator wants to include it in this AfD...--Isotope23 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We seem to be keeping all roads - from Ohio Drive to Kentucky State Highway 2259. Why should we single this one out for a higher sandard of notability? --Bachrach44 16:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primarily, this road is already covered at Michigan Avenue & U.S. Route 12. Author just took an aribtrary subset of this long road and created a new article about this little section at a new namespace.--Isotope23 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable Aeon 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fold the content here into Michigan Avenue & U.S. Route 12 as appropriate and make this a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is just a street and a quick google proves that the text is copied straight from here. Benjaminstewart05 16:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --JoanneB 14:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan R.J. Smith

Non-notable (WP:NN), possibly vanity (WP:VANITY). Note explanation of the article's history on Talk:Brendan R.J. Smith BrownHairedGirl 01:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as above. Jadriaen 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Great explanation on the talk page, BrownHairedGirl. -- Kicking222 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. --Nick Y. 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does anybody know if ESA-Great Lakes Masters division surfing champion in the article is of any note? Tyrenius 04:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{db-bio}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability other than the Great Lakes Masters which I doubt is notable for two reasons. First, lake surfing is not a professional sport as oceans surfing and masters champion means it is not an open field. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. A7. DarthVader 13:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial stormtrooper spies

nonsense, fictional tales. Not encyclopedic, or notable --Ragib 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as nominated. --Ragib 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A related article from the same author is also under afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial specialists. --Ragib 05:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Deletion as patent nonsense Lakhim 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for all the above Jadriaen 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - and the defense written into the article just makes it worse. That defense should have been written here. - Richardcavell 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete All of the above. 69.145.36.133 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as utter nonsense, indeed nonsense of such a high degree that if there was a WikiNonsensense I'd urge a prompt transkiki. --BrownHairedGirl 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Utter nonsense speedy please--64.12.116.8 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a minute The nonsense at the top of the article was not from the author. Somebody had created a template called {{hang-on}} with all the nonsense about GGFan. Author of this article got confused in trying to put the {{hangon}} tag here. I have fixed the misspelled template to refer to the real one. Please review the article again. It's now bad fancruft instead of absolute garbage. Here's the bad version of the template [3]. - Fan1967 01:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that changes everything. Delete as bad fancruft. - Richardcavell 01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, or maybe fanficcruft. Fan1967 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete It's still patent nonsense. The bad template wasn't the problem, even if it was irrelevant and misplaced. Not only is it WP:CRUFT, it's badly written and unsourced. Morgan Wick 02:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense and likely fan fiction. BryanG 02:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Starwarscruft, fan fiction. Better on the author's own webpage, as this is unencyclopædic in all respects.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Starwarsfanficcruft. JIP | Talk 08:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some sort of nonsense. DarthVader 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete precisely as per Richardcavell: bad fancruft. It has a trivia section! I got news for the author - the whole article fails to rise to the level of trivial. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 501st Legion (Star Wars). There is Star Wars stuff here for the entire Expanded Universe. Even though the article is badly written, I think the author was trying to write about something that exists in the Star Wars universe. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:NOR Aeon 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete randomcrapcruft with poor punctuation M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I love this new "randomcrapcruft" you're sticking everywhere. My new favorite term. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverified, unsourced nonsense. I haven't finished Battlefront 2, but I've never heard of any significant trooper espionage units after the Clone Wars. -LtNOWIS 16:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Eastridge

This is an advertisement that does not add any valuable content to wikipedia Richardcavell 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn Lakhim 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn Jadriaen 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no attempt to assert notabilty, unless using ths advertisingspeak "premier" counts as an attempt. (In which case, let's have a premier delete). --BrownHairedGirl 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and cleanup: seems notable to me; plenty of smaller malls have articles. The mall has 151 stores and 1.06 mil sq. feet. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is nothing extraordinary about this mall and I think a mall would have to be extraordinary to have an article. -- Kjkolb 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is there a list of Malls anywhere? That would be OK for it. Tyrenius 04:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claims as to notability of this mall over any other mall in existence.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though some people hold that malls are automatically notable and some crappy ones got kept before. Thank God for WP:NBD. I am considering proposing mall notability guidelines, btw. Keep eyes peeled for those. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Merge with University of Göttingen. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wish people would stop redirecting articles while the AfD is still in progress. Please read these guidelines about what you can and cannot do while an AfD is in progress.

Cricket Team of the University of Göttingen

A non notable university cricket team, about 20 years old, so I don't think it has merit on heritage grounds. It also is not notable on cricketing grounds, especially as Germany does not play cricket (well, it hasn't ever qualified for the ICC Champions Trophy and the Cricket World Cup, and let me tell you that the United States qualified for the last ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, with a team half of whom were over 40 years old, they were Sunday social cricketers, basically all of them were actually Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan/British expatriates having a bit of fun, and were defeated by the Australian cricket team in about 20% of the allotted time for the game). So that tells you where cricket in Germany is below.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible keep. We might want to consult the author of the page, to give him/her a chance to work this out. A request for a clean-up maybe? Well, I'm not sure of the keep though, it might as well be a possible delete. Jadriaen 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on the article and the info presented above, there's really no notability whatsoever here. So they're one of a few cricket teams in Germany- they're still an unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) college club. -- Kicking222 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Delete. Nothing to convince that they are any more notable than any other university sports team, but cricket is rare in Germany, hence possible notability-by-novelty a la Jamaican bobsleighers etc (+ website states appearances on TV etc). A delete unless someone can make a convincing case for notability. Badgerpatrol 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with University of Göttingen or Delete not notable enough for it's own page.--Nick Y. 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it's a rather interesting story and I learnt something. It is one of only 50 cricket clubs in Germany. Merge would also be OK. Tyrenius 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any chance this could be merged into some more general article on cricket in Germany? Assuming some cricket fan can find the topic interesting enough to write about, obviously. Just don't merge the whole thing with University of Göttingen. That would be worse than keeping it as a separate article. u p p l a n d 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The above suggestion is a good one. The article has a redlink to German Cricket Association and that could be expanded. The article has external links to two other teams that they play. Does the Wikiproject Cricket know about this article? --Bduke 07:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per u p p l a n d's ideas.--Eva ^db 09:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into University of Göttingen, as sports do play a crucial part in university, but on its own, definately NN DannyM 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge into a subsection of University of Gottingen. Not enough history (perspectivally) to grow into an expansive article at this time. If they were a professional team, it could stand alone as is. Teke 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a cricket club in Germany - that's notable in itself. Merge would also be acceptable. Nloth 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to university per Nick. --Eivind^t@c 23:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Merging with the University of Göttingen will give undue weight to this cricket club. This will make this cricket team look much more important than it does in its own article. Göttingen is undoubtedly one of the most important universities in history, and a lot of things could be written about it in its main article. But this cricket club isn't one of them. If it is merged, I am pretty sure someone will soon remove it from the article (I might do it myself), because it would be outright silly to keep it in there. u p p l a n d 06:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not then move the article to a subspace of the University's article, that would keep it out of the mainspace. Teke 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review your votes. With a heroic effort on my part (as I know absolutely nothing about cricket), I attempted a rewrite to make the article be about cricket in Germany as a whole, although still, obviously, with a bit too much emphasis given to Göttingen. With a history going back to 1850, there must be something interesting to say about cricket in Germany. I used the history page on the website of the German Cricket Federation to write an introduction, but that page is completely silent on what happened during the Nazi period. I suspect that there is an interesting story in there somewhere. Let's keep this now and move it to Cricket in Germany. u p p l a n d 06:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Keep and rename. --Bduke 06:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just found German cricket team but I do not think it where this material should be moved to. --Bduke 09:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cricket in Germany per Uppland. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Uppland Runcorn 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was No consensus, defaults to Merge with Salesian College. Please note that Delete and merge is not a valid action as it violates GFDL. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salesian Old Boys Cricket Club

It is a completely nn high school cricket team. Unfortunately it makes a dubious claim to having "state-of-the-art" facilities, which I find hard to believe (where are the floodlights, electronic scoreboard, slo-mo cameras, biomechanical testing equipment, etc), which gives an assertion of notability.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. Jadriaen 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Lakhim 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Salesian College and use as a redirect.Tyrenius 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and likely team vanity. --Chaser 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Worth a mention on the Salesian College article but not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Redirects are free, and the content can be accomodated on the Salesian College page easily. Ansell 11:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete particularly non-notable cricket club. --Roisterer 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Salesian College as per Tyrenius suggestion, high school teams in my opinion aren't notable enough to be stand-alone DannyM 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge per tyrenius M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect nothing to merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & merge Perhaps deserves a line in the Salesian College article. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Delete Runcorn 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Cricket Club

non notable suburban cricket team. It is not notable on cricketing grounds, especially as US does not play cricket to any meaningful extent (if I recall correctly there are only about 10 cricket pitches in America) and let me tell you although that the United States qualified for the last ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, with a team half of whom were over 40 years old, they were Sunday social cricketers, basically all of them were actually Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan/British expatriates having a bit of fun, and were defeated by the Australian cricket team in about 20% of the allotted time for the game). So that tells you where cricket in the US is, let alone a random suburban club .ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Lakhim 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Jadriaen 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. If cricket is that rare in the U.S., then an organisation which promotes the sport has a certain rarity value, as would a polar polar bear in the Sahara. --BrownHairedGirl 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have to respectfully disagree. If they were good, or had some other minor claim to notability, maybe, but simply being rare does not in and of itself make a topic notable. Lakhim 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have partially persuaded me, Lakhim! Yes, rarity is not always of itself an indication of notability, but nor is it a barrier to inveitability. See Tyrenius's comment below. For me, the question is whether they do indeed have one of the ten cricket pitches in the USA. --BrownHairedGirl 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Delete, unless a convincing claim to notability can be made. Defeated by Australia? That is bad, 'cos their cricket team is rubbish now, or so I keep hearing. ;-) Badgerpatrol 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think rarity is a notable quality and of interest. If this team has one of only 10 cricket pitches in the US, I would definitely vote Keep. I have notified one of the article contributors to see if they have anything to say on the matter.Tyrenius 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are only 10 cricket pitches in the US, but I didn't mean that this club had a cricket pitch. In most cases, they are playing on a piece of concrete, instead of a proper grass pitch like Wimbledon.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Wimbledon cricket pitch? I think wires are definitely crossed here!! Badgerpatrol 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that there are no cricket pitches in Wimbledon? Runcorn 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, he must have meant the one in Dundonald Road! Well, that changes everything! (????eh????). Badgerpatrol 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't think that the assertation is being made that this happens to be one of the ten, but rather that there only are ten. Even if that isn't the nom's assertion, I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is one of the ten, nor is a proper assertion of notability being made if that is the case. --Lakhim 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I meant that most cricket pitches are concrete, not a proper grass surface in a similar way to a lawn tennis court.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than NFL Europe...--Isotope23 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than MLS... --Eivind^t@c 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than...well I can't top those above! --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Runcorn 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete unmaintainable list, nonsense/nocontext. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words

Say what?

From the creator of List of word puns where one or more of the included words is used in whole, List of songs whose title starts and ends with the same letter, and the relatively brand-new List of non-traditional songs that interpolate or parody lyrics from traditional songs. Calton | Talk 02:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete PLEASE. I'm BEGGING you. --InShaneee 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense and other silly stuff --Lakhim 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. And really... wow. I'm honestly speechless on this one. This is the... wowwiest... article ever. -- Kicking222 02:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also can we put up for deletion that other terrible list that hasn't already been deleted? The crazy lyric one with only two songs listed that also makes no sense? -- Kicking222 02:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that as strongly as possible. --InShaneee 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for all the reasons above. The guy/gal has too much time, too much time. Jadriaen 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can someone talk to the author please? No hard feelings, just tell him/her to cut it out. - Richardcavell 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Burninate this retardation. Danny Lilithborne 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-traditional songs that interpolate or parody lyrics from traditional songs

Patent nonsense. --Lakhim 02:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Swift delete Jadriaen 02:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Burninate this retardation. Danny Lilithborne 02:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete, and away! --InShaneee 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 02:41 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --JoanneB 14:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpartivity

WP:NOT something made up in school one day. Zero google hits for the term. Fluit 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for patent nonsense and original research. --Lakhim 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete before someone else will discover the genius of the author. Jadriaen 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete. Hoax and absurdity, must've been a slow day in chemistry class. Begone.--cjllw | TALK 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete This is the truth, and we have serious followers. Please leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepieman (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Delete per nom--Nick Y. 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per cjllw --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is at far too early a stage of development at the moment, but do say hi from Wikipedia to Mr Lutman and Mr Krey. Tyrenius 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 08:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo _limited 02:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snob detector

completely made-up term with no assertion of notability or sources to identify its use; also appears to violate WP:POV Fluit 02:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Jadriaen 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Navou ^talk 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 03:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherent POV violation, proto/neologism.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only 27 Google hits Tyrenius 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 07:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN neologism. Good word though. Robin Johnson 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NN, POV and sounds like a bit of a joke article (in my opinion) DannyM 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about flatulence

From the same author (Special:Contributions/Nintendude) who brought us some other pointless lists today. Someone should talk to this guy/gal. Delete. Jadriaen 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless list.--Nick Y. 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Standard Nintendude listcruft. --InShaneee 03:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft yet again.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. It's funny and I think would actually be read by people. Tyrenius 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Listcruft. It's easy to pick a random criterion and make a list of songs of it, but that don't make it encyclopedic. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, I can't see how flatulence is such an important topic. JIP | Talk 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a suitable subject for a list. Cedars 08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. -- GWO
• Delete pointless list. It's things like this that make me think hardcore deletionists have a point: why are people creating this stuff rather than contributing actual knowledge? Go out inot the net, find a real topic nobody's covered in Wikipedia, research it, write it up. There's so much missing here... why create any lists at all? Vizjim 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, slightly sick, a bad joke, and definately not encyclopaedic , Keep BUT add joke footer to it i.e. not to be used as proper research. DannyM 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above, and transwiki to the uncyclopedia.Bridesmill 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, transunning is the Uncyclopedic equivilant to transwikiing. By the way, Uncyclopedia is a good place for lists that do not fit in Wikipedia. --Nintendude 01:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and transwiki as Bridesmill suggests. --Bachrach44 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but put these AfD discussions into BJAODN. I am really red from laughing at the above. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to the Uncyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Blah, their license is incompatible. BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruftfest. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-8 (artist)

I marked this db-bio originally, but am changing to AfD. I see no assertion of notability. The closest is that an art magazine did an article on him, but the rest of it is mostly "drank nyquil" and "supported the LA death rock scene" and whatnot. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, messed up the original nom and forgot to list it. Re-listed under current. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY
• Keep Flipside is well known among punk rock circles, or was 10 years ago. This isn't just an ego-tripping page (although it is probably that too) Brianski 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)(☎) 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this? I think that someone involved in this narrow field of visionary art should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.244.128 (talk • contribs)

x-8 has had many exhibitions and his work is featured in galleries around the world. I was looking him up on the web and was delighted to find a wikipedia article. It could be edited to be factual and thus conform to Wikipedia principles - I think that x-8 deserves to be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.109.169 (talk • contribs)

• Delete, vanity incog 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite. Reads like self-promotion. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Rewrite definately if it stays. Some self-promotion, not totally unnotable artist. Alot of the individual points are not notable junk.--Nick Y. 03:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep For a start he has been given international recognition and is listed as an Outsider artist by Henry Boxer the editor of noted Raw Vision. Wiki needs to build up its contemporary art coverage. Tyrenius 05:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems really wierd, and some self-promotion, but at least slightly notable.--Eva ^db 18:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - exhibited and represented artist, co-founder of well known publication within a notable genre. Agree it could do with a rewrite but that shouldn't reflect on the subject. Ac@osr 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I posted the article. It was my first. I used his bio as a template. If anyone would like to help rewrite, that's fine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.195.108 (talk • contribs) .

• Well done on your first contribution. Please don't let this AfD put you off. It's just an attempt to maintain standards and make sure. A lot of vanity articles with no notability get put on Wiki all the time. Tyrenius 08:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Not completely sure about this one, and I don't want to bite a newbie. Runcorn 19:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Keep, or Merge with Glenorchy, Tasmania. Whether this is a Keep or Merge can be discussed out of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenorchy Plaza, Tasmania

not notable small shopping plaza that now has a supermarket! - Nick Y. 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect and merge anything useful to Glenorchy, Tasmania.--cjllw | TALK 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Glenorchy, Tasmania. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Merge--cj | talk 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable mall, can be merged with Glenorchy, Tasmania and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per previous comment. Tyrenius 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ambi 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? — Haeleth Talk 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Chaser 06:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't bother merging — it's not even significant enough to merit mention in the article on Glenorchy, Tasmania. --BrownHairedGirl 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge to Glenorchy, Tasmania, article looks OK and establishes some notability. JIP | Talk 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per cjllw. Vizjim 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sub-nn trivia. Honestly, the world does not need to know that the smallest shopping plaza in Glenorchy has acquired a "Big W". Can we please also delete or merge Northgate Shopping Centre, Tasmania and Glenorchy Central, Tasmania? Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. — Haeleth Talk 14:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Haeleth. Also agree with Haeleth about deleting the other two shopping centres mentioned. Not enough useful content to merge into Glenorchy, Tasmania. Paddles 14:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mall asserts notability. --Terence Ong 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How? By stating it is the lesser of three local shopping centres?--cj | talk 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, utterly non-notable. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Terence Ong. I also disagree with deleting or merging the other Glenorchy shopping centres. Sure, they're smaller than some of the Melbourne shopping centres, but hey, they're Tasmanian. Certainly notable for the region. --Canley 05:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete utterly non-notable, and even if something asserts it is notable, doesn't mean it is.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. JPD (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Found numerous mentions of this shopping center in Hobart Mercury and other news sources. Seems notable for the area. Since Wikipedia is not paper, I think we can include more locally notable topics, so long as they meet WP:V and WP:NOR. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Although I voted above to delete/redirect & merge, it seems there are more than a few other articles on individual shopping centres in AU. It is not at all clear what threshhold of notability (if any) has been applied in creating/maintaining all these- what makes one shopping centre notable, while another is not? Personally, I don't see why any of these can't just be mentioned in their respective localitys' articles, and none seem to say much beyond that the centre exists, and has a Coles, Woolworths, or whatever. But given the number of already-existing similar articles...--cjllw | TALK 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until criteria for shopping centre notability are established, per cjllw. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 09:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, notable in the local area, perhaps. Lankiveil 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Hard to judge from afar, but seems unlikely to be notable. Runcorn 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was No consensus. Since this was so very near a delete consensus, I have no prejudice against this being re-AfDed in the near future if there is no improvement to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Perpetua

I've been reverting vandalism on this article for months, and every time I do I wonder why. The vandals have singled out this particular article because he's an MP3 blogger and he's a running joke, or something, on a music board. But every time I look at this two-line stub, I think, why do we have an article on Perpetua? He has a reasonably well-known MP3 blog, but other than that he's not particularly notable and the only edits to this article since forever have been either vandalism or reverts of vandalism. So let's just put this article out of its misery. Delete. · rodii · 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Note the sorry edit histories of this and Fluxblog. Vandal magnets, no real improvements to the article likely. I like Perpetua a lot; it's too bad he has such a sucky article. · rodii · 03:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable --Nick Y. 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he has some web notability. I suggest asking for the page to be protected until there is more to add. Tyrenius 05:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable and a hassle. --Chaser 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that his page here is being targeted by vandals is neither here nor there, as the nominator recognises (all that deleting will do is mean that vandals start creating fake new pages for this person instead). However, Mr Perpetua does seem to be no more notable than you or I at present. Should we all have articles as "pioneers of wikipedia"? Cos in 100 years' time, that's what we'll be. Delete. Vizjim 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what little notability he may have comes nowhere near the threshold of WP:BIO, so far as I can see. — Haeleth Talk 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Tyrenius's comments.--Eva ^db 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - since the drive behind this nomination is the fact that the nominator is fed-up reverting vandalism, would the deletion not mean that the vandals have won? Is Wikipedia giving in to bullying? Ac@osr 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really... it's just that every time I revert it, I think "why am I looking out for this useless article?" It seems like the vandals are the only people in the world who are truly interested in the article. · rodii · 19:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn.  Grue  09:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, needs a bit of expansion. For what it's worth, I've put him in Category:Living people, so maybe more people will keep an eye on the article. Runcorn 19:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteau words and word puns used in video games

This clearly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obviously. --InShaneee 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. What are we going to do about Special:Contributions/Nintendude? He/she keeps generating lists like this. --Jadriaen 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there was an RfC against him a long time ago under a different username, but I'd be all for opening another. --InShaneee 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I let him know what's going on by leaving a message on his talk page. Brian G. Crawford 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another example of listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on this occasion, but full marks for inventiveness, which I'm sure can be turned to good use somewhere, somehow on Wiki. Perhaps someone can suggest to Nintendude some lists that would be useful. Tyrenius 05:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems rather useless. -AndyBQ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the love of... This is Wikipedia, not Uselesscruftylistipedia. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as nonsense. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Wednesday, 10 May 2006 @ 13:05 UTC
• Delete as original research. Plus the entry for Warcraft is just plain wrong. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. 23skidoo 13:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 13:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and is it possible to put a block on this guy creating new articles? Also, i don't think that either Warcraft or Wolfenstein is a portmanteau. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've left a warning on his talk page that any more useless lists may be considered vandalism. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --blue520 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Merge with Christine Maggiore. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Maggiore Action Committee

Christine Maggiore seems to be reasonably notable, but this action committee does not. I suggest a delete. Tony Bruguier 03:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Christine Maggiore. --Jadriaen 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMAC recently incorporated as a small non-profit in the Baltimore area. We were able to register www.ChristineMaggiore.com, and will be launching a full website on May 16, 2006, the one year anniversary of her daughter's death from AIDS-related pneumonia. Christine Maggiore is a prominent figure in the AIDS Denialist movement and her daughter's death has been covered in the LA Times and on ABC's "Primetime." CMAC is the first organized effort to counter AIDS denialists' claims that is directly targeted at Maggiore. --Robbieisfun 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment let's add linkspam to the list then. Tony Bruguier 03:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am new to Wikipedia. Does the organization need to make it into the newspaper or be mentioned on multiple websites before it is "important?" If you could clarify this for me, I would appreciate it.--Robbieisfun 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Suggestion: make a section in the Christine Maggiore article about this Acion Committee, and this page will redirect to that one. But I suggest you even wait with doing that until your has launched. For the moment, you are non-notable (cf. Wikipedia:Notability). --Jadriaen 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jadriaen. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with merging this with Christine Maggiore until the organization achieves some more notariety. I am not sure how to do this though. Thank you everyone for helping out a WikiRookie.--Robbieisfun 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cf. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. But you might want to wait until this discussion here is over. Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Jadriaen 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment deletion would also be fine. the website will be up in a week. can the sentence I added to the Christine Maggiore article be left in?--Robbieisfun 03:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comment there links to the committee page, that will probably be deleted. I'd rather put the name of the committee in bold or put an external link to your homepage. --Jadriaen 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I fixed it. I bolded CMAC and added a "Criticism" section to the links with a link to the CMAC site. Okay? --Robbieisfun 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does not even merit a mention on Christine Maggiore as there is not even one hit on Google for the committee. Even the web site is only a holding page. There is no verification whatsoever for this committee. I have deleted it from Christine Maggiore. Wiki is not the place to promote new ventures. Sorry. Tyrenius 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at least for now. If they achieve some notability once they're actually online, I fully support an article, however. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. But CMAC will be back..."notably"...very soon! Thanks for everyone's contributions to this discussion.--Robbieisfun 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for making the effort to understand Wiki policy.Tyrenius 20:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that reference sex acts

Listcruft, too broad a topic, not encyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 03:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom --Nick Y. 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. List for list's sake. --InShaneee 03:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom --Jadriaen 03:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete At this rate, "Nintendude list" will be a running gag around here. Danny Lilithborne 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has a history of this too. Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of descriptive songs whose titles are mentioned in the lyrics. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nintendude is a living list legend. It will soon be viable to have a list of Deleted list titles by Nintendude.Tyrenius 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "This is an incomplete list of songs..." no kidding. A list of songs about sex would be about as possible. Not speediable, but unmaintainable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think that the article should be deleted, but I don't think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It is helpful to say which criteria that you believe the article meets, like "A6" or "attack page". Note that "speedy delete" is not equivalent to "strong delete". Also, an article may violate WP:NOT, but it cannot be speedily deleted if it does not meet the speedy delete criteria. -- Kjkolb 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as another example of listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think a better one would be List of songs with sex act noises. Tyrenius 05:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 13:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete words fail me --Bachrach44 16:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; however, note the long history of List of songs about masturbation. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, horrendously inappropriate (maybe not as bad as List of songs about masturbation though), DannyM 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. UnDeadGoat 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Be On the Lookout", as American cops like to say: Nintendude (talk · contribs) has added a link (so far red) to List of lists of songs for List of songs containing cheerleading quotes. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Way

vandalism page ॐ Priyanath 03:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. --Jadriaen 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom--Nick Y. 03:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A7 and tagged -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granada High School

Completing AfD for Kdepa Metros232 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable, though I wonder why I bother. --InShaneee 03:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete as non-notable. --Jadriaen 03:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:SCHOOL, inherently notable, yada yada ... -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This proposal was rejected by the community. It is inactive but retained for historical interest." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just saying that I approve of inherent notability -- Samir (the scope) धर्म
      • Then say that. Don't cite a rejected policy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non-policy shortcuts are cited all the time. Many people believe that schools are inherently notable and will still refer to the shortcut as a succinct form of their argument. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cool, does that mean I can start citing <link removed> as a succinct form of my argument in school AfD's?--Isotope23 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL and no apparent reason by it should be deleted. Pepsidrinka 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but a cleanup seems appropriate. --Jadriaen 04:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. A major cleanup is required as the tone of the article is entirely unencyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but fun facts should be deleted --Tom Bonnie 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. High schools are inherently notable. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the good teachers giving out "donuts". Tyrenius 05:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the school. I threw out a lot of stuff, so hopefully others will look over the changes, and see if anything can be added back (with sources). --Rob 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Lots of high schools have block systems and school sports teams. There's nothing notable about this one. --Chaser 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear precedence on high school inclusion, and while the article is not great, it is at least an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. High schools are typically not notable unless they are the location of a significant event. Cedars 02:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this might be a bad faith nomination. Kdepa is a student at the school's main rival [4]. Metros232 11:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVader 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all schools are notable. --Terence Ong 16:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The usual arguments regarding High Schools. — RJH 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, up for deletion due to petty rivarly, stupid tbh DannyM 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SCHOOL. You read that correctly. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High school. ReeseM 03:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable, and no clear reason has been given for deletion. Zaxem 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Comic Forum

This page appears to be about an internet forum, variously called "Renegade Forums" and "Renegade Comic Forum". The page is entirely unreferenced, and has been so since its creation. I have been unable to locate a single work that might serve as an independent, reliable source for this article. A google.com search for "renegade comic forum" was unhelpful, producing only two hits; one to what I presume to be the forum itself, the other to the Wikipedia page under discussion. I do not think it is currently possible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject, and request its deletion. —Encephalon 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable --Jadriaen 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The repeated criticism of another forum ("DC Forums") doesn't help this article's case --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 200-member forum, POV violations with disparagement of DC Forum and sentences that include "..we have..".  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Encephalon -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Peripitus 10:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of successful products that spun off of failed commercial products

Another unmaintainable "Nintendude list." Brian G. Crawford 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We really should do something about this guy/gal. --Jadriaen 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the unmaintainable bit. Melchoir 04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The realms of listcruft beckon.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research, not clearly defined and not written in a particularly interesting or informative way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, my neologism caught on. :) Danny Lilithborne 04:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is an interesting and valid idea that could provide an article. As I understand it NOR applies to content of articles, not ideas for articles in themselves, and presumably there is a lot of existing information that details connections such as the ones listed. The title could do with being more succinct. Tyrenius 05:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Off from", not "off of". Delete the bad grammar. Vizjim 10:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete huh? --InShaneee 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the title is bad grammar and the content is poor. Let someone create a decent article with a different name and my vote would be different. Alternatively move to a better name and tag as stub. Guinnog 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete archetypal listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 15:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then expunge the memory from your brain. --Bachrach44 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although the content could be merged into the respective articles as useful (if verifiable). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Nintendudecruft. (Also POV, OR, LC, ...) Stifle (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notable content could be merged as per Tijuana Brass.--blue520 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kuelbs

Short biographical article about a Not Notable minor league hockey player whose team the Dallas Freeze does not even have a page, Probable Vanity Nick Y. 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Melchoir 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closest Wikipedia has is Central Hockey League. I don't see a single article on a player from it, though. Melchoir 04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The CHL (which is a low minor league, come to that) used to have a team called the Dallas Freeze, but that folded years ago, and even there a player for the CHL would not qualify under WP:BIO unless he'd played in the NHL, which very few CHL players ever manage. This is some rec league. RGTraynor 08:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable bio/vanity. It looks like the Dallas Freeze do have a website [5], but it indicates the team is just a rec. league team. Could Rob be this guy [6]? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but good luck in the game. Tyrenius 05:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable yet -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the amateur athlete. NN until they reach the NHL. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While I don't agree with the "NN until NHL" comments (I'd say, for instance, a top AHL player or a very nice Canadian Hockey League prospect deserves a page), the optimistic appraisal of this guy is that he's playing in the Central League, which is to my knowledge the lowest professional league in North America whose players are usually of strictly local importance. Delete. Lord Bob 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It'd be a fantastic appraisal, too; the Freeze dropped out of the CHL after the 1995 season. (The lowest pro league in North America is probably the SPHL, too, but the CHL is right down there.) RGTraynor 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought the SPHL was semi-pro, but a quick look at our article on the subjects shows it is not. Point, RGTraynor. Lord Bob 00:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table 12

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, possibly also a non-notable club. The main YCC forum has just 262 topics; Table 12 has just 7. Alexa rank is terrible, and Google is no help. Melchoir 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known a forum or club to have that many topics... The church that the forum is affiliated with has over 40,000 just in the main denomination, a feat for a church only 60 years old... Membership spans to Netherlands, America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, and Scotland. No less notable of an entry than many others in the database. It may be noted that some members have in excess of 2000 posts within a couple years... this is obviously the only life they have... as pathetic as that may be, it may also be 'notable'. In a certain community, this group is having a large impact. -batmanhatguy

I'm not sure what database you're looking at, but the typical forum with an article at Category:Internet forums has tens of thousands of topics. Melchoir 13:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But consider: there are only a limited number of people talking, the discussions are distinctly topical, and the whole forum is flushed periodically. All in all, there have been far more than 262 topics.

Possibly there have, but even if the forum has been flushed a thousand times, that doesn't prove that it's notable per WP:WEB. As you say, there are a limited number of people talking; how many people do you think are listening? Melchoir 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. Alexa rank of 63,860.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Tyrenius 05:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete big time- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep instated. The people objecting have no clue what they're talking about. I've been on the forums 4 years and I've never met any of them. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

---Brian Bratcher, member

• • This Wikipedia article is no more your business than it is mine, I'm afraid. But if you're so familiar with the forum, perhaps you can point us to multiple non-trivial reviews of the forum in reputable, published sources? Or a well-known, independent award it has earned? See WP:WEB, please. Melchoir 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Halo 2

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Weaselriffic. This is a review of Halo 2, not an article about a controversy. Currently, it's pure original research, and laden with weasel words. Rather than a description of a groundswell of negative criticism, it's a laundry list of complaints, some of which are vague and purely aesthetic (e.g. "Other fans complained that the plot of Halo 2 was less appealing than that of Halo.")

I would suggest that it be merged into Halo 2, but that article is already a trainwreck, and this useless pile of OR and weasel words would do little to improve it. (Halo 2#Criticism needs to be improved, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated and as nominated twice before. Delete this piece of garbage. Please, I'm sick of seeing it here. Brian G. Crawford 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, but let's calm down the language. Mangojuice^talk 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable, OR, and POV. Kevin 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, all previous reasons, and all my recent edits on the article and talk page. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kevin's arguments. Colonel Tom 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shall we see if any valid sources can be provided for any of the statements, in which case some of this material could be merged with Halo 2. Presumably there is something credible in it. Wikiquette requested. Tyrenius 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response on AfD talkpage --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this article has violated content policies literally from day one. After four months and two AfDs, it has yet to find a single reference. Time's up. Melchoir 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pathetic Juvenalia. -- GWO
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Smerge I'm sure you can cite some criticisms and Halo 2 could use them to be NPOV. Are we going to AFD this every month until it finally gets deleted? (Last one closed April 1st, one before that was 10th of February)Kotepho 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not a Halo 2 fan, but I like POV OR even less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game review site, and Halo 2 is not notable for its criticisms. — Haeleth Talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Content belongs in a gaming forum, not an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. I added the noncompliant tag almost three months ago and the article has not improved since. Not a single source for any of the blatantly POV claims in the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOR, POV article, WP:V. --Terence Ong 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, up repeatedley, let's just finish it DannyM 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subsection in the Halo 2 article is good enough. Jgamekeeper 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AMIB knows his stuff, and I can't but agree that this is useless from an encyclopaedic standpoint, given that it fails numerous policies (starting with the POV title). Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God's algorithm

The article reads:

"For a particular type of problem, "God's Algorithm" is the most efficient way of solving that problem for a particular composite of space and memory efficiency."

This is only a dictionary definition, and I don't see much scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even a dictdef, as the article doesn't explain what God's algorithm actually is, or the problems that it can solve.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as the definition says, "God's algorithm" for a given problem is the best algorithm for solving that problem - we're not talking about a particular algorithm or problem. A useful definition, but not an encyclopedia article. There is more than the definition in the article. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube, which seems to be the context on Google. Melchoir 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, although it could use some references. Melchoir 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Melchoir. Maybe it could be expanded later. Kevin 05:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's certainly capable of expansion, and is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, so a redirect could be misleading. Check out some of the Google results. Tyrenius 06:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would agree that the concept is not restricted to Rubik's Cube, but I wonder how it can be expanded. Could you give an example? The search for an optimal algorithm is certainly interesting, but it seems to me that the natural place to treat this is not in God's algorithm, but in some other page talking about the specific problem being solved. For Rubik's Cube, we have Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube; for matrix multiplications, this is discussed in matrix multiplication, and if it gets too large for that, it can be discussed in Optimal algorithm for matrix multiplication, et cetera. I don't think it has any use to gather all these optimal algorithms for diverse problems in one place. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could work as an overview which directs to other articles with specific examples.Tyrenius 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with algorithm, this looks like an important concept, but there is too little to say about it for its own article. JIP | Talk 08:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've rewritten the article. Please have another look. Lambiam^Talk 10:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lambiam's rewrite. As Tyrenius mentioned, the topic has quality Google results. There appears to be substantial interest in the topic. ScottW 13:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NFT made up on rubik's cube forums. There are optimal solutions, heuristic algorithms, and optimal algorithms. Even with the rewrite it is just an article about some people inventing a term for something that already exists and is not notable. Combinatorial optimization is where this should be discussed. Kotepho 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I had a reactionary prescriptive instead of decriptive response there. It seems that this term can be sourced, even if I don't like it. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite. I don't know what the NFT has to do with this, but Kotepho appears to be claiming it's a neologism used only to talk about Rubik's Cube; the briefest glance at Google's output reveals that while that is the community in which it is most common, it is used in plenty of other contexts. — Haeleth Talk 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to WP:NFT. NFT => Wikipedia is not for things... Sorry about the Newspeak. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dicdef. Robin Johnson 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Keep and cleanup. Apologies: I voted before I read the article, for which I deserve to look like an idiot. I thought the nominator meant that was all the article said. Interesting mathematical article. Needs references added, which should be possible as there are plenty of Google hits on academic sites. Robin Johnson 15:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was all it said, but it was rewriten. Kotepho 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting enough, is it linked to optimal algorithm properly? Lundse 17:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This subject is a relevant mathematical theory. 1652186 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not just use God's algorithm to determine whether or not to keep the article? In all seriousness, Keep. It passes the google test. BigDT 21:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This concept of a proof so succinct that it is beautiful or elegant is referred to in "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers : The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth"...and, as I came to find out, in the article about Paul Erdos. Although this afd seems to show that the term has gone beyond Erdos, one way or another, his article should be tied in here. --129.107.81.12 23:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (a random wiki surfer)[reply]
• Comment I have some issues with the rewrite. It changes the definition of "God's algorithm": it adds the requirement that it be practical and it restricts it to games modelled by digraphs. The links served up by Google seem to be ambivalent on the practicality requirement. I think that this shows the difficulties in writing an article about what I believe to be an ill-defined phrase mainly used colloquially, which is why I'm standing by my nominiation notwithstanding the rewrite. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've slapped an OR tag on it, but I think it's salvageable. Google books turns up a couple of references by a David Joyner, who seems to define the phrase. Melchoir 04:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can think of ways of improving it and expanding on it. Paul Erdős used to talk of a "proof from the book", meaning God's book, which might be considered God's algorithm applied to a proof. Ideas like this are studied formally in proof theory. Is there a reason for deleting it, beyond a crazed desire to delete content? Gene Ward Smith 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no connection between this article and The Book. Melchoir 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's exactly the same connection as there is to the Rubik's cube. Of course, the shortest string in, for example, Peano arithemtic which proves something might not be something that would make you call it one from The Book, but there would likely be a connection. Gene Ward Smith 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep JeffBurdges 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a worthwhile article. Runcorn 19:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while the article may need improvement, the term (and meaning) is estabilished AFAIK. LjL 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid concept, references in literature (I have added one to article), well on the way to becoming a useful article. Gandalf61 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All*Star X

Vanity, promotional blurb for fan fiction SoM 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. Kevin 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Tyrenius 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Kevin1243's comments DannyM 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All*Star X-Men

Vanity, promotional blurb for fan fiction SoM 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Delete. --BradBeattie 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. As above Kevin 05:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Tyrenius 06:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my reasoning above DannyM 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional electronic games

Crufty list not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, indiscriminate collection of information. Brian G. Crawford 04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obviously a lot of work has gone into this list, just look at the history. I really don't know who other than the people working on the list would benefit from its existence. Who cares? So I think I'm inclined to vote for delete, but I'm going to bed now. You decide! --Jadriaen 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I consider that an article which has been worked on by a whole number of different editors over this time period (since June 2004) and has reached this advanced stage, has effectively achieved a community consensus, which is a major factor to be taken into account when assessing this Afd nom. Tyrenius 06:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they are all referenced --Astrokey44 06:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so much effort into this list! I agree with Tyrenius that time and number of editors on the page is suggestive of consensus -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are many other pages that have not been deemed to meet the criteria for inclusion, no matter how many editors have worked on them or how venerable they have been; the Draft Busts/Steals articles for various professional sports leagues, for instance. Granted, about half of them will pile onto this AfD and shoot it down, but it's still a mere list, unblemished by any actual content. RGTraynor 08:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, interesting information, many of these are verifiable. I don't see why it should be deleted just because it's about fiction or popular culture. JIP | Talk 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the notion that the article having many editors should be given some degree of weight. However, with a few exceptions, the edits of the last year seem to be mostly drive-by additions. Edit history aside, I just don't see how someone could come across this article and find it useful. In the event that someone has an interest in fictional electronic games, there is no further context for 90% of what's listed here. I'm also a little concerned that it's not possible to have any reliable oversight of this list. ScottW 13:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. However much work has gone into it, it's still an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is something Wikipedia is not the place for. — Haeleth Talk 14:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fictional electronic games? What's next, fictional names used in movies? --Hetar 17:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listmania indiscriminata rampans. Sandstein 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Random fictional objects from unrelated series. If that's not an indiscriminate collection of information, nothing is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JIP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful collection of information.  Grue  09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LC. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as interesting and useful per other comments here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting, encyclopedic. Georgewilliamherbert 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm no fan of silly lists, but this is better than many. Runcorn 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was Delete, then move Shikari Lonestar to this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I was blinded, change the result to No consensus, it'll take some effort to fix a move. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shikari

Disambig page which contains a link to (1) a comic character (who, upon checking, doesn't have "Lonestar" as a surname" (2) a dicdef for a non-English word and (3) A non-notable band which doesn't have an article SoM 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) [BTW - I agree with ExcaliDragon and Haeleth about Delete/Move Shikari Lonestar to Shikari, if that wasn't clear SoM 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Redirect to the comic character. --Jadriaen 04:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Move Shikari Lonestar to Shikari, since she doesn't have a surname. - ExcaliDragon 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now Not sure about the band, but redirecting to a particular comic character is a bit of a mistake. I can off the top of my head think of two notable characters in Indian pop culture -without articles as yet- that are equal candidates sometime soon, at the rate that the Indian presence is growing here. So I would hold off on deleting this right now. Second best is Redirect. Hornplease 07:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the other article per ExcaliDragon. Hornplease, the time to disambiguate a name is after the ambiguous articles have been written. At present we have only one article that should be called Shikari, so disambiguation is pointless. — Haeleth Talk 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MoS:DAB#Redlinks advises "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. Adding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. " So if Hornplease is very confident these articles will be written, adding redlinks is a possilbe solution. JackyR 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move the LSH character article on top of it. I can (re)confirm that her name is just Shikari (in Legion Lost, she introduced herself as "Shikari, of the Path". - Psi-Locked 00:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep Given that these other articles exist, a DAB is needed. Runcorn 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Saddique

Self promotion article. No encyclopaedia value. Siddiqui 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom + not notable.--Nick Y. 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Presidency of a body with 150 members doesn't assert sufficient notability, IMO. Colonel Tom 05:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the President of the Future Leaders of Pakistan. Tyrenius 06:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nick. Hornplease 11:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN, NN. (It also strikes me that it must be tough to be the leading "future leader" of Pakistan and go to school in Canada, but that's just me.) RGTraynor 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as with all the self promotion articles I've voted on. Pointless, NN and egocentrical DannyM 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete member of student club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy delete per nom. 1652186 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]