Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 14 May 16 >

Purge server cache

May 15

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. Shanel § 01:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACTS

Fails WP:NOT and seems to be religion-cruft. Don't get me wrong; I am a Christian as well but I don't think this stuff belongs on Wikipedia. Also, a lot of the "What Links Here" refers to something else with the same acronym. Also, ACTS is available with this description elsewhere. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:54, 22 April 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, userfied. Deizio talk 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Pierre-Noel

Fails WP:MUSIC. Yields some 60 GHits, but less than half are relevant to the subject of the article, and many come from WP and its mirrors. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:53, 14 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. Defaulting to Keep.. Rje 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996

Link to previous AfD on this article

  • A while ago, there was a discussion on the talk page about how to take care of it. Now, one full week has passed with no new information or arguments to keep on the talk page. Delete. Georgia guy 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am new to the subject, but have considerable doubts as to the merit of its inclusion in Wikipaedia. It would be far more to the point to substitute a short article directing the the user to an external link - a British governmetn website where the Statutory Insitrumetns are listed. This would have the additional advantage that the user would aslo be able to move on to the text of the subordinate legislation in question. Rewrite. Peterkingiron 00:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How should it be re-written?? Can't you do so yourself?? Georgia guy 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already an article at Statutory Instrument, which seems quite enough to me. Golfcam 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is the OPSI website with a list of some SIs. Note that is not all SIs for the year. There are gaps in the sequence which are local SIs. Put those in and we have a list with added value in Wikipedia. David Newton 14:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Raw data. Not an encyclopedia article. All the similar lists should be deleted too. Golfcam 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a very good resource to provide in Wiki, which has the space to do so. Any self-respecting encyclopedia would be proud to be able to make such info available. Considering it not worthy of inclusion seriously undermines wiki's credibility to be taken seriously. There are plenty of lists in wiki on all sorts of far less significant subjects.Tyrenius 03:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its raw information. Its important information but need to draw the line somewhere. As long as associated articles point to government websites, delete. --MarsRover 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote from comment in previous AfD: "there are a large number of local SIs not listed on the OPSI website. I know of no easily accessible list of those but having one on Wikipedia would be useful for those who try and track legislation." Tyrenius 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikipedia would be useful as a legal resource if only it didn't AfD every legal article the moment it shows signs of usefulness. - Richardcavell 04:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it a rewrite would be helpful. Just because it's dense legal information doesn't mean that it's not encyclopedic, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource, along with the text of the acts. It's raw data, and as such it belongs in the place for that, wikisource. If we had the list elaborated with further information, like dates of passage or sponsors, it would be worth keeping here. But, it's a raw data dump, so it falls under indiscriminate collection of information. Night Gyr 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Scratch that, it's crown copyright, so we can't reproduce the text anyway. Are we sure this list isn't a violation of crown copyright? Night Gyr 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that as we have only listed the titles, we are not in breach of copyright. If listing titles was a copyright breach then every article on a fictional work - such as the Harry Potter stories - would have to be deleted. Road Wizard 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a copyrightable list because it is in an obvious order, ie numerical. David Newton 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list is a very useful resource. Statutory Instruments are used in every aspect of British Law from bringing Acts of Parliament into force and setting rules for the court system, to defining the allowed capacity of fishing vessels or the route of a proposed motorway. As they have a impact on almost every walk of life in the UK, the subject cannot be defined as anything other than notable (as some people argued in the previous deletion discussion). The article will be even more useful if we can add the missing local instruments to the list.
As a second point, I found an interesting line in the Wikipedia:Notability essay, "Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such." Road Wizard 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about a topic. Statutory instrument is an article about a topic, this is a list of raw data. CalJW 20:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have now said that this list is "raw data". Is that defined anywhere in Wikipedia Policies or guidelines? Is there some specified definition for "raw data" and a warning not to include it in the encyclopedia? How can anyone consider the points you make valid if you do not provide evidence to support them? Road Wizard 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information- this is equivalent to a phonebook or directory. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Parliament has its own publication for these kinds of things. This isn't the Gazette. Fluit 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the Gazette provides a list of Statutory Instruments. I thought they only published public notices advertising that S.I.s had either been proposed or made. It would be useful as a resource to know where this list can be found. Could you tell me where to look? Thanks. Road Wizard 07:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The London Gazette is not a publication of Parliament, it is a publication of the British Government. It also does not list all SIs in one, convenient, place. There is the Daily List, but even that does not list all SIs, just the ones published by OPSI. David Newton 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate information / listcruft. Folks, this isn't a legal resource. -- GWO
  • Keep there are lists of roads, schools, small furry creatures from Star Wars, all of which have a home on wikipedia. If you're not interested in it, ignore it. Kurando | ^_^ 08:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Serious, useful information. Deadly boring, granted. The explanation at the top and tail of the list should be expanded, and wikilinking certain SI's to relevant articles might make this page more useable. Page size guidelines are only guidelines, not laws, and the Wikimedia servers can cope. Vizjim 09:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful info, and per Kurando's comments ::Supergolden:: 10:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Survived (ok by the skin of its teeth) previous AfD. Jcuk 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kurando. Markb 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Kurando and User:Road Wizard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original data does not belong on WIkipedia. Dr Zak 12:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update. No doubt any one of these regulations might some day deserve an article of its own. The list of all of them is also noteworthy. Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get real. Look at the titles. These are mostly utterly trivial non-events. In most cases I expect the people who wrote them forgot about them by 1997. CalJW 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please provide your definition of trivial and explain how that fits into the concept of notability? Each SI is trivial to somebody because they cover such a wide range of British law. However, you should remember that just because something is trivial to one person, that doesn't mean it isn't notable to another. Road Wizard 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a structured list of information which is within guidelines on Wikipedia. It needs expanding to include local SIs to make sure that Wikipedia can provide a unique resource on this subject. David Newton 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this appears to be a big list of original data- this article could easily be interpreted to be a primary source, and as such violates WP:OR. ForbiddenWord 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify that statement? With some people arguing that this page is an unnecessary duplication of existing lists, how can this possibly violate WP:OR? Thanks. Road Wizard 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the similar lists should be deleted as well. This kind of article is raw, blunt data, and is not encyclopedic. It lists the actual data and is not a presentatory article about the data. ForbiddenWord 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be? A lot of the other lists on Wikipedia are "raw, blunt data, and [are] not encyclopedic." They also list the actual data and are not presentatory articles about the data. One of the sentences in WP:OR states: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."
This list collects and organises the information from the existing primary sources (the published S.I.s) and secondary sources (the lists provided by the Office of Public Sector Information and other UK government departments). I fail to see how this counts as either raw or original data. If this is raw data, then what do you call all of the other lists like List of United Kingdom locations: N? Road Wizard 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a list such as the one you've given, many of the locations listed have articles on wikipedia, and as such it is a valuable index. You'll note that these statutes do not, and thus it is not. ForbiddenWord 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You have now clarified the reason for your vote, which was all I was wanting. However if you look hard enough you will find many lists with few or no internal links, such as the List of California ballot propositions 1970-1979, which has acquired only 1 internal link since it was created nearly 3 years ago. If you wish to discuss this issue further, please contact me on my talk page, as I will not be cluttering this AfD with further posts about your vote. Thanks. Road Wizard 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I don't know why this particular list was singled out, but if it goes then many, many, many, many others will have to go. I think I will start by finding lists written by those who voted for it to be deleted and nominating them for AFD. If they don't want lists on Wikipedia then they will get lots of their lists nominated for deletion. I personally find it extremely galling to have the hard work that I have put in and that others have put in questioned by those who don't even know Wikipedia policies. There are those who have said it is "listcruft" and those who have said that it bears no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. There are those who have cited WP:OR which plainly does not apply in this case.
It has been said before that AFD is a poison in Wikipedia and this shows why. I have also lost lists of RAF units that I put a lot of work into in the past few days to similar "arguments". Fortunately being an administrator I can go into the deleted pages and rescue the material for my user space. Wikipedia will not lose the work that has been put into these lists let me assure you of that. David Newton 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be asking why I chose this list as opposed to another list for a similar year. Good question! I stumbled across this list by Special:Longpages shortly before its first nomination for Afd. I wanted to know if there was a way it could be split, and it was nothing more than a group of external links with no internal links in the body, so I didn't see it as a good Wikipedia article. Georgia guy 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's just raw data, unencyclopedic. --Eivindt@c 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless somebody wants to make the list useful, by sorting into English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland, alphabeticalise, or even according to subject matter. At the moment it serves no useful purpose. Lists are fine, providing the items in the list link to articles within Wikipedia. --Richhoncho 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is sorted into English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish lists for the most part at the moment. You obviously haven't looked very hard at the large link box at the top right hand corner of the article. These pieces of legislation form one coherent series. That is why they are all in one list. You say that perhaps they should be sorted by subject or alphabetically and airily say "someone" should do it. {{sofixit}} is the appropriate response to that. You want it, you do it. As for subject matter, do you have any idea how SIs are categorised? There are some that are in more than one category of subject matter. Do you want them in the list twice? When it comes to putting them in alphabetical order that would make absolutely no sense. At least in numerical order they are in at least approximately the order they were made in. David Newton 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel suitably chastised, I could do it, but sorting more than alphabetically would probably be beyond me, in my opinion, to be a useful resource it needs to be by subject matter. Actually it isn't sorted in English Welsh etc. I did check before and again, some SI's only apply to Wales, or even one geographical location, ie road works and, as you say, they are in numeric order. As I'm not prepared to work on it, I guess I'd better be quiet. --Richhoncho 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For those of you voting delete because of a lack of internal links, I am thinking of adding some shortly. Most of the SIs are not in enough depth to require a page of their own, but I was thinking about linking sets of them to a subject page (see my Sandbox for a rough example of how one might look). Unfortunately, I don't think that subject based lists can be a replacement to the existing lists because of the reasons stated by David Newton above. Instead, they can be a very useful addition to what we already have. I had not added any internal links earlier as it was not raised as a problem in the article's recent talk page discussion. As it will not be possible to work on adding internal links after the page is gone, can you please reconsider voting delete? Thank you. Road Wizard 06:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a page called Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, planning law and linked to it from the list page. I would appreciate your comments on the new article's talk page on whether you think it is a good idea. However, I now think that I may have been looking at the internal link issue from the wrong angle. Instead of creating new articles about each SI, wouldn't it be better to link to the subject of the SI? For example, I have now added links from the commencement orders to their associated Acts where the orders can be mentioned in a new section. As you will now see by looking at the 1996 List, the number of relevant internal links has increased markedly. This should improve even further once we begin to identify other relevant pages the remaining SIs can link to. Road Wizard 21:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually quite useful for those who can use this kind of information, and doesn't get in the way if you can't use it. So how is Wikipedia any better if all this information gets deleted? --LambiamTalk 11:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might as well make an article of phone book listings
  • Keep per Lambiam. What harm is this doing anyone? I also personally don't like to see articles re-nominated at all, and certainly not less than six months after the original AfD. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is precisely what categories are for. Just zis Guy you know? 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I do not fully understand this recommendation. How does this work? Do you propose to make a separate article for each entry, which then is assigned to some category? Could you clarify this? --LambiamTalk 22:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author doesn't understand categories either. There was precisely this argument when categories were first created. What JzG does not seem to understand is that categories are for existing articles. Lists are often more comprehensive and cover things that haven't had articles written about them yet. Sometimes they also cover things that as individual items do not necessarily justify their own articles but that collectively it is useful to have listed. This is one of those cases in that there are many SIs which amend earlier SIs and do not in themselves deserve articles, but the whole list of SIs is a useful resource. There are some SIs which do deserve their own articles since they cover significant areas of legislation. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are a case in point since they define a very important information access regime in the UK. David Newton 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the author uderstands categories. They are self-maintaining. If a Wikiproject wants to make an article in Project space on the notable SIs which need articles until they are done, that's just great. This list is never going to be filled in more than a very small percentage of cases (they are not even redlinked)) and adds nothing to the list of SIs at the linked sources from whihc it was copied and pasted (hint: if you find yourself copying and pasting a substantial chunk of text into an areticle, that is almost certainly a sign that what you are doing is wrong). OPSI can be relied on to maintain an up to date list, WP:NOT a mirror or directory. So, the notable SIs should go in a category, the list is unencyclopaedic. We have many, many precedents for deleting lists like this. Just zis Guy you know? 13:13, 19 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 as patent nonsense. And A7. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Gattusso

Page appears to be a hoax Rholton 00:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as patent nonsense. Tries hard to be amusing but its jokes are kind of lame, so no BJAODN. Aplomado talk 00:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete via {{nonsense}}. -- Kicking222 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX? Fails WP:MUSIC? Take your pick. Dspserpico 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax, possibly speedyable as nonsense. VegaDark 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a BJAODN attempt, but too long and not funny enough. Worth a look though for the picture, which is profoundly disturbing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the picture can go to BJAODN? Dspserpico 01:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure poppycock. - Patman2648 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't bother with BJAODN, just chuck it. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Like Srikeit said, just chuck it. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. Tyrenius 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vain nonsense. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as some sort of joke. JIP | Talk 06:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aplomado. Hoax -- Samir धर्म 09:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 11:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had already tagged this as a speedy delete, not sure why it was changed. --cholmes75 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CB -- stubblyhead | T/c 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense Fnarf999 21:36, 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. Deizio talk 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library)

Non-notable furry site. Pugs Malone 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote yet Has been around for 11 years, and is quite a big deal within the furry community. I get 125,000 Google hits for VCL +furry. Though wildly popular, I'm not sure it passes WP:WEB due to a general lack of published sources covering this sort of thing. If WP:WEB were about popularity alone, though, it would pass with flying colours. Witholding vote for now to see if additional evidence is provided either pro or con. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have to remember that WP:WEB, WP:N, etc. are not solid policies in themselves. They are more along the lines of general guidelines to how to determine whether an article subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. However, if an article subject fails WP:WEB but it is admittedly popular, surely it should have an article here, if you see where I'm going with this. Beno1000 12:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Don't know much about furry art (Don't want to know much about it). But this is basically an ad for a web site. I say delete or somehow merge with furry art article. --MarsRover 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Passes the Google test, seems more notable than many websites. Think it turned up in Bizarre magazine a long while back, too. Vizjim 09:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ad-tone isn't a reason for deletion, that's for cleanup. Anyway, this is one of the most well-known furry art archives, has been around forever, and is widely known. (disclosure: I happen to have some stuff there. Not that I'd be good or anything, or have anything to do with the management of the site, and I can't remember if I ever edited the article here, definitely not to any significant extent.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site is notable, and an article being about a website doesn't make it a promotion for it. Coyoty 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no such complaint about the Elfwood entry, but this one may deserve some more attention in terms of it's history and relevance to the Furry community. --Cryptess 19:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's one of the biggest furry sites out there. It has been around for 10+ years, and is very large content-wise too. It's a big site, especially in regard to a specialist community like the Furry one. --Noodhoog 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable, and has plenty of GHits. edit: However, I will say that the article needs cleaning up - it does have a big ad-tone to it. [1] Beno1000 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very large site, lots of google hits, very notable within the furry community.


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, closing early per WP:SNOW, although I admit to being midly curious as to what barley nude might mean. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G4TV Off Topic Forum

Completely POV, a single section of a forum is really not notable, and there is little to no content that is not either POV or about other non-notable people. Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, totally unnecessary. Aplomado talk 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just for the record, the most blatant POV was taken out while I was nominating, so not as bad now, but really still an unnecessary article. Condense to a couple sentences in the forum section on the G4tv article, or an article on all the forums as a whole if they are popular enough to warrent one, but an article for just a section of forums, clearly not major enough to have any great info about it.. nah. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subsection of an individual forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not noteworhty in any way, a forum at a website for a TV channel. - Patman2648 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Mhking 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per nomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.171.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nomination. --DaemonLee 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I put the prod tag on it before it wound up here, so I'm certainly in support of deleting it. -RaCha'ar 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable forumcruft. JIP | Talk 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is this here? ... discospinster 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, quite a few edits to the article since this was listed on AfD. The editors seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that we delete articles based on lack of quality, rather than the lack of notability of their subjects. And, yes, a subsection of a forum that probably doesn't pass on its own is non-notable. ergot 22:54, 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. Deizio talk 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigmob

Blatant SPAM Rholton 01:05, 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. Deizio talk 00:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigmob.com

blatant SPAM Rholton 01:05, 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 deleted, neologism. GarrettTalk 08:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euphoristic

Given the entry, it sounds as though a couple of friends made this up and it's not in wide usage. Even if it is, it ought to be moved to wiktionary. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 01:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per the tag I put on this nonsense. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Appears to be one step removed from a basic vanity entry, "here's a word we invented". Nothing to suggest anyone else uses it. I would not move to wiktionary. --Paddles 10:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, not transwiki per above, esp. Paddles. Colonel Tom 11:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete' -- Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day at school Fnarf999 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - the word already has a meaning, albeit rare, in pharmacology Fnarf999 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, same reasons as others said. LjL 00:11, 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: Withdrawn and no delete votes. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malgorzata Foremniak

nn actress, no effort shown to indicate otherwise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan F (talk • contribs) 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Based on IMDB seems to be a very busy Polish actress. Fan1967 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per Fan1967. Tony Bruguier 01:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per above. VegaDark 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though admittedly I'm voting largely based on her IMDB profile, which shows quite a body of work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable actress just needs to be cleaned up. - Patman2648 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Just needs to be expanded... a lot. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very stubby but the role in Avalon (2001 film) is notable. Kusma (討論) 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup per Fan1967 M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, forgot to sign! Okay, Cleanup agreed! Jonathan F 06:26, 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 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izvjestaj

No citations, no proof, POV, small.--TheFEARgod 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified and highly POV Kevin 02:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the content is too serious to keep without verification. Tyrenius 03:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kevin. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote This is too serious to keep without verification, but has anyone acutaly looked to see if this is acurate. Just because it's unrefrenced doesn't mean it's wrong. Tobyk777 04:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - author has a history of POV warring. I can't say that it's wrong, but it is unsourced. - Richardcavell 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah the author keeps deleting lagtiamte information on genodicde from various articles, claiming it is the golfification of genocide. Tobyk777 05:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it is properly verified.--Jersey Devil 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV and no V. --Eivindt@c 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as my limited knowledge goes, izvještaj means something like statement or deposition - so it's probably simply documenting a single piece of propaganda by one side (in line with this user's apparent history). Absent evidence of this particular document being in any way significant, delete as unverifiable and POV Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 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 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Pancallo

This article does not cite any source for the notability of the person in question. In addition, a Google search yields few results. Tell me if I am wrong. Tony Bruguier 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fail WP:BIO. NN Olorin28 01:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy creator of an online game which according to its article is "in the pre-alpha stage of development". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above Kevin 02:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not familiar with how notability in a game is established, but the PlaneShift page claims some 22,000 registered user accounts. If verifiably true, as the creator of such a large, popular game, it seems that this article would be of some merit. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.--Jusjih 15:36, 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 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Fogarty

Delete too minor an author. Prodded and deprodded within 1/2 hour of creation. Now on dead end pages - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One book, apparently only available on one site [2], from which this article is copied. Presumably a copyvio. Fan1967 02:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article even contains a typo ("grpahic" for graphic) identical to that site, indicating it's a straight copy-paste job. Fan1967 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly looks like a copyvio, but the subject of the article is not undeserving; Good Morning is a national TV programme. Perhaps all this needs is a rewrite? Ziggurat 03:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has to be (mostly) deleted to expunge the copyright violation from the servers for legal reasons. (I've no opinion on the stub remaining after copyvio removal.) -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was my understanding that this is not necessary unless the copyright holder specifically requests it (per WP:COPYVIO "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it"). Material rewritten / summarized from a copyvio source is not copyrighted itself, too. In any case, perhaps the best course of action is to delete this, and then rewrite as a stub. Ziggurat 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kind of unclear whose copyright is relevant. Looks like this content was taken from the bookseller at [3], but most of that content was basically copied (edit slightly and mistyped) from the TV network site [4] mentioned by Ziggurat. Fan1967 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe the usual practice where the entire content of the article is copyvio is to delete the article ; archival GDFL reasons don't apply to a large block of unedited copied text. I won't raise a fuss either way :) -- stillnotelf is invisible 12:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the stub as well. As notable as, um, me. Vizjim 09:43, 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 as a combination of patent nonsense and WP:SNOW. Chick Bowen 04:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of uncomfirmed Simlish words and phrases

Nonsense really. Nothing factual or of value. This would make a great blog somewhere. Crossmr 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense - I have added the db-nonsense template to the page BigDT 02:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this falls under nonsense, but it certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. joturner 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one place this belongs to is the trash can. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Kevin 02:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "unconfirmed" means that it fails WP:V Dspserpico 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stupid. "Simlish" refers to the garbled nonsense the characters speak in the Sims video game. An article speculating on what they're actually saying is beyond unencyclopedic. Aplomado talk 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what? this is unverifiable listcruft per se. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, someone acutaly went through the game and guessed at what each phrase means, then put it on wikipedia. How some people spend thier time is beyond me. Tobyk777 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's unconfirmed, it would presumably be unverifiable and/or original research. --Metropolitan90 04:53, 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 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Imperialism

Nominating several POV articles created by User:Peoplestruth (contribs). Essentially, they are communist propaganda. Here are the articles nominated for deletion:

  • As nominator, Delete All - BigDT 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not "communist propaganda" exactly but just nonsense.--Jersey Devil 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it may sound subjective, perhaps have people edit rather than deleting these articles. I'd like to see a democratic process flourish here.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.232.6 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep Kilusang Mayo Uno and Democratic Alliance (Philippines), which identify real and notable political groups. Delete US Imperialism and Left Opportunists, which are ntoo meaningful in their present forms. --John Nagle 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC). I[reply]
  • comment I object to the process of mass nominating articles? You you withdraw this nom and re-nominate the articles seperately? Dspserpico 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles on the political parties and clean up. Delete the articles on US Imperialism and Left Opportunism. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kilusang Mayo Uno and Democratic Alliance (Philippines). I apologize if these articles sound biased as this is my first time submitting and existing articles are heavily biased against the Left in the Philippines. Also, rather than outright calling to delete these, i advise people to edit and contribute their own knowledge of the subject. Also, calling anything anti-US to be "communist progagand" is VERY POV and is as un-neutral as you can get. - User:Peoplestruth
  • Partial keep per Nagle. The political party groups are relevant and important, the other two seem to run into original research issues. Would support a re-nomination per Dsperpico. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Manifest Destiny surely is imperialistic. 70.51.8.62 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's third edit. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but completely rework - Historically, US imperialism , especially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is worthy of an entry, but the content of this article is weak, weak, weak. Hektor 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request nominator to withdraw nomination and re-list separately. These articles don't belong in one group. Vizjim 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Done![reply]
  • Delete get a blog KleenupKrew 10:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By popular demand, the other articles have been split out from this one. Please see here, here, and here for the other three AFDs. BigDT 12:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be an article here, but this isn't it. Dr Zak 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV article. Vizjim 13:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In obvious need for expansion, but thats not a reason to Delete! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Content is covered extensively, with citations, without POV, at History of United States overseas expansion and American Empire, among others. At the most, US Imperialism could be a redirect. Vizjim 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and inherent POV. 1652186 18:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete obviously POV and sorely lacking content at that. --Zer0faults 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone writes a real article, get rid of it.
  • Delete POV, no content. Come back when you have an article. If this was a sentence in the article Imperialism it would be reverted POV Fnarf999 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just POV no content. --Eivindt@c 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to American Empire, POV and covered better elsewhere. BryanG 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a valid topic but nothing of value is on the page, either someone elaborate on the topic to make it at least several paragraphs of historical and factual info or just delete it. - Patman2648 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to American Empire, per BryanG. hateless 00:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no useful content and does not accord with naming conventions. Cedars 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Empire. Metamagician3000 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV.  Grue  15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm against US Imperialism; and to nominate a article for deletion as "communist propaganda" is competely absurd, this article has nothing to do with communism. However, the poor stated reasons for the AFD nomination of this article don't change the fact that the article itself is essentially a dictionary definition of imperialism with a vague mention of the US is reason for deletion. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. Lacks content to be in Wikipedia. Would be better in Wikitionary. --Quess 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV. --Strothra 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also known as Yankee Imperialism [5], Benevolent Global Hegemony [6]. See Monroe Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine ect... Are most wikipedia editors from the US? This article could potentially cover more than the marxist pov, and be very interesting. Myciconia 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete, rampantly POV. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:50, 18 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 05:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purachina

Delete, the article does not provide any additional information about the song that is not already covered in Cardcaptor Sakura media information. It's mostly written with a POV. -- Ned Scott 02:02, 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 deleted as recreation of previously deleted content and A7 biography lacking assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Ollier

This is a vanity page without references or links. Sbluen 02:10, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Soto

Probable hoax. Well-written & wikified stub but Google turns up no relevant hits. Even if he does exist the article is probably non-notable & unverifiable Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:16, 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 and BJAODN. Sango123 (e) 00:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man Beast: The Night of Death (movie)

Complete Hoax. Took me five minutes to stop laughing before nominating this for deletion. Check it out for your daily dose of laughter. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and move to WP:BJAODN.--Jersey Devil 02:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move to BJAODN. Complete hoax. It is said that when you laugh, it stimulates your immune system. I wonder how much healthier I am now. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 02:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN as hoax, but first look at the quote section, it's great. --Joelmills 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Very funny though. Kevin 03:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODNify per Jersey Devil. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But wait a couple days, because I'm bookmarking it so that I have something to laugh about when I get stressed out.... ha ha. Almost Famous 05:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious hoax, and not very funny at that, either. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as deeply unfunny hoax. Vizjim 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Funny stuff. DarthVader 11:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Pretty elaborate hoax. -- Tangotango 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, the quality of those lines deserves no less. ForbiddenWord 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tagline: "What is a man when he is covered in hair and has claws?" lmao, definitely BJAODN. Aplomado talk 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and do not BJAODN. Шизомби 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. Fairly amusing. --CapitalLetterBeginning 00:53, 19 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 05:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LogMeIn and Logmein (redirect)

Delete ad and WP:SOFTWARE - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nn software.--Jersey Devil 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SOFTWARE, nn & advertisement. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising has no place here Kevin 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and advertisementcruft. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated. DVD+ R/W 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; I think that is notable because it's the only free remote desktop service other than VNC. ~Chris {t|c|e} 12:15, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overpopulation Debate

This article is an unsourced essay on overpopulation, and a POV fork of the comprehensive overpopulation article. Will Beback 02:24, 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. Rje 14:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views of Hanukkah

After review, been convinced otherwise. Merge useful content into Hanukkah. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:43, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G7 welcoming committee

Only results for this seem to come up with G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Not sure if this is covering the same topic as the other page or not, but it seems to be. Metros232 02:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete figment of someone's imagination. Consider adding the "Records" to the nom. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems devoid of any real useful content. --Crossmr 02:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR at best. No evidence that any of the listed things are connected to the title Kevin 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR or hoax. The record company appears to be real, and unrelated. It's linked to by quite a few musician articles. Fan1967 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. I thought it was a welcoming committee that welcomes people who created articles that qualified for Speedy G7. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn. Erm, what? Oh, yes. Delete activistcruft. Vizjim 09:51, 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, discounting 'votes' from very new users and IP addresses. Apologies to the anon for making his attempt at wikification wasted, but there are many unwikified articles on Wikipedia on subjects which are actually worth reading about which could use his input. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xombie

Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 330,406. Rory096 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've never heard of it, but a quick hop through the links shows a bunch of people have. WP:WEB is a joke of a guideline, and I don't find that web traffic stat horribly low (if accurate). -- Ned Scott 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-05-15 04:05
  • Keep It's a popular enough flash animation (soon to be animated film), I just believe the article needs to be Wikified. If given a day or two to run through the Wiki help menus, I could even try so myself. -- Anon 2006-05-15  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.253.205 (talk • contribs) .
Please do. You've got about six days before the AfD will be closed. Feel free to ask for help on my talk page if you need it. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm doing heavy rewrites on the article over the next few days in an attempt to Wikify it. Hopefully I can save it from deletion. Kevar 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE and REDIRECT to Zombie 70.51.8.62 06:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Alexa Test is practically meaningless in this case: 1, Alexa admits that rankings below 100,000 are inaccurate, and 2, this article is not about a website, it is about a flash cartoon that is possibly (probably, even) viewed most often at other websites such as Newgrounds. --AfroDwarf
Because at the moment, only episode 1 is available directly on the website. For the other episodes Xombified hyperlinks to the episodes on Newgrounds. V 22:48, 20 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 all. There is consensus for merge, but merge where? Shannara has no section on characters. If you know, add the {{merge}} tags. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Meridian

Almost-notable fiction characters, with insufficient context to warrant an article. Merge and redirect. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

Bek Ohmsford
Redden Alt Mer

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 deleted, no assertion of notability and authoer requested deletion.--Sean Black (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan Fusion

Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (web), as the article is about a month-old forum that has 50 members. Deiaemeth 03:56, 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, no consensus for merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eiji Shinjo

Contested prod. Subject is a character in a video game with no notability outside it. Not worth its own article. Hirudo 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support for that option -- Hirudo 00:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you merge them? This was not agreed upon. There are more keeps than merges.--Dangerous-Boy 20:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICTION <--read ... the other pages in the category are also not up for deletion and thus no decision here is binding upon those. --Kunzite 20:30, 20 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. bainer (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos (Toshinden Character)

Closer's notes
Merging seemed to be a popular course of action, which would seem to satisfy the majority of people here (including the nominator). However, there doesn't seem to be a clear choice for a merge target. I will suggest merging on the talk page.

Same reason as Eiji Shinjo above. nn video game character. Deserves a mention on the game's article but definitely not its own full page. Hirudo 04:09, 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 Speedily redirected to Yahoo! Mail (already merged) Just another star in the night T | @ | C 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Mail Beta

Transient subject matter. Information about an unspecific "beta" version of future software is not worthy of its own article. Warrens 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as much as it's free advertising for Yahoo!, I have to conclude that this is noteworthy. - Richardcavell 04:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Will the article continue to be noteworthy after the "beta" is no longer beta? That's my point -- we already have an article on Yahoo! Mail, we don't need two. Warrens 05:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - beta software is not notable. if it becames popular software then maybe --MarsRover 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost Famous 05:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yahoo! Mail. It is notable within that context but when it becomes the default option, it will be known as Yahoo! Mail. Capitalistroadster 06:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yahoo! Mail per Capitalistroadster. Paddles 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It would seem a merge for inclusion into Yahoo! Mail would be a better alternative than deletion. The Beta's history might be notable for inclusion into that article. However, it does not seem notable on its face. Navou talk 11:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yahoo! Mail, as it is just an upcoming revision for the same. --soUmyaSch 12:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yahoo! Mail. -- Tangotango 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yahoo! Mail. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- it IS Yahoo! Mail Fnarf999 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was bold and performed the minor merge. Let's speedy end this. —Mets501talk 03:19, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X2M

Never heard of this critic; didn't pass Google test CobaltBlueTony 04:25, 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. Rje 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newgale, Pembrokeshire

Erm, a stretch of beach? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's nn. Rory096 04:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - maybe beach is a strange word for this place but it still a geographic area that seems notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarsRover (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment. Well yeah, Pembrokeshire is notable, but this beach/geographic location/whatever it is alone isn't. Also note that "Newgale" doesn't appear in that article at all. --Rory096 05:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, there really is a beach there not just rocks. --MarsRover 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Legitimate topic. Category:Beaches is well populated. Osomec 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It looks like it's extremely underpopulated, actually, considering Newgale is the only one in its subcat. --Rory096 06:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment "Beaches in Wales" is very underpopulated but there are quite a few in some of the other subcats, particularly the United States. Rhion 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - real place with 35000 ghits (for Newgale+Pembrokeshire). Well-known surfing place, too, by the looks of some of those hits. Grutness...wha? 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative merge. Pembrokeshire seems to suffer the same problem as Lancashire: tons of "village in ..." stubs. However, much of the Pembrokeshire coast is the property of the National Trust, part of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and/or on the Pembrokeshire Coast Path. If you poke around on the national park's webpage about the coastal path the interactive map thing yields up (reluctantly - I imagine it works better with IE) a fairly sizeable article on Newgale Sands which says nothing about surfing but instead explains its geology, a drowned forest (no self-respecting west Wales beach lacks a drowned forest), a washed-away pub, and describes it as the western end of the Landsker Line. Okay, so skip the pub and we have the bones of an article there. This isn't the only Pembrokeshire article we have which is barely a stub: Barafundle is probably more well-known, but Penbryn is another, and we don't even have a Broad Haven yet. But if it's not possible to expand this article much further than the notes above, I think it may well be better to merge it into Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, Pembrokeshire Coast Path, or National Trust property in Pembrokeshire (currently doesn't exist), depending on which of those it fits into. Telsa (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real Place. Jcuk 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My house is a real place too, but we don't have an article on it ;) --Rory096 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is poor as is, but clearly a keeper per User:Grutness and User:Telsa. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep geography = notable. --Eivindt@c 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article is very stubby, but notability is established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 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 05:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malenglish

This was tagged for speedy deletion, which was contested. Information needs to be verified, of course, but this is a procedural nomination. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Appears to be an alternate term for Manglish, which looks like a much better article. Based on Google search, this seems to be a pretty rare alternate term, but might be worth a redirect. Fan1967 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this looks like a good faith attempt to create an article, but it is not written in an encyclopedic manner and there is already a better article at manglish. In addition, the bottom half looks like it may have been copied from somewhere else, like a "forward" email joke kind of thing. I don't think that it should be redirected, since the very low incidence of use means that it is probably a misspelling rather than an alternative spelling. -- Kjkolb 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. Paddles 10:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan-1967. - Patman2648 23:25, 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. Rje 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sephi Hakubi

This page appears to be pure vanity created by the subject. CapitalR 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this and also Sushicrowd. Danny Lilithborne 04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unsure that Sephi Hakubi should be deleted as information was gathered by blogs and interviews, information pertains more to future events rather than current and past facts. Article does not fit criteria for musician's article, at best make article standard or own class. +Add notes and citations to prove notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.38.214.9 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Regarding the statement, "information pertains more to future events rather than current and past facts," Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What may happen in the future does not justify an article. Fan1967 13:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. ~ PseudoSudo 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. No verification of notability. Anyone can set up a website and give away MP3's. Fan1967 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Page. (Steve 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Suspend Article established too soon. Purpose: To provide detail on broken links. Deleting article per interviewer, holding on suspend status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.119.36 (talk • contribs) who also tried to blank the main article.
Comment "Suspend" has no meaning in an AfD discussion. Either the article's going to be deleted, or it's not. What is it that you're tying to say? Fan1967 20:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough information to provide for nobility yet. Article was written to mend broken link. (User:sephihakubi 12:40, 15 May 2006 (HST))
  • Delete Even the author of this article (User:sephihakubi) agrees it should be deleted. --CapitalR 23:52, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Falasco and Frank Holzone

Tagged for speedy deletion but contested. Does not appear to be a speedy candidate to me, though I can't really make head or tale of it to find out. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense/hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. No google hits for any part except Don Johnson. Mr Stephen 08:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nothing about "Scared Cops" movies in IMDB either. Paddles 10:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax and probably nn even if it isn't a hoax. DarthVader 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense and hoax and garbage. Honestly, no offense, Chick Bowen, but if you can't figure out how this can be speedily deleted as patent nonsense, then you haven't read the article. -- Kicking222 13:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None taken. I was exercising unusual caution because the speedy had been contested. If another admin wants to speedy it or close this discussion as WP:SNOW that's fine with me. Chick Bowen 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This brings up a point which I'm not entirely clear on. I've seen similar hoax articles speedily deleted as patent nonsense. However, I'm curious if they really qualify as such. The guideline states that patent nonsense is not to be confused with a hoax [8]. My reading of the guideline is that patent nonsense is essentially junk text or any sort of text which just makes no sense. So, as long as you can read and understand an article, it's not patent nonsense, no matter how clearly false the content may be. Am I correct on this, or am I missing the point? ScottW 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while I'm here, delete as hoax. ScottW 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hoax is generally not considered a CSD, no, for the reason that plenty of things seem to be hoaxes but aren't--a hoax requires investigation. A truly transparent hoax could reasonably be considered patent nonsense. Chick Bowen 04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, and rather juvenile one at that. Moriori 01:28, 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 ALL. Rje 14:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarus Plot

Summaries of casefiles from "The Hardy Boys." The summaries are lifted directly from the backs of the books, trust me I used to read these things. They shouldn't have their own articles to begin with. Also nominated:

-- Aplomado talk 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost Famous 05:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Given the trashy book-blurb style and the lack of any attempt to wikify, I'm bound to trust Aplomado.... TheMadBaron 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It was funny how in the original series they got knocked unconscious all the time without brain damage. Also, the book made sure to mention that the car or boat they were using had been recently serviced allowing them to go fast, since they needed a lot more maintenance back then. If they are copied from the back of the books, then I would think that they are copyrighted. Taking copyright violations to copyright problems is preferred because it takes less effort and accomplishes the same result, even if the topic does not deserve an article. As for deserving articles of their own, I would say that it is borderline based on precendent. The Hardy Boys article already lists the books. As a compromise, an article could be made that lists them with a short summary instead. So that list doesn't get too big, it might be good to create a separate article for each series. There seems to be five of them glancing at The Hardy Boys article (The books in the original series already have articles, though. Some of the other are blue links, but it appears that most or possibly all are links to different books or movies with the same name). If it is decided that they are not to have articles of their own, the lists on The Hardy Boys article should be delinked. Finally, I don't think that redirects or disambiguation pages should be created for the book names if they are simply summarized. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing beyond book 12 has an article. The others book titles that are linked are, as you suspected, simply linked to other articles that happen to have the same name as the book. Not surprising given the cliched titles most Hardy Boys books have. I didn't nominate the first three books since they seemed to have at least some encyclopedic content in there, although those are borderline deletion-worthy as well. Aplomado talk 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TheMadBaron. Paddles 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I liked the books, but there's loads of them and I doubt anybody is ever going to bother creating worthwhile articles for every single one.--Nydas 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any infringing material, but Keep the writeups themselves. As more and more young Wikipedians emerge, they will be inclined to write about what they care about - and what they will care about is summaries of Hardy Boys books (amongst other things). --Dwiki 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'm tempted to vote "keep" just because we have articles on individual episodes of television shows, but, then, I'm not entirely happy with those being in an encyclopedia, anyway. Certainly delete any copyvio'd material. ergot 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think it's borderline. I did leave the first three books in the casefiles up there since they had content other than what these nine had. But barring a rewrite, I think these articles need to be deleted if only for the fact that their only content is the teasers taken from the backs of the books. Aplomado talk 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All over wikipedia we have articles on books and TV episodes, most of which can be argued to be non-notable. These books are very notable books, which many people have heard of including myself. I read one. This is far more notable than some other articles on books we have. Tobyk777 01:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that the books are notable enough to warrant their own articles, but notability is not the issue. If the summaries are lifted directly from the backs of the books (and I have no reason to doubt Aplomado's word), then this is clearly copyvio. Remove any infringing material, and what's left? If it's something people feel strongly about, perhaps the publishers could be contacted for permission to reproduce? Failing that, deleting the articles won't prevent anyone from writing original copy along the same lines. TheMadBaron 10:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvios. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvios; no bias against recreating with legitimate content. -Sean Curtin 03:23, 18 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 speedily deleted per A3. Snoutwood (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of super low-floor buses of KMB

Although I created this article for reference, I now feel that this is no longer necessary and totally redundant. --Cheung1303 05:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article doesn't claim any significance to the list, and the topic is far too specific to be useful. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Paddles 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Trust your mechanic... or nominator... I concur with the nominator's assessment. Colonel Tom 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly irrelevant transitcruft. Haikupoet 03:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 03:26, 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. Rje 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National 9/11 Debate

Crystal-balling event with no coverage. Moreover, it's clearly a publicity stunt. Anyone thinking that the government will lend credibility to this group by participating is deluding themselves. Mmx1 06:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, looking at the maze of websites linked from its sister-article, I think "deluding themselves" is most of these people's raison d'etre. Delete. Vizjim 10:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom KleenupKrew 10:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with reservations I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there was any evidence that the government of the US even acknowledged receipt of the invitation, but this does pass Wikipedia is not a crystal ball by my reckoning, and if the event does come to pass, it will certainly be notable. Colonel Tom 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can always be recreated if said government members turn up. -- Tangotango 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. 1652186 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to find information regarding the government accepting, however none is found, no acknowledgement what so ever. For not it seems like promotional material unless the government acknowledges ever.--Zer0faults 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article as written borders on fantasy. "Government team?" --Craig Stuntz 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Maybe the debate will be notable, but it isn't yet. --Metropolitan90 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article can be recreated later if it seems the event is confirmed and appears to be receiving notable media coverage.--DCAnderson 03:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete soapboxing - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a crystal-ball. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- you've got to be kidding. Soapboxing to the Nth degree. Violates WP:OR, WP:NOT. Morton devonshire 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article as one of the initiatives of this group EyesAllMine 09:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hugely fails google test of notability [9]. -MrFizyx 22:30, 17 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. Rje 15:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide methods

Delete, Per WP:NOT - wikipedia is not a cookbook for suicide methods. It can list them, but not explain details how to kill oneself, any more than list instructions how to make a bomb, kidnap a plane, commit terrorist attack or cook a cake. ShockedUser 07:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You could propose the article Suicide for deletion for very similar reasons. Suicide is something that is fairly unkosher to talk about, but wikipedia is strictly not censored. MyNameIsNotBob 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. There is a diference between an article about a bomb, and instructions how to make a bomb. In the same way, there is diference between article about suicide (which can mention diferent types of suicide, just like a bomb can mention diferent types of bomb), and article with instructions how to commit suicide. Do you, in the name of same principle, argue that article containing instructions to make a bomb, belongs to encyclopedia.? ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article has been around for about a year and a half, has been edited hundreds of times by a variety of editors and the result of the last nomination was a speedy keep. The methods are not so overly detailed so as to became a suicide manual instead of an encyclopedia article. A person researching suicide, depending on which aspects he or she is focusing on, may find the information to be useful. For example, the person may be writing about how to prevent suicides by specific methods, like netting or railings around bridges or restricted access to certain chemicals. -- Kjkolb 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of recepies, or medical procedures. Would you argue to list prescriptions in a short article? Encycclopedia articles are not cookbooks, travel guides nor instruction guides for different medical or criminal procedures, suicide included. ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a description:Horizontal position. This is usually done when conditions do not allow for other means. The person puts a noose around his neck and attaches the other end to something that sticks out (e.g., a doorknob or water tap) and then uses his own force to push away from it, or establishes himself in a position where gravity can help. Due to prolonged asphyxiation, blood may pool in the eyes before death. Note that a violent seizure might occur causing unexpected disturbance. Sound like instruction for hanging to me. They even go into such detail as to suggesting doorknub or water tab. Also, you may turn any instruction into description how people do it. You can sell anything as a description. For instance: People wanting to lunch in Venice, ususally go to one of the following nice restaurants, and dial the following numbers: xxxxxxxxxx ShockedUser 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Im sure there are people interested in the different ways of suicide, this page as far as I can see isn't trying to promote suicide, if anything its creating awareness. Woldo 08:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There are people interested in travel guides. There are people interested in cook recepies. There are people interested in your dark secrets and your telephone number/adress. Yet such information you are not going to place here, and so interest is not a valid criterium. ShockedUser 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's an astonishingly pointless article, hamstrung no doubt by the violent passions on both sides of the debate (freedom of information vs protection of the vulnerable). However, there is no detailed information on here that compares different methods or suggests the "best" way to kill oneself, so it is emphatically not a "how-to" and is therefore not covered by the guidelines you have cited. Moreover, the page does not seem to take a point of view on whether suicide is justifiable or not, and therefore is not in violation of the POV guidelines. I do think that it has problems, not least in the lack of sources, lack of detailed information, and the fact that I don't need an encyclopedia to tell me such things (three minute's thought is surely all it'd take to come up with most of these methods, maybe excepting seppuku). Nevertheless, it is encyclopedic, notable, and potentially useful to researchers. Keep. Vizjim 10:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Description of how to make a shoe bomb might be also handy for researchers, for instance those interested in sociological aspects of shoe-bomb terrorism. Descriptions of how people cook different meals are also good when one researches technological aspects of cooking, as a sociological phenomenon. But yet wikipedia does not allow such wonderful descriptions of recepies to be posted in articles, impairing scientific research. ShockedUser 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, don't be rude. This is not a how-to, and upping your rhetoric won't make it so. Vizjim 10:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will find list of ways to kill a cheating girlfriend even more thrillingly encyclopedic. ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contary, I fail to see how such an article would differ significantly enough from list of ways to kill a girlfriend to warrent its own article. Ydam 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not again. I'm getting annoyed. This topic is incredibly legitimate and notable, deleting it is simply ridiculous. I don't care about its content only it's referential value. Skinnyweed 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arent cook recepies legitimate and notable? ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is valuable, however in it's current state it does look more like how-to guide, that needs to be fixed. Maybe place the article as the community improvement drive for an extended period? Something like that. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT a howto, but this article is not a howto. It is much better than the average list, and seems to offer a decent overview and comparison of trends over time and between nations. Just zis Guy you know? 15:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it is encyclopedic context User:Bookworm51104
  • Keep There are many article subject that I may find distasteful, but that doesn't make them unencyclopedic. Also, the fact that the nominator created an account simply to AfD this article is a little curious. IrishGuy 17:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find many cookrecepies very tasteful, I wonder why are they unencyclopedic. As for my account, it is certainly a ballot-stuffing indication. ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and reference. I don't see how WP:NOT applies here, as many other said, there are no instructions in the article, and it doesn't belong to the indiscriminate collection categories, either. However, I feel an article like this needs specific references for each specific method mentioned. LjL 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, merely descriptions of steps which are usually done to kill one self, with special note to pros and cons of various methods from the point of view of the potential suicider, and physical analysis of laws of physics concerning the everlasting question: how can a gravity help.ShockedUser 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add refrences, per above. This seems like a bad-faith nomination by a new user. -Whomp 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vizjim. Encyclopedic both in nature and tone. ergot 00:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not censored. TheMadBaron 10:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per many above. This is legitimate. This article appears to be AfD'd repeatedly by one or two people with an axe to grind, yet the consensus remains 'Keep'. Amists 15:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many above. Encyclopedic, notable, and WP:NOT censored. - CNichols 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG and LjL, although certainly editors of the page should keep in mind WP:V and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (I concur in LjL's analysis w/r/to how the article ought to be improved). I certainly don't think users here ought to impute bad faith to the nomination; I am eminently hopeful that the nominator, even as he/she may ancillarily desire the deletion of the information because he/she finds it distasteful (although I surely don't think anything the subject matter to be at all distasteful), acts in good faith; he/she certainly adduces relevant policies (viz., that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, such that overly specific entries [e.g., a recipe for cheesecake in the article cheesecake] are looked upon with disfavor and as unencyclopedic). We surely should wonder at the several nominations of this article (and the impetus for such nominations), as well as about the ostensibly neophytic nature of the nominator, but we must continue to assume good faith until we're compelled to do otherwise. Joe 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid article for many reasons as already stated above.--Cwm 17:34, 18 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. Rje 15:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sphinx Head Society

Article is unverifiable, contains original research, and is self-promoting. Carnelianred 06:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should consider deleting entry on other claimed secret society as well, Quill & Dagger.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.243.195 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 May 2006. (Peripitus 06:37, 18 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. Rje 15:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple

Previously {{prod}}ed with note No assertion of importance or notability for this particular building. Volume of size does not make for notability unless it is superlative. No indication of whether architect is someone special or if there has been an impact on the design of other buildings. Fluit 07:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a poorly written personal essay, not an encyclopedic entry, and needs to be completely revised. However, its subject matter is not a valid reason for deletion. The building is something of a site of local interest, and is completely appropriate for inclusion.Donaldal 07:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. Since it was going to be kept on the basis of the encyclopaedic notability of the subject, I have removed the excessively florid language and reduced it to a stub. The word "ecstatic" is rarely appropriate in an encyclopaedia article... Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs a good rewrite to fix the style of the article, but the building is notable and is worth keeping. Sue Anne 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mormon temples are not just Mormons' normal houses of worship (churches), they are more significant, like Catholic cathedrals, and, therefore, are notable. The article could certainly stand a rewrite. If nothing else, this should be reduced to a stub and kept in that form. ergot 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be edited not deleted Trödel 03:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per ergot. TheMadBaron 10:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ergot. The Mormon temples are comparable to cathedrals, and we have a whole category of them: Category:Latter Day Saint temples.--Pharos 06:02, 17 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 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipitous Studios

Non-notable company. Six google hits, makes no claim towards WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 07:46, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profitatpoker.net

Advertisement for non-notable web site. No Alexa rank, according to google nothing links to the site, "Profitatpoker" gets seven google hits. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 07:51, 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 as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Psi

Is this something real? I can't make heads or tails of it. Things happen because things happen and therefore psi answers every question? Google returns some stuff on "theory of psi" but those seem to be different (quantum mechanics and various parapsychological phenomena). No vote because I'm on a lower astral plane than what is required to understand this. Weregerbil 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hundreds of Google hits for "theory of psi", but all seem to refer to psychic powers/phenomena. This article, in other words, is stuff made up in schoo. Delete. Vizjim 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It seems to be a rehashing of the ancient concept of "Shit happens". No citations, no relevant ghits, and it's vague, rambling trash. Reyk YO! 11:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Proclus seems to get a bit of a mention on at least one site relating to mysticism themes http://www.experiencefestival.com/proclus but the same site uses Psi to refer to Parapsychology research and abilities, not to the "theory of Psi" as described in this article. Anyone got time to delve a bit deeper into that site? Other Ghits seem to relate to astronomical themes (where psi is simply the Greek letter) or simply use PSI as the abbreviation/citation for a specific papyrus. Paddles 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Vizjim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "it can be assumed" et al does not belong here. Kevin 12:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Vizjim +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reyk. -- Tangotango 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A textbook case of original research and quite likely WP:NFT as well. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, parapsychologists occasionally use the concept of psi, but this article is just nonsense.
  • Strong delete, I can't see this as anything but a joke. LjL 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article doesnt really explain much to me, perhaps I am not understanding it, but there is also no sources or anything to verify the claims or support the belief. I too am wondering if its a joke of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by zer0faults (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense (CSD G1): "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." --LambiamTalk 22:28, 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 05:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storyscape

(Also The White Room (StoryScape) and Is this good or bad?) Three interlinked articles on a web-based collaborative writing project. No evidence of notability, such as number of users or media attention, is presented in the articles. Conscious 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A question mark in the first sentence doesn't bode well at all. Kevin 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three per nom. no notability shown.--blue520 13:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. "Or maybe it's a game"? The article itself doesn't even know what it is, so WP:WTH. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. Storyscape gives very weak results on google[12]. Given that the writing is not up to wikipedia standards, it doesn't seem worth savaging. -MrFizyx 22:45, 17 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 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Libertarianism

Dicdef, which adds nothing useful but the definition of either term. It was replaced with a redirect to Libertarianism, but reverted back by the creator, who has also edited Template:Libertarianism sidebar and Moderate accordingly. Gsearch for both terms shows 68 hits outside of Wikipedia, very few of which are actually relevant to the object of the article - most use them in a colloquial manner and don't refer to it as an ideological entity, as the article's author asserts (it must be noted that the author runs a website entitled "The Moderate Libertarian"). Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 08:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It literally reads as a dicdef (with some linkspam on the side) -- Samir धर्म 09:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote the first line "People are using the term "moderate libertarian" to define their political stance. There is no clear definition of this, outside of the definitions for 'moderate' and 'libertarian.'", and laugh out loud. Clearly Delete material, given that it's a dicdef of something that doesn't appear to exist. Vizjim 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete get a blog KleenupKrew 10:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that "Get a blog" is a useful comment if we're trying to be friendly to newcomers. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Ravikiran 11:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider myself a "moderate libertarian" and I'm not seeing the need for this article. The original attempt of doing a redirect struck me as a good approach, and I see no signs that the article author tried to work with anyone on it, (no talk page discussion). Merge anything valuable (lose the links, I think) with Libertarianism and redirect, protect if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef and nn locution; I don't think there's anything valuable to merge, and so we needn't to preserve the contribution history with a redirect. (Altogether unrelatedly, IMHO, a moderate libertarian is like a moderately pregnant woman; nearly categorically, libertarianism is binary. This proviso, of course, has nothing to do with deletion, and, were the term used generally used/were the entry ever able to be anything other than dicdef, I'd support keep.) Joe 23:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 17 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 Computerjoe's talk 09:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballydougan

NN place, article consistes mainly of advertisment for "Ballydougan Pottery", famous resident botanist has no Google hits Optimale Gu 09:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all real places, but for Lords sake rewrite! Jcuk 11:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak excuse for advertising; WP is not a marketing channel. If someone wants to write a real article about the place they can, but deleting this version won't set them back at all. Paddles 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Speedy keep after Capitalistroadster's rewrite. Paddles 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk. Some with better info than the web provides needs to rewrite it though. Kevin 12:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is nothing here which could be used in an encyclopaedic article about the place, plus it contains an attack (I'd better go and remove that). No prejudice against creation of a proper article later. Just zis Guy you know? 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no encyclopedic value, sounds like a brochure, obvious subjective writing. --Crossmr 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten this article based on What Links Here and a reference to the pottery in the Northern Island Yearbook. It is a real place with real communities of interest and thus should be kept. However, it seems to be in County Armagh rather than County Down. Capitalistroadster 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on rewrite by Cap.  RasputinAXP  c 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we shouldn't be deleting articles about towns just because they're badly written . with the rewrite now reads as a standard town stub with some interesting history to be expanded on Peripitus 01:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as it is now a completely new article thanks to Capitalistroadster I also think this AfD should be closed with a Speedy keep Optimale Gu 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't have a speedy keep while there are still any outstanding delete votes. Stifle (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Optimale. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 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, defaulting to Keep. Rje 15:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demigodz, Celph Titled

This appears to be a walled garden. Demigodz is a so-called "underground hip-hop supergroup" but its members appear to be members only of this group and have no other claims to notability. A couple have already been speedied. The group has released one album, according to Allmusic, but there is no evidence of significance. All the band members appear to have Myspace pages and little else. Lots of links, but most of them turned out to be music the band heard or was influenced by, rather than any actual firm relationship. Website contains "mostly dated information". There are some links to other groups, but they all seem to go round in circles: A is notable because it includes B, who is notable because he was in C, wich is notable because it contains B, who is notable because he was in A. How notable is an underground hip-hop crew anyway? Just zis Guy you know? 09:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There doesn't seem to be any reliable, verifiable information about these groups. Thus, they shouldn't be here. Kevin 13:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. --Crossmr 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Celph Titled being an integral part of that Fort Minor album (top 60 album in the US) would surely qualify him on his own, but the Demigodz _are_ a well-known hip-hop act, Celph Titled was on the cover (as part of his Boss Hogg Barbarians side-project) of Hip Hop Connection this month which has a circulation of around 15,000, and, really, if "results 119,000 for "celph titled"" isn't enough to classify an artist as notable... meh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Journalis (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has anyone voting for delete googled '7L & Esoteric'? 'Styles of Beyond'? Searching for some of these people individually rather than in relevant subgroups could be giving you a misleadingly low hit count. Membership of those groups, Celph, and former membership of Louis Logic are clearly sufficient grounds for inclusion. Ncsaint 00:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard Demigodz on a Marley Marl mixtape together and BBC national radio separately, so the problem seems to me not to be notability. Perhaps the articles should be improved or tagged as needing work, rather than deleted. Tim Ivorson 11:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kevin. Stifle (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe delete the lyrics since nobody with anything vaguely important to do reads them all. Celph Titled/ Demigodz/Apathy all +thoroughly+ deserve an entry in Wiki. Who the fuck is Kevin to say who deserves an entry or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.234.243.2 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC). Fck of Mthrfcker Celph titled is beter than ur mamas face[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. The JPS talk to me 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Big" Dave Morine

Delivery guy for a local restaurant (which itself has a tenuous claim to notability). Speedy deletion contested with a message on the talk page. Weregerbil 09:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Did an admin remove the speedy tag? I can't see how his response makes the article notable. Wikipedia isn't for things made up in school one day. MyNameIsNotBob 10:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the speedy tag (which I added in the first place) after the article author {{hangon}}'ed it and wrote the talk page comment. I thought the process is meant to be speedy -> contest -> take to Afd — but now that you mention it I'm not that sure who can delete a speedy tag and what is supposed to happen... Weregerbil 10:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wasnt made up, as it is a tradition of many Marvin's drivers to become legendary around the campus of DePauw for having trademark phrases or some other silly quirks that actually makes people who order from the resaurant specifically ask for a certain driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.120.72.157 (talk • contribs)
  • Retort Though I do not believe it to be to the extent of the tale tales and folklore shared by a state. DePauw University is a community that shares a specific identity that is tied to things such as it's local restaurant and it's employees. No it has yet to be expanded specifcally to state some of the local legends surrounding said drivers, but these individuals should not be looked at as just ordinary people but as literary figures of an oral tradition. thepenrod 06:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete. Vizjim 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retort You just quoted someone, use a new line of argument. thepenrod 06:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Quoting official Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or examples thereof is a very good way to explain an opinion. Weregerbil 11:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable employee of non-notable fast-food outlet. Markb 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not notable at all. DarthVader 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actually, this should't have survived speedy under A7 in the first place. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 12:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care anymore.thepenrod
  • comment don't be disheartened, there are over 1,100,000 articles that I'm sure you can add to. Markb 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN per all the above comments Kevin 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Obvious A7. Fan1967 13:42, 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 DELETE. Rje 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Academy

NN fictional location. Prod was formatted incorrectly - I changed it to a correctly-formatted Prod but this was leter removed. Article adds nothing of substance not already included in the two pages that link to it. Paddles 11:22, 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 05:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspreet Mangat

Proposed for speedy deletion under A7, but contested by the article's creator, who removed the speedy tag. Yet, no real assertion of notability has been made, and the results of a Gsearch for the name yield only 11 hits, with only a couple referring to the article's subject. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 10:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obvious vanity article Ydam 10:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable yet -- Samir धर्म 11:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe speedy deletion should be speedier, to prevent tag removal. Kevin 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Page. (Steve 16:48, 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 08:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airdates of Lost

This is a textbook "indiscriminate collection of information", as per WP:NOT. Are we going to add information for every country that puts the show on? Every re-run? Forever? Evidently a lot of hard work has gone into this page, but the end result remains an unencyclopedic fancrufty list. Vizjim 10:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unencyclopedic fancruft per User:Vizjim. Reyk YO! 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or very weak merge into Lost (TV series) per nom and Reyk. Paddles 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 11:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge DVD releases somehwere, and delete everything else. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All that work, and not one reference. Kevin 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that work and, er, why? Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love Lost but Wikipedia should only have the original (American) airdates, and they are already included in List of Lost episodes. abelson 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. . The information for this article comes from a range of sources, for example televison listings. It helps viewers outside the US to seek information on the broadcast of this show in a quick and easy manner. Regarding the references, I am sure someone can add them. The main reason a article like this exists is due the show's international popularity and the fact we can put all this information together now. ant_ie 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-merge Delete, but merge an extremely abbreviated version of the first few sections into Lost (TV series), except in paragraph form (see The_Simpsons#Broadcasting for an example). If this dosen't happen, some anon (most likely that dynamic ip that keeps editing the TF1 article) will just start a list of TV channels in the Lost (TV series) article. -Whomp 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic by a long shot. Worldtraveller 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC. Wikipedia is not a TV guide, etc. Stifle (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Merge anything usefull into relevent articles -Aknorals 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't there a lost wiki? Coudn't this info be in there??? -Aknorals 12:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lostcruft. Cool3 00:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unenclyclopedic, indiscriminate collection of information. - Liberatore(T) 16:24, 19 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 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poidh

  • Not a widely recognizable or accepted internet meme, nor is the origin proven or explicitely specified as the forum designated as having created it is exclusive. (AfD page started by User:Ukiyo-e81, but not listed on the log. Joyous | Talk 11:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - both links in the article are closed down to non-members, which does make establishing notability a bit difficult. Notability not established elsewhere in the article. Colonel Tom 11:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally non-notable. Kevin 13:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity protologism cruft and any one of a dozen other things Wikipedia is not. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this NN-vani-protologo-cruftness please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:45, 17 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 09:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

María Martha Fernández

This article seams to be a vanity page. Not only there are no academic references in the net, but the achievemnts stated in the article seam to be to weak to keep this article in the Wikipedia. The article had an (defunct) Votes for Deletion page (see:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/María Martha Fernández), that was closed because it didn't follow the procedures that currently apply for such purpose, so users are invited to vote again here. Mariano(t/c) 11:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem to make the grade for WP:BIO regarding authors. Kevin 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, have absolutely no idea who she is. No references to probe her notability. -- ReyBrujo 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I read over and over her CV, which is the only site that I found about her, and I don't think she is notable for a wikipedia article. To me, she just looks like any other professor that publishes papers and essays. Copied from previous AfD. Gadig 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I created this article with all my caress, but "Mariano" seems to be fighting a war. I can't fight any more, then. Delete my article. IgnatiusReilly 8:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment, her notability hasn't been established correctly. Fails WP:PROFTEST: she isn't more noteworthy than the average school professor. -- ReyBrujo 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry to hear you feel I personally attack you, but all I did was to set an AvD tag to this article, and that with a good reason. We will see if it will stay or not. Mariano(t/c) 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gadig. I can understand why IgnatiusReilly is disappointed, but this article does not make the grade for notability as per WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 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. Rje 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Reyes

I am quite disturbed by this entry because Mr. Reyes, though promising, appears too raw to be included as a luminary or a Wikipedia entry. Otherwise, we will end up including every aspiring writer and every faculty member from every university. A writer should be credited for his/her pioneering contributions to his country and his /her outstanding body of works. Mr. Reyes' career is just beginning. Maybe we should give him a few more years before he can be included here. - 7258 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BIO has a clear guideline on authors. Unclear if this author meets it or not. -Jcbarr 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete seems like a talented young man, but I can't find anything on him the suggest he passes WP:BIO. --Eivindt@c 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on "People still alive" Mr. Reyes has not been acknowledged nationally or internationally. "Best in Filipino" is an award given by every public and private primary school and high school in the Philippines. It has no impact nationally. He has not published in mainstream books and anthologies. At this point he does not qualify to be a luminary. If we put him, we will encourage anybody who has been published online or in 2nd or 3rd-tier publications, regardless of quality. - 7258 06:12, 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 blatant spam. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet marketing newswatch

A website created 4 days ago is not only certainly not notable, but also not worthy of an encyclopedic article. Beltz 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 11:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 12:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ydam 12:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising spam. Kevin 13:11, 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 09:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo baranski

Non-notable person. Google hits are from crank physics sites. "After his death, Academia forgot him." May he remain forgotten in peace. LambiamTalk 11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as nn. DarthVader 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 12:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Academia forgot him" So will Wikipedia "May he remain forgotten in peace" I suggest we grant the authors wish Ydam 12:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -lethe talk + 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we could probably even speedy for lack of context. --Philosophus T 18:09, 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 merge and redirect. bainer (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milk 'n' Cereal Bars

Closer's notes
Note that merge and delete is not a valid course of action, since the original article must be preserved in the history in order for GFDL requirements to be satisfied. In extreme cases, where no redirect is warranted at all, then the original article may be moved to a subpage of the destination's talk page, for example. However, this is not such a case.

Wikipedia is not a supermarket product listing. The content of this article is not notable enough. Beltz 11:47, 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. Rje 15:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Sanchez (sex)

Previously nominated for deletion in Febuary. Result was keep. Nominating because of lack of sourcing (therefore making it a nn pop culture reference), and a {{prod}} tag would never hold up. ^demon[yell at me] /12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, that's got to be the most heavily sourced article ever, so I'm not sure that the nominator's argument stacks up for me. Nonetheless, I vote delete, as I don't think that this article has really gone beyond a dictionary definition plus examples of usage. Vizjim 13:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not urbandictionary. -- GWO
  • Weak delete. I thought the article should have been deleted then, for the reason Gareth gives. But I don't see why it's been nominated again. Wasn't the issue settled back in February?Phiwum 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I just came across the article today, and was very surprised that it hadn't been deleted previously. I thought that perhaps a renom (after a 4 month cool-down) would be appropriate. ^demon[yell at me] /14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previously: lacks a sincle citation from a reliable source, despite numerous assertions that one exists. By this time I think we are entitled to assume that unverified = unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Zer0faults 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. --Eivindt@c 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article needs sources, but this term is in wide use. It needs a {{Not verified}} at the top, but there are enough filthy-minded 14-year-old Wikipedians to make quick work of the job if prompted. --Dwiki 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why the hell are we nominating this again? Considering the term inspired a band name, a television show, and an FCC fine, this is a horrible nomiantion. Nominee is also very, very wrong. NN pop culture reference? Obviously not. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence given that the television show refers to this. One use on a random radio talk show, which in my cursory glance of it seems to refer to the terms as being non-notable, does not increase notability. --Philosophus T 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wow. What else could it possibly be referring to? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable and lacking sources. Even the references are not confirmed to be references to this in particular. --Philosophus T 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a dictionary definition, by the way. We should delete and transwiki even if it is notable. --Philosophus T 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and find sources. Obviously notable, I am amazed by the amount of delete pile-ons above. Currently, the article is not verified- that is not the same as to not be verifiable. My experience is that reliable sources can always be found for such articles, and should be added. It's absurd to think that the numerous references in pop-culture pertain to something else. It should be noted also that badly written articles about notable subjects should be improved, not deleted. Lack of sources only equates to nn'ability if the sources DO NOT EXIST- if reliable sources verifying the existence and use of this term actually don't exist, then I'm a Dutchman. Keep. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I'm not a Dutchman. Badgerpatrol 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PPS- Or woman. Badgerpatrol 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're just foolishly optimistic?. Erik the Rude 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not renowned for my optimism. "Dirty Sanchez" = 902,000 hits. To put it mildly, I will be surprised if a term with nearly a million Google hits has NEVER appeared in print. Wouldn't you? Badgerpatrol 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do we get to "keep and find sources" before we decide that in the end there are none? Just zis Guy you know? 09:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As many as it takes. Just because our sourcing policy is somewhat broken at times doesn't mean we throw in the towel on notable, wlel-known terminology with a legitimate history. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just explain to em the difference between that and the often-repeated satirical comment that "all content should cite sources unless you can't find any"? If it's still uncited after two and a half deletion debates does that not indicate that no valid sources exist? It seems to me as if you are saying we should tear up WP:V and say instead that we shoudl keep all content unless we can prove it's wrong, which is the wrong way round according to our current policies. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration that the article is still not adequately referenced- but this does not indicate that no sources exist. It may indicate that they may be a bit harder to find, as one would expect with all sex-related articles. WP:V is the keystone of Wikipedia, but it's manifestly absurd to delete material that we all KNOW is true. It should be kept with the appropriate 'Verify' template attached. Having no references is obviously not good enough- so we can add this to the other 90% of articles that are not properly sourced. Wikipedia policies are more like a legal framework than scientific laws- unbreakable, but pliable enough to be bent in such a way as to avoid decisions that violate sensible interpretation and common sense. Badgerpatrol 00:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what he said. WP:V, while absolutely necessary, should not act as a roadblock. Especially when we're dealing with otherwise commoin-knowledge subjects. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If sources exist for this article, and those who voted keep care about it enough...how come none have been found after all this time? ^demon[yell at me] /01:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the lack of acceptance of the various references in culture than anything else at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. No objections to a transwiki to Wiktionary, if it isn't already there. ergot 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable sexual UL; double jeopardy. Haikupoet 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the kind of thing that Catullus would have claimed is writ on "wind and running water". It's just a definition of a supposed sex act plus examples of the use of the phrase. The Oxford Latin Dictionary does the same thing with words, so this is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. By the way, isn't there a policy on no binding decisions? (WP:NBD)? Deletion discussions should be intitiated at any time, and if multiple users find an article worthy of deletion it should be taken seriously. Erik the Rude 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requesting that people stop AfDing the same article over and over isn't a violation of NBD. With that logic, better throw the recreastion speedy deletion policy out the window. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a seperate disambig page due to all the pop culture references.skorpion 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, referenced by popular culture.  Grue  15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously notable, which is why it has already survived an AfD debate just three months ago. It would be ridiculous for it to be deleted now. --Cheapestcostavoider 04:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Give this article a rest. It survived before, as it should've. It's notable, and the article has some sourcing and is relatively fleshed out. joeOnSunset 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the article is either speculation or a list of cultural references. Should we create a list of every film/book/impeachment hearing where a blowjob is mentioned? OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:JzG & nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where else is someone going to find this info. This is a pop culture reference and deserves to be defined somewhere.
  • Strong Keep This article has relevant information - where else are we supposed to find out what a dirty sanchez is? Hmm? 72.56.10.196 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, this user has significantly contibuted since April 27. No contribs have ever been in AfD. Contribs ^demon[yell at me] /19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has already been nominated twice for deletion, and both times it was not. Give it a rest. Djedi 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin, this user has not contibuted since April 25, and only has 5 contribs including this page, none of which were AfD debates. ^demon[yell at me] /19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you attacking all of these users? This isn't adding anything to the debate. --Cheapestcostavoider 19:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice ad hominem there. You know your argument's strong when you're using ad hominems.. Djedi 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't meaning to attack anyone. I checked ALL usernames and IPs on this page (for both Keep and Delete votes), I just felt that these were the only ones who had questionable histories. It's VERY common for an admin to discount the opinion of someone who this page is their ONLY edit (See User:24.90.72.182), and I myself call into question someone who hasn't edited for about 2 weeks and then suddenly shows up to an AfD without ever doing AfD before. ^demon[yell at me] /21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to those who voted Keep, would transwikiing to Wiktionary be acceptable to you? If not, what are the problems with doing so? --Philosophus T 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per badlydrawnjeff and previous debates. --TM 18:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What the heck does "unverified" mean in this case? Every songle one of us knows what this term means and none of use learned that from this article. The idea expsts outside of wikipedia, and wikipedia is a place to come to find out more about it. . --70.132.28.172 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is mentioned in various tv and movie programs. This clearly exists outside of wikipedia. Arbusto 07:39, 20 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 by Xezbeth as CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity.. --Hetar 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Attenborough

Apparent hoax. Article about a singer/songwriter that supposedly has a recording contract with a major film and television producer. A Google search finds only hits to Wikipedia and its mirrors despite the claim that this artist has a released album.[13] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 talk 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - the name seems to be appearing all over Wikipedia. reads like a joke article with no backing Peripitus 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt the earth. Re-repost of a hoax. Weregerbil 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax Kevin 13:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC (questionably criteria for speedy deletion could be applied CSD A7/CSD G4).--blue520 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. Not the same as the content that was removed (twice), but unquestionably the same person. Just zis Guy you know? 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold On this is an article about a real person, a comedian from Nottingham, but someone keeps changing the information and attacking the person in what seems to be an attempt to get it deleted. I understand that some of his jokes and material may have been offensive to some but I don't understand this vendetta. I have added the real information again but I'm not that big of a fan and I'm getting tired of adding the same stuff over and over.
    The rewrite suffers from the same core problem as the original nomination. Neither the songwriter version nor the comedian version is verifiable. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of twice-deleted material. -- Kicking222 20:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Alliance (Philippines)

This article had been listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism. By popular demand, I am splitting it into its own AFD. To the closing admin, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism for others who may have expressed an opinion on it. BigDT 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a poor article as it stands but on a noteworthy and historical topic. Keep and flag for clean-up. The facts in the article (what few there are) are verified by this article. Vizjim 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless serious improvements are made before AfD closure. 1652186 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like the article just needs work, but its not POV slanted or anything. Perhaps just needs a little research loving. --Zer0faults 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As I welcome others to add to it but just want to get the article started. Will continue to contribute to this piece Peoplestruth 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per URL supplied by User:Vizjim above: clearly notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 17 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 09:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilusang Mayo Uno

This article had been listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism. By popular demand, I am splitting it into its own AFD. To the closing admin, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism for others who may have expressed an opinion on it. BigDT 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep KMU highly relevant in Filipino politics and modern history. --Soman 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, quite obviously. Extremely notable Philipino political party. Have tagged for expansion. Vizjim 14:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator, I will not object to a Speedy Keep - this one was really guilt by association. If the original contributor and others are willing to expand and improve this article, I see no reason not to give them that chance. BigDT 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless serious improvements are made before AfD closure. 1652186 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an original contributer, i intend to add onto this article, but simply wanted to get it started.Peoplestruth 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factual, if short, article. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relevant in Philippine politics. It needs some clean up though. --Quess 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. 69.24.189.229 05:29, 20 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 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left Opportunists

This article had been listed with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism. By popular demand, I am splitting it into its own AFD. To the closing admin, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Imperialism for others who may have expressed an opinion on it. BigDT 12:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No sources, no proper article, no point. Delete. Vizjim 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally thought this was from Mao's Little Red Book, from the 1940s. No context and little useful content. I put a "prod" on this article at one point. --John Nagle 15:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom and above. 1652186 18:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all POV no V. --Eivindt@c 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Only 278 Google hits for "Left opportunism", not sure if this could ever be truly NPOV. ergot 02:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary.Tomb Ride My Talk 15:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per above. --Strothra 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically a dicdef (and anything further would run into OR/V issues). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 17 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 Deleted, speedy A3 Just zis Guy you know?

Moving Quotes companies

List of links. Was deprodded. Ezeu 12:41, 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 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zoller

Non-notable biography; clean-up tag since 12/05; no real incoming links. -- FRCP11 05:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep decent ghits [14], a book on amazon [15] that's cited in several other books. --eivindt@c 00:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Equendil 20:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one book with Amazon Sales Rank: #262,501, nn Optimale Gu 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no references listed, not notable. Vegalo 11:53, 17 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 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shobha De Omnibus

Relates to an omnibus of novels. the novels themselves are worthy of articles or a summary notice on an author's page, but not a particular collection or omnibus! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Possibly redirect to author. JPD (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The omnibus could be mentioned on the individual novels pages. Perhaps as a "This book available in this omnibus" sentence would suffice.--Crossmr 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JPD. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Bharatveer 05:08, 19 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 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templi Kalendae

I maintain that this page be kept as the group are Noteworthy, as they are one of the oldest continuous pagan groups in the UK. They started the first moots in the Second City of the UK, and as such people will want to research them and the page is of great value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxraider (talk • contribs)

  • Apparently this article was proposed for deletion, which was challenged. Now an AfD page has been set up and transcluded onto the AfD log, yet nobody seems to have nominated the article for deletion on AfD. Speedy keep for lack of deletion nomination. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep As above, there is no actual nomination to delete. Looking at the history, the article had been prodded by an anon and the prod was removed by the original contributor. The AFD notice was never listed on the article. (I have added it now.) But the nominator doesn't say that he actually wants it deleted. So I'm with Metropolitan90, speedy keep. BigDT 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete They're not that noteworthy. 21 results on google (214 but it ends at 21 as they're off the same sites) most of which result from pagan social networking sites, some profiles, and wikipedia itself. It might be included as part of a larger article if say there was one on Pagan groups in the UK. --Crossmr 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Keep the page as people looking for the history of neopaganism in the uk would find it of value. The group was aroung long before the net, so few google hits is not important, but does make their wiki listing very important. Tuxraider 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article has been here for years, by a longstanding wikipedia contibutor. The article is well researched and has some substance to it. For instance, the explanation of the Ophidian current. Its an interesting read. TK might not be 'famous' in terms of a numbers game on google but they have a unique contribution and viewpoint that I haven't seen elsewhere, and Tony Steele is a published author and I believe creator of the Ordo Anno Mundi. They have followers on an international level. Don't be swayed by an anonymous person (who those of us pagans in Birmingham have the misfortune to be well aware of.)

TK are well known and respected by those who have been in paganism for any length of time. Please bear in mind the strength of the writing of this article. I think it has intrinsic value.Acropolis now 18:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep I also maintain that this page be kept, the Templi Kalendae are one of the oldest covens in Birmingham and are part of the citys modern pagan/witchcraft heritage.

This page will interest many as it did me when I read it. By Ravens wings

  • Delete TK are not a well known group within the UK at all, and is basically comprised of 1 man and a few women who spend most of their time spamming Pagan forums and slandering the other groups in the Birmingham area (and most of the rest of the UK). TK is about 2 years old, so is not a well established group and is certainly not 'older than the internet'. I have been active in the UK Pagan Community for over 20 years and hadn't even heard of these people until last year, and that was via a forum comment by the group leader. They are of no intrinsic value whatsoever. WW
  • Speedy Keep As the author of the article I shall add my vote here. TK is notable and quite famous in a number of different ways. The OAM for example (one of TK's magical training orders) - which utilises the seven-degree Ophidian structure derived from the late Bob Clay-Egerton - is believed by many to have formed the inspiration for J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series - specifically, the magical curriculum of Hogwarts. See [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23] - there are many other examples, including foreign-language ones that I have not listed here. For proof that the OAM long predated the publication of the first Harry Potter book in 1997, see p.57 of the July 1985 edition of Prediction Magazine, which not only mentions the OAM by name, but also Tony Steele, its chief instructor (and author of two books outlining the Ophidian training programme). It's true that TK is unpopular and perhaps misunderstood amongst some members of the UK Pagan community, as the previous post attests, but this is mainly because of slanders and lies originating from a specific individual within the Birmingham Pagan scene, who is presumably jealous of their longevity and standing (and who, incidentally, placed the original delete notice onto the article). Be that as it may, "unpopular" does not equal "obscure" - usually quite the reverse in fact - and it is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in such petty disputes. TharkunColl 13:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to say that my disdain for TK has come directly from the arrogance with which Tony Steele and friends treat anyone who dares to question the fact that the tenets of TK are based on a poorly researched and incorrect premise. I am aware that there is bad feeling between the Pagans of Birmingham, but as I do not come from Birmingham and have never actually visited I can state that anything going on there has no bearing on my request for deletion. The fact that the few members of TK I have come across online have been rude, dismissive of other paths and have slandered and libelled people they haven't even met for pointing out the faults in their cult makes it easier for me to state that this is a part of paganism that shouldn't be promoted in anyway whatsoever. Let them mutter to themselves on their own forums. Wikipedia should be for subjects that are worth researching. WW
  • reply ermm, how can people who have never met them point out the faults in their "cult"? Surely they would then be the ones who 'slandered and libelled people they haven't even met.' This is simple logic and common sense. You are accusing people of the very things of which you yourself are by far the most guilty. It's called projection.Acropolis now 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment- strange that those arguing for a delete are using ad hominem arguments. Does an encyclopaedia entry require a character reference? As for TK only being 2 years old, they were formerly called Talras as it says in the article. Apart from Tony, no other foremost members of TK are online at all, so you can't say that they are nasty online. You could perhaps use the search term 'projection' on wiki or google, you might find it very enlightening. I feel loath to stoop to your level, so I will only say that you are making yourself look silly, "WW" aka 'anonymous who originally prodded this article.' Even for you, your standards of debate have slipped to say the least. I know you are capable of reasoned discussion, at least occasionally. Could do better.Acropolis now 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should be factual. This group are not notable and have little to no influence on modern paganism (or Harry Potter) despite claims to the contrary. Quoting several Christian evangelical websites which are all using the same source does not support the supposition that Rowling has heard of the OAM. Indeed the supposition is laughable. Self promotion and/or aggrandisement is not a correct use for Wikipedia. Ad hominem attacks would be easy but vulgar. All google hits seem to be self-written and promoting articles. Is every coven going to waste space advertising on Wikipedia?Catkinsmunch 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyThe article is not an advertisment, it goes in depth into the history and meaning of the Ophidian current and the various elements that have gone to make up Templi_Kalendae. Unlike for instance, the 'Martin Williams' or 'Pagan Association' entries which were deleted, it is a thorough well written article about issues pertinent to the history of the traditional craft. It doesn't just say 'everyone loves Martin' and a paragraph advertising the organisations moots and handfastings. There's no advert anywhere in here. This is because TK don't run any moots, do handfastings etc- it can't possibly be an advert, due to them not trying to sell or drum up numbers for anything. At no point in this article do they imply they are even open to new membersAcropolis now 03:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I never believed the Harry Potter claim which is why I didn't put it in the article - I quoted it above simply to show that by attracting such stories the group is indeed notable. It is not true, however, that TK has had no influence on modern Paganism. Not only is it the only surviving Ophidian lineage group derived from the Clay-Egertons - it has also, though the OAM, spread these magical techniques to four continents. Incidentally, do you know what a sockpuppet is? It's when the same person poses as two or more people on the Internet in order to register more than one vote, for example. This whole campaign against TK is driven by your own personal animus and jealousy. You really are pathetic. TharkunColl 09:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You should check with people who actually worked with the Clay-Egertons and find the truth from them.Catkinsmunch 10:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I have. Namely, the members of TK. Wendy worked with the Clay-Egertons for eight years, and was one of the last people to see Bob alive in 1998. In 1994 they asked her to take over the running of their coven, but she had to decline because of the birth of her second daughter. You really should check both sides of a story before making a judgement you know. TharkunColl 12:04, 17 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Burn

Seems non-notable and the article doesn't provide any references or links or anything to verify anything about it. Cburnett 20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A "lost" distillery sounds potentially noteworthy given the interest these days in whisky, and threatened by a new road may get more prominence. Google gave me only one reference to it (a single para in a longer article at [24]), but there may be other sources. The article as it stands seems weak, but I'd suggest tagging it for improvement. It's only a week old, so I think deletion would be premature. --BrownHairedGirl 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article is about a stream named Wolf Burn, not the distillery itself. ScottW 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nonetheless, the distillery doesn't have an article. Perhaps that could be added. --Chaser 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only google reference to "Wolf Burn Distillery" is from Wikipedia itself. Absent any references that it actually exists, I'm forced to conclude delete. BigDT 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that article is about a stream, not a distillery. The distillery text should probably be removed from the article. The stream is referred to in a document drawing electoral maps [25]. ScottW 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is about the Wolf Burn which does exist [26][27]. Geographic area that seems notable. MarsRover 07:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the distillery information, leaving the article as a small stub. ScottW 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place. -- DS1953 talk 05:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This (from the Caithness Field Club Bulletin, i.e. the local hist/archaeology soc.) mentions the distillery being on this burn, one of only two in Caithness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't just put something into an encyclopedia because it exists. I can support the verification of the existence of the telephone pole in front of my house using public city hall and/or phone company plans. This does not mean I would be correct to place an "article" in Wikipedia on "Telephone pole #19845032349-595-0". An encyclopedia article is a distillation of accumulated research and study of a subject, previously reviewed and reported in reputable, reliable publications. I am not seeing that here. —Encephalon 04:28, 20 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. bainer (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union for Democracy in Peloponnese

Closer's notes
Lakhim and Chaser made their decision to keep conditional on Aguerriero's first statement being correct. Since Aguerriero later came to the conclusion that it was probably incorrect, I have presumed their opinion to be in favour of deletion. Disregarding their opinions would result in the same outcome.

Completely unsourced, and Google is no help here at all. It's possible that this article actually deals with a real and important topic, but I was unable to confirm anything about it, and since it doesn't provide any references or a time frame or the names of any of the people involved, and is so short as to be almost devoid of context, there's a good chance that the information contained in it is either false, misleading or perhaps even entirely fabricated. Who knows? I can't even confirm that they exist. Unless someone can provide some sort of references here, I'd like to delete it. Note that it's not hard to convince me otherwise here, really -- I don't hate the subject of this article, and in fact I think it should be included even if it's just a minor political party, but I'd just like some confirmation that it, y'know, exists. -- Captain Disdain 22:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It appears to be a roughly-translated article about Pandektis, an upstart political party in Greece also known as the "Greek Union for Democracy". It is primarily active in the seven prefectures of the Peloponnese. It is not yet mentioned in the article Politics of Greece. Their Web site (careful, crashes Firefox) is only in Greek so I'm not sure if that's a valid reference for an English article, or if it will satisfy you of its existence. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it doesn't hurt any, at least! It's a start. I don't read Greek, though, so I have no idea if anything in the Wikipedia article is valid. Is "Union for Democracy in Pelopennese" even a valid English name for this party? I mean, can we be sure that the Wikipedia article is even talking about the same party...? Anyway, this is a step in the right direction; I hope we'll at least get a decent stub out of this one. Thanks, Aguerriero. -- Captain Disdain 23:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the pages I went through on the way to discovering this is here, where it refers to the party as "'Pandekis', the Greek Union for Democracy and Law-Making". Do we want to make a judgement that all of these are the same thing? If so, the article should probably be renamed "Greek Union for Democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 May 2006
        • Yeah, that's my point. Can we say that they're the same thing? I mean, I don't know; I'm hardly an expert on Greek domestic politics, so I personally don't feel qualified to make such a judgement at all. Basically, anyone who demonstrates a reasonable knowledge of the subject (as you have) and is willing to make that definitive judgement call gets my support; if you can do that, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. It's kind of hard to make these calls when the original article on Wikipedia is so vague... -- Captain Disdain 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • After doing some more research today, I can't definitively say they are the same thing. Even if they are, there are notability issues since it is practically impossible to find information on this party. They are not listed in any reference of Greek political parties, and I come up blank doing a library search of journals and periodicals. So, I vote delete unless the author is willing to clarify and provide sources. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I left a message on the original author's talk page, but as he's only got eleven edits and he apparently hasn't been active for about a month now, I think there's a good chance that we won't hear from him... but here's hoping that he sees the message and lets us know what's what. We'll see, I guess. -- Captain Disdain 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, so far, nothing. I very seriously doubt that we're going to hear from the guy. It also seems to me that we are not able to confirm much of anything about this article, so let me just make it clear that my original vote to delete still stands, and I would personally infer that Lakhim's and Chaser's conditional votes don't really count here, as we don't have that confirmation, but obviously determining that is up to the admin who ends up closing the AfD. -- Captain Disdain 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. If what Aguerriero is true, it's fine as is. --Lakhim 00:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep per Lakhim. --Chaser 01:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up with evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no attempt has been made to improve the article since April 6. If the original contributor or someone else would like to make a meaningful article out of it, they can always recreate it later. BigDT 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sure. IF somebody recreates later with real info - no problem. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the Greek Deputy Foreign Minister's CV (here), Pantekdis is the "Greek Union for Democracy and Law-Making", not a Peloponnese-specific organisation. Vizjim 13:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think this has anything to do with Pandektis. See this link: [28] and also this: [29]. The latter shows that there was an article titled Union for the Democracy of Peloponnese at some time in the past. There is no AfD entry, but it may have been speedy deleted. --LambiamTalk 23:08, 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 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteau word lists

A list of lists (i.e. self-referential), which are being knocked off one by one. You'll never guess who started this list - oh, you guessed. Bless user:Nintendude, but I don't think we need a listcruft of listcrufts. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 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 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of homonymous puns

Straight original research from User:Nintendude. What makes a homonymous pun? More to the point, since a pun depends on confusing a homonym for a synonym, where is the list of non-homonymous puns? Also includes homonymous portmanteau words, i.e. when you combine two words together and the result sounds like one of them. Which is, er, not that surprising actually. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 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. Rje 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous portmanteaus

It's huge! It's growing! It's a maintenance nightmare! Coming soon to a 'pedia near you, a list of all the made-up words fashioned by cobbling together two other words (i.e. every other advertising slogan since about 1978). Contains duplicates, apparently. I lost the will to live about halfway down. Oh, and it looks like original research too. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dr Zak 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopaedia. Paddles 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vizjim 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary, perhaps? +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable and unencyclopaedic. - Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove all portmanteaux that do not have articles. (There are a lot of blue links there.) —CuiviénenT|C, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 @ 19:40 UTC
  • Delete extreme example of listcruft. "Miscellaneous"? Come on... LjL 14:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and massive cleanup - I haven't gone through all the terms, but the definitions for rovibronic and vibronic are correct in the list - in fact, it was the only place on Wikipedia which defined these terms properly! I have references for these terms from the literature. The others simply need factchecking, although those are better relegated to others. --HappyCamper 20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Cuiviénen wants to get rid of portmanteaus without an article; I suggest to Make more portmanteau subcategories since it would make sense to have categories as lists of articles rather than an article which is a list exclusively of articles. --Nintendude 09:24, 19 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. bainer (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy

Closer's notes

  1. This discussion reached no consensus, although it was trending towards being in favour of deletion.
  2. The form of the article is questionable, most people seemed to think that it should be less of a list of information, and more of an article about the list as a meme.
  3. I've seen this before, but didn't it end with a joke about Marilyn Monroe?

Tagged prod, tag removed without comment by User:Rawkchick. Delete as perfectly unencyclopaedic collection of trivia. Wikipedia isn't a scrapbook. Dr Zak 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - at least one thing on there is patently false per Snopes - http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm - Lincoln did not have a secretary named Kennedy. BigDT 13:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, collections of coincidences do not an encyclopedia make. Vizjim 13:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Paddles 13:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Although I do find it eerie that both Lincoln and Kennedy enjoyed sitting in rocking chairs. ScottW 14:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a perfect example of indiscriminate information. Hey, both guys had seven letters in their last name! That and a buck fifty will get you acup of coffee... Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people have been forwarding this thing since the 90's. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Tangotango 15:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - these coincidences have been the subject of at least a few documentary shows and articles, usually relating to the assassinations. The one Snopes identifies as false should be marked and cited as such, but I see no harm on this one considering how many other pop culture/meme/conspiracy theory-style articles are already in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As CrazyRussion says, this has been floating around since at least the 90's. Who here has heard of it before? I'm guessing quite a few. That makes it notable, and worth an article -- if for no other reason than to show which items are false. And perhaps to provide some context for the trivial coincidences. -Rholton 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable meme.  Grue  15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable meme/conspiracy theory/urban legend. - CNichols 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's ok to have an article about a conspiracy theory that documents it as a conspiracy theory, or a prominent meme that documents it as a meme. But this article asserts truth. WP should not be a meme vector. Paddles 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a coincidences page? Its not really necessary or informative. If this is kept, then a precedence could be set for other coincidences pages. There is also the absurdity of a "coincidence page" - Kennedy and Lincoln were both men, both President - what a coincidence! William Flowers 11:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's interesting to read.
  • Keep and debunk the false ones (like Lincoln's secretary Kennedy). Possibly rename to List of alleged similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. -Sean Curtin 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information is not knowledge. -- GWO
  • Keep This is a well-known set of coincidences. dcandeto 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable list of coincidences, keep and edit to remove false ones. --Joshua Johaneman 01:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per JzG. —Encephalon 04:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not just a collection of coincidences, but a notorious urban legend; should be recorded as such. Reference the proven fallacy and let the rest remain. --jivy 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Zaxem 06:38, 21 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. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports manufacturing Alberta

Original research. prod contested with no explanation. --Bachrach44 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR, written as personal POV, highly inadequate citations, grammatically incorrect title. Paddles 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Lots of work, but plainly not encyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do i have to do to make it wikipedia appropriate? I have a bibliography aswell as all the e-mails that helped me out do this, would that help? --Gregorykay 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research. Paddles - we were given a choice of titles because Gregorykay posted this eight times! I picked this title at random. Gregory - by definition you cannot make this wikipedic: publish it on your own website. If some reliable external source such as a news agency picks the story up and endorses it, then it might qualify for here. -- RHaworth 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--Gregorykay 22:23, 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. Rje 12:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon name origins

Quite a bit of support on Talk for removing this list of Pokemon name derivations, or perhaps transwiki to Wikisource. Either way there seems to be a healthy dollop of OR in here, and even if it could be cited surely the articles are the place for it? Otherwose all we have is yet another list of Pokemon. How do you get Pikachu onto a bus? You poke 'im on! Sorry about that. Anyway, I would suggest that this is listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If consensus favors preserving the history of this list, please redirect it to List of Pokémon, the general-purpose dab page for lists of Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering each of these Pokémon has its own article (why on Earth that is true is beyond me), it doesn't need to be here, it can just stay in each one's article. Metros232 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While accurate and interesting, this info is generally kept in the Pokeomon articles themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into relevant linked articles, and delete per Metros232. Paddles 14:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft (until only one Pokemon article is left? Well, a guy can hope, y'know?). Vizjim 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary duplication of information. --Celestianpower háblame 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any necessary information, then Delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unnecessary, given that this information is already in the Pokémon articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (although I'm sure I've seen many of these in articles already). GarrettTalk 05:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge (Whichever is better). Yeah, it is an unnecessary variant on the standard List of Pokemon page, but make sure that all the accurate info is in each and every article before removing. Erik the Appreciator 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information already appears in each Pokemon's individual page. - CNichols 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and particularly, delete reference from Pun page. A pun implies a certain amount of wit, none of which is evident in this entry.sdurf 23:28, 19 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 and rename Marskell 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties caused by PKK

POV content fork Soman 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually to think of it.. There are a lot of Iranian casualities out of the conflicts caused by PKK and the rest too, I am not sure if we are ought to include them all in one article or not -- - K a s h Talk | email 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC the official site of PKK talks about "teachers were eliminated because they were destroying the kurdish culture"... or something along that line... --Cat out 00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A specific pattern of terrorist acts pursued by a specific group is certainly notable. Killing teachers was a specific pattern for the PKK. There has been up to a million Iranian casualties in Iran-Iraq War, and among those casualties, those who have been killed by use of chemical substances by Iraq's Baath regime are certainly notable in the sense of a wiki article. --Cretanforever 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: article is well referenced. POV problems, if any, can be solved. 1652186 18:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. This article should also have the Kurdish POV. —Khoikhoi 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename per Karl Meier, although Casulaties of the conflict in Turkish Kurdistan or Casualties of the conflict in southeastern Turkey would work too. It is imperative that the article describe killings by both Turkish Military, PKK and Village guards. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, as per FrancisTyers--Aldux 21:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First choice: rename and npovise Second choice: delete. The article currently serves only as a pov fork. This should be something like Timeline of PKK's activities or something along that line. Something like a Timeline of Kurdish-Turkish conflict would be inaproporate as I believe this article is exclusively about the PKK. Actualy, I do not see why we cant have both. :) --Cat out 00:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the information in the article are verified and they are about specific actions of PKK. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict would not work because the article is not about Kurds but PKK and PKK is not the only representative of Kurds. --Hattusili 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename -- Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict or something very much like it. --Moby 10:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but NO rename. --Gokhan 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Fad (ix) 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict and it should include the Kurdish POV. Ozgur Gerilla 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I dont agree with a renaming of the article. The civilian casualties caused by the PKK refers to a very specific and extreme part of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, something which deserves its own topic. We have to remember that the violence instituted by the PKK is not supported by the majority of Kurds, therefore it would be misleading to rename it the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. It would be akin to renaming Al-Qaeda articles the American-Islamic conflict. I feel many people here dont understand this, because they think the PKK represents all Kurds, and therefore is part of a greater Turkish-Kurdish conflict, when in fact is the very most extreme end of it. It is a kind of western prejudice which Wikipedia always suffers from. --A.Garnet 13:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't quite understand here, how can you know that the PKK is the sole responsable of the casulties or the devastation, when in the process there has been over two million people relocated by the Turkish army and over 3000 villages destroyed. I don't quite understand what qualify really as Civilian casulties caused by the PKK or if such a term is even encyclopedic. What do village gards qualify as, what the Turkish army posted unites on the Easts qualify as? Fad (ix) 18:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say they were solely responsible for casualties of devastation, this is your assumption. Rather i have said that targetting civilians is a specific objective of the PKK for tactical and politcal reasons, this is notable in itself. --A.Garnet 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got statistical evidence that the majority of the Kurds don't support PKK? because I believe the existence of PKK today is the proof that the majority of Kurds supports PKK. Ozgur Gerilla 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozgur, the existence of the PKK doesnt prove prove popular support, just like the existence of Al-Qaeda is condemned by the majority of Muslims. The fact is the PKK was not a popular uprising, but a rural insurgency, fought in the mountains. If we had armed Kurds roamming Kurdish citys then we would have a truly Turkish-Kurdish conflict, but this has never been the case. Renaming the article Turkish-Kurdish conflict signifies a popular uprising, this is my gripe. --A.Garnet 13:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Garnet, I don't think PKK is condemned by the majority of the Kurds and its existence does tell us something. You may be correct with the conflict definition but what ever the case it is notable that the Turkish military has killed ordinary Kurds and just because it is an independent country it shouldn't mean that we cannot mention the casualities of the country's Armed Forces. Ozgur Gerilla 01:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a very good point. Also that the casualities caused by PKK are not limited to the Turks but to Iranian as well so I guess rename could be problematic -- - K a s h Talk | email 17:54, 17 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, a keep vs. merge debate can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a view of Abu Bakr

Delete Attack page, almost A6 but declined by admin b/c "not obvious deletion", POV fork, anything useful should be slightly merged to Abu Bakr. Though I know nothing about Islam, for this one I don't need to. It should have gone on CSD A6. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note as some of you may have noticed, there's a bunch of "Shi'a view on X" POV forks around emanating from the same source. I reserve opinion on the rest for now. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are quite a few Shi'a view on X articles, but this one may be justified. There is a significant amount of information on this subject that can be verified and it serves as a daughter article to Abu Bakr. joturner 13:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Short of turning this AfD into a circus, I will make one elaboration - and limit myself to that. What if we had an article called Jewish view of Hitler and the contents was "Jews think Hitler was a murdering f'ing bleep" and it was verified and had citation to works in the same vein - would we keep it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rewrite to remove the expletives, and move it into the main Adolf Hitler article. I thought that was the point of NPOV encyclopaedia articles, that they could present differing points of view on a subject in the same article, hopefully in a balanced manner. Paddles 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. The contrast between Sunni and Shi'a views on Abu Bakr properly belongs within the Abu Bakr main article, similarly to this section in the article on Mary the mother of Jesus. Same applies to the other Shi'a view on X articles. Paddles 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I've tried to explain elsewhere in the present sudden eruption of nominations for deletion of articles generically titled "(Muslim denomination)'s view of X", this is not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, but instead legitimate article spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). Note, by the way, that "Jewish" is meant here in the religious sense of "Judaism"; in fact, the page redirects to Judaism's view of Jesus. Supposing that there was such a thing as Judaism's view of Hitler, and assuming it was notable (unlike – in my opinion – Christian views of Hanukkah) and verifiable, yes, then Wikipedia should report on it. And if that view implies that Hitler was wicked, let it be so reported. --LambiamTalk 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - IN the abscence of a Sunni view of Abu Bakr, and the small size of the Abu Bakr page itself - there is no real reason not to merge it as one, for now at least. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Irishpunktom. Vizjim 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark. For this article I get a word count of 1003 words (not counting boilerplate, ToC and [edit] buttons). For the main article Abu Bakr without the Shi'a view section I find likewise 1340 words. That means that after the proposed merge this one section will constitute about 43% of the article (1003/(1340+1003) × 100%), which is clearly out of balance. --LambiamTalk 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely we're not merging all of this. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's always a problem with AfD discussions that result in merge. Who is supposed to actually perform the merge? The closing admin? In general it requires some expertise on the topic to do this right. In the present case there is a very simple implementation of a possible merge outcome, and if I was the closing admin I'd take the easy way out and let the normal Wikipedia collective process take care of hopefully restoring the balance. (Look at what happened with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Otaku.) --LambiamTalk 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not a big deal with merging all of this. It will be a little less than half at the moment, but the abu Bakr page has been in need of a general expansion for some time, this might spur it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/Merge fork article, despite what is said about these types of "Shia view" articles they didn't "become to large in the main article" and grew naturally with a consensus to make a subpage. Usually what happens in these types of articles, if you actually see the page histories of the main pages, is that the User:Striver insists on place large amounts of POV content that that engulfs the entire article and then gets into a dispute with other users about it, namely User:Zora and a few others, and then out of frustration Zora or others involved simply make or allow a subpage to stop the content from engulfing the entire main article. This is from the page history of Abu Bakr:
There are other cases of this in the page history, ultimately Striver sees that he can not get his way in the article and creates this page. And the users in the main article don't really care because at least it gets Striver off of adding material in the main article.--Jersey Devil 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend reading the talk page, in particular Archive 1, where you can see that Striver may be awkward as an editor but is not particularly uncooperative and very definitely willing to argue with (whether you agree or not) mostly reasonable arguments for a Wikipedia editor. You can also see a recurring confusion between Striver's desire to include a report on what the Shi'a view is (which in and by itself is or should be a neutral issue) and the desire of some others to report "what actually happened" (which almost certainly leads to POV texts, one way or another). In light of the present discussion this contribution in the Archive – a perfect example of the confusion referred to – is interesting: [30]. --LambiamTalk 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jersey Devil, despite your less than perfect relationship with Striver, this is not the place to continue your feud with him. Comment on the article, not on the editor(s). Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate. joturner 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if anything can be considered an "attack" on my edit, all I am trying to do is show how these articles are not articles that started in the main articles and became to large to the point where a new page was created but rather because the user did not get his way in the original article he created these pages to avoid reverts to his edits which is the very definition of a fork article. I also find it remarkable how Lambiam stating I am on a "crusade" everywhere I go is not considered an attack. Furthermore, to Lambian, no he is not "reasonable" if you actually see the page history you see that he continues to revert regardless of the fact that the clear consensus is against the content that he puts in the article.--Jersey Devil 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We see the same facts but assess them differently. You have now sixty-one times nominated an article started by Striver for deletion. My attention was first drawn to your anti-Striver behaviour when I saw an article listed on AfD and just couldn't get why it was nominated. I have said this before, and I think so even more now: your judgment is clouded when it comes to this one particular editor. --LambiamTalk 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - are you serious? Sixty-one times? I think I just walked into some serious beef. Were all 61 articles in the "Shi'a view on X" format? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it started with The Citizens' Commission on 9-11. See further the full list. --LambiamTalk 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as Lambiam pointed out, i participiated at lenght in the disccusion in the main page, and it all boiled down that having the Shi'a view fully represented in detail would give it undue weight, in short, all informatinon does not fitt there. The problem is not what happened, but what Shi'a view what happened. And that aspekt does not fitt in the articles main page. So per my arguement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali, i vote keep. Further, it does not matter how the article whas created, the only thing that matters is if the article is a legitimate and encylopedic topic. And it is. --Striver 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Zora's comment regarding that this article was not developed in the Abu Bakr article, and then broken out of it, it is not a valid arguement for deleting this article as is now, a articles history is never grounds for deleting, what matters is how it is now. And as it is now, it is to much information to include in the main article whitout un-balancing it. Regardless of if it was "mergeable" when created, what needs to be consider is if it is to large to merge into the main article witout unbalancing it as is now. And yet again, see Jesus, Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus --Striver 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Abu Bakr and redirect. That page can, and should, report on both the Shi'a and Sunni views of the man without having to resort to POV forking. Edit conflicts on Wikipedia should not be solved by disagreeing editors each forking off their own page. --Hyperbole 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per Paddles. --CRGreathouse 03:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back and delete as WP:POVFORK, like virtually all articles of the type "X's view of Y". Sandstein 16:31, 21 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 11:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and technology portmanteaus

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ... by the way, see the other 437 similar AFDs about portmanteaus. And yes, I made up that number, but it probably isn't too far off. BigDT 13:25, 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 per CSD G1. Naconkantari 00:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dentroid

Bollocks. Article author deleted {{nonsense}} tag and left a plea on the talk page. Weregerbil 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe weregerbil is either ignorant of his folk history or perhaps a member of a growing group of Dentroid-deniers, who believe that by claiming the creature's non-existense they might escape its wrath. Beware Dentroid-deniers the hour of the beast approacheth!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicobaba (talk • contribs)
  • Yes, I am the mighty Overlord of Dentroid Deniers' Conspiracy Guild! Speedy delete nonsensehoax. Weregerbil 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Chicobaba. Vizjim 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to speedy delete as patent nonsense. Vizjim 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOLLOCKS! I love that word. Once again: BOLLOCKS! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, unfunny rubbish.--Nydas 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give someone a slap upside the head. --Crossmr 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy delete this (intentional) made-up nonsense. LjL 17:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this is rubbish but it is really funny, probably the funniest thing I've ever read...should win an award really— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.231.9 (talk • contribs)
Comment: that's a possibility, see the relevant page. LjL

Well I thought it was funny before somebody deleted most of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.231.9 (talk • contribs)

What the hell is going on? EricDenton 10:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a prick Lilithborne and you are also wrong. Please don't interfere. You're not big (your boyfriend told me), you're not clever and you're just plain wrong.

Stop it vizjim, seriously stop it. We can play this game all day long.

  • WARNING - comments that were made to this page were edited/deleted by other users. Please review page history. LjL 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see everything vizjim. So there's not really any point trying to change things. I'll just change them back.

As far as I am aware this is all true... EricDenton 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - complete bollocks and not even funny. BTLizard 11:08, 19 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 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pomeroi

Delete as non-notable and advertisment. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:10, 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 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Krause

Delete as vanity article. No notability established -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:15, 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 keep - nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 1

A list of bus routes in London may be enough, but wikipedia is not a bus timetable. Furthermore, I have also nominated the related articles for deletion, as Wikipedia doesnt need a article on every non-notable bus route in London.Withdrawing nomination see below for my comment a few days earlier. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's about every London bus route article nominated. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found London Buses route 474 just by chance, noticed it had a category of bus routes and didnt look any further. I've noticed a few in the list had been nominated before recently. Had I known about the history of some of the bus routes, then I would have thought twice about it. But still, some articles are riddled with POV, OR or look a bit like buscruft, and would definitely need a cleanup. Therefore, I am going to be withdrawing the nomination for all articles, however, anyone may re-nominate some or part of the route articles that doesn't comply with WP:NOT. --Arnzy (whats up?) 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passion and care that's gone into these articles is commendable. It's with great reluctance, therefore, that I vote to delete and destroy the random buscruft. Wikipedia may not be paper, but imagine an article like this on every bus route in every city and town in every country on God's green Earth. Untenable. Vizjim 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to weak keep as per the wise arguments of Humansdorpie below. Vizjim 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a LOT of articles out there on WP like this. For example every stop on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system (DART) has an article. Same with the Washington Metro system. I think it needs to be deleted, but, it'll be an interesting precedent. No vote for now. Metros232 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, this looks a lot like buscruft. Yup, it does. On the other hand, buried among the pictures of buses is some actual information of genuine merit - the histories of some of the bus routes dating back a fair time, when the routes have been extended and so on. And of course some original research and some gross POV (disabled passengers are quite glad that routes have "succombed" [sic] to low-entry buses). I will need to read each one in detail, it's probably a delete but for once this cruft has saving graces. Just zis Guy you know? 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. I wouldn't spend time writing these - but then that's what makes Wikipedia great. Stuff is not useless. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CrazyRussian, this isn't some encyclopedia, it's Wikipedia, things such as these articles make it what it is today. +Hexagon1 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Hesitant, Reluctant Delete - Wow, an amazing amount of work went into these. It all reads like original research so it really does need to be dealt with in some fashion, but I would hate to see this work go to waste. Maybe it could all be merged into one article and the opinion/unverified/OR portions trimmed out to comply with policy with relevant policies. BigDT 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable and handy! --Irishpunktom\talk 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these bus routes have some history to them, or other significance. I'd vote delete on, say, London Buses route 325 or London Buses route 104 because there's no particular significance to these routes - they just happen to be very handy for me. --Sam Pointon United FC 15:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Riddled with POV and OR, as JzGuy points out, and just the teensiest bit crufty. However, in among the commentary are hard data that might actually be of use and cannot be easily incorporated in any other article. Some of these routes have been used for 50 or 60 years and must have carried tens of millions of passengers; others (such as the #15) have historical significance because of their use of Routemaster buses. I am reassured to see that some of the older articles have strong edit histories, which infers that they will continue to be edited and maintained by a number of different editors. Humansdorpie 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the articles are of a decent size, and Wikipedia allows rather insignificant train stations, so why not bus routes?--Nydas 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Also, I would just like to say, WE DID THIS ALREADY!!! [31] [32] Articles have been kept and deleted for various different reasons. The articles on buses I create all have historical information on them, and that's why I believe, once again, that they should all be KEPT!!!--sonicKAI 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't create 11, 43, and X26.--sonicKAI 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... — incredibly well done articles, I must confess... but nothing I would look for in an encyclopædia. They shouldn't be deleted, but maybe rather moved to somewhere else. Maybe a new Wikiproject? What comes after London? Paris? New York? Leipzig? It's hard to draw a notability threshold here... I think it's too non-notable, but the articles are really well-done. Move 'em, I say. — N-true 16:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - of course. These could be a load of crappy stubs, but they are not. They are rich, interesting articles. They do need editing for POV but that could be said for many other articles and is no grounds for being deleted. Mrsteviec 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be seperate articles on different topics of interest. An encyclopedia is there to give information about these. There are articles about different train routes and vehicles. There are also articles on other buses so why not bus routes? In one word, Keep.Simply south 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if for no other reason than these have already survived recent AFD nominations. 23skidoo 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. This wasn't a very constructive nomination. Unlike in some cities, numbered bus routes in London can last many decades and become part of the capital's history. The articles are well written and the subject is encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dangit, of all the non-encyclopedic material that's on here and been aloud to stay, you want to delete something that's actually useful? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- transitcruft, slippery slope issue. Not to say that it's not useful or accurate (I have no idea of either), but it doesn't belong here. Haikupoet 03:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally these bus route articles are deletable because they are so prone to change, but the London Bus system has been remarkably stable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add the missing routes! This is real information germane to the functioning of London as a city.BTLizard 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Some of these, like London Buses route 2, aren't just stubs, they've got historical and other information in there. I could understand deleting a bunch of timetables, but these are not they. Vashti 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all what a waste of "not paper".  Grue  15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are good articles. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I can't be certain, but some bus routes are likely to have historic or interesting sociological connotations, and I wouldnt like them removed. In any case, what next? Delete Jubilee Line? Hornplease 03:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Some good history here as we all know wiki is not paper (Gnevin 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep all as per Web kai2000. The nomination says "Wikipedia doesnt need a article on every non-notable bus route in London" … but these routes are notable (although some do not assert notability clearly enough in the opening para). Most of them are older than some tube lines, and they are as well known to generations of Londoners as the tube. I am also very unhappy about the repeated re-nomination for deletion of these articles, which does not seem to me to be an appropriate use of the AfD process, since the nominator does not explain what has changed since previous discussions were concluded. I cannot see technical grounds for a "speedy keep", otherwise I would say "speedy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikitravel. -- GWO
  • Transwiki to wikitravel. Vegaswikian 20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, why transwiki? These pages aren't timetables. Vashti 21:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the whole the articles seem to be pretty well written, with historical info and encyclopedic content. They're not "bus timetables". Yes, some of them could do with NPOV, but that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. The articles do us no harm. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 11:19, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 19:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Quotes

Moving Quotes companies has just been deleted as CSD !3 (collection of external links), leaving this, an article apparently describing the genre of companies which provide removals quotes, but reads as original research and fails to demonstrate the currency of the term, or that the Associations section is to do with this, rather than the genre of removals companies. Just zis Guy you know? 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not sure what this is. original research, nonsense or advert --MarsRover 07:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MarsRover. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 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 keep and redirect to Outsidaz. Sango123 (e) 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsidas

Rap group is non-notable in itself but had at some point members who later became notable. Did enough notability rub off on the group? WP:MUSIC suggests it might have happened, but is every band on whose mixtape Eminem appeared automatically notable (& so on recursively)? Weregerbil 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even if the group is remotely noteworthy, which in itself is an unlikely claim, the article in its present state is worthless. +Hexagon1 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename, to Outsidaz as a quick Google search reveals the article to be essentially correct [33]. I have taken the GFDLed entry from http://www.rapdict.org/Outsidaz and replaced content here with a few modifications. Also, I added External Links section that points to source. Also, added {{not verified}}, {{Hiphop-stub}}. I see no reason to delete the article now. --Dwiki 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is actual group. many google hits. can always be expanded later. --MarsRover 06:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per User:Dwiki's excellent research. I'm the AfD nominator but I don't feel comfortable withdrawing the nomination as I don't think I should have any kind of a special veto power. Weregerbil 11:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but needs expanding. Vegalo 11:56, 17 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 Speedily deleted as spam.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apexbug

Non-notable website. No alexa rank and WP:WEB violation. The URL (not on the page) is http://www.apexbug.com/  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete , what idiot tries to make an ad without putting the link on there? Be gone with this spam! +Hexagon1 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G4 --blue520 22:05, 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 Speedily transferred to userspace The JPS talk to me 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Lineberry

Speedy tag removed by author so bringing here. Non-notable bio, probably WP:AUTO - Author is User:Elijah10. Jamoche 14:58, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of songs

LISTEN UP PEOPLE! You guys keep accusing me to producing listcruft which I think is a legitimate contribution. Also, you guys keep accusing me for vandalism; which is unintentional to my standards! so; I would like to have some people delete all song lists if they think it is listcruft!

  • Delete this and all other song lists as per people opposition toward the lists I produced. Also, delete as per the prior AFDs on other song lists. --Nintendude 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two comments: a metalist, very interesting...and please don't nominate things to prove a WP:POINT. Metros232 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists should almost all be categories. This should be a metacategory. This falls squarely into WP:NOT. I don't think Nintendude is proving a point as such, is he? Vizjim 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe he is [34]. He is responding to the nomination of lists that he created that have found their way to AfD lately. His rational for nominating seems to be "well if people are nominating mine, I'll nominate others'". I'm not arguing the merits of the articles/lists, I'm just saying that I don't want to see mass amounts of lists added to AfD because of this all. Metros232 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I should've spotted that. What's the rules, then? Even though I think this article should be deleted, one votes to keep as it's a POINT issue? Vizjim 15:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — If you want to categorize all of this information, then you should do so. Just deleting the page doesn't get it categorized. Right now it's well-organized, and I see no reason to rush to a delete. Thanks. :-) — RJH 16:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could someone explain which criterion for deletion this article meets? I'm not sure I understand the objection to what I find a very useful page and/or category. Szarka 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could make a lot of lists about a lot of things. I see this making a great blog post or a website. I don't see this having encyclopedic value--Crossmr 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and refer User:Nintendude to WP:POINT. TheProject 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's open to debate which individual lists are worthy of keeping, but this is a useful reference and index for Wikipedia users. Nintendude is clearly in violation of WP:POINT here. Perhaps if he examined the articles in this list he'd get some idea as to the types of list articles that are actually acceptable. 23skidoo 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo, but please move back to List of songs. The current title is bizarre in that it's really indicating a list of Wikipedia articles rather than a list of actual concepts. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An actual useful (and rather important) list. Extremely bad faith nomination. -- Kicking222 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT, WP:POINT. Keep. Aplomado talk 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once again the "Categories supercede lists" twaddle..... Jcuk 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23Skidoo and being a violation of WP:POINT. And yes, it needs categorization. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hate lists, but you can't delete this if you support keeping the others. That's a double standard, and reduces those other lists to orphaned pointlessness. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |

Keep - This is probably the best article on the entire site! Getting rid is the absolute worst thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.111.32 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep per 23skidoo. -LtNOWIS 01:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn it into a category as Vizjim above. I can't imagine any use for "Lists of lists" or anything that couldn't be accomplished with a category. BigDT 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft and very hard if not impossible to maintain. Categories are better in such cases. kingboyk 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A category does sound like it might be a better way to organize this information. Szarka 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect List of lists of songs to it's main parent category as per the votes by the people who want it turned into a category subsequent to the first vote. --Nintendude 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please don't purge this. It helps not only me but millions of surfers who solely depend on your site. "Clift Daluz."
  • Keep: nomination is bad faith and WP:POINT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to list of songs or lists of songs. "List of lists" is awkward. -Sean Curtin 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of sorting should be done through categorization, not another list which will be very difficult to maintain. Zaxem 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may not be a traditional Wikipedia article, but it's still a very useful one.--Josh 14:17, 21 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. Most of the articles mentioned in these lists have already been categorised, and in any case, I'm not going to go through every single freakin' one looking for those that haven't been categorised. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by name (A, B, C, D, E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z)

These lists of songs that have articles could go on forever! and also, people are opposing to song lists on Wikipedia as per the accusations people put on me for adding listcruft that I interpret as legitimate contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendude (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as potentially unmaintainable lists. --Nintendude 15:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list article, create song category, if it doesn't already exist. Vizjim 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create categories per Vizjim.--blue520 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — About as valid as the slew of lists on the "Lists of people" page. These provide multi-variate data that can not be readily captured by means of categories. — RJH 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: multi-variate data that is absolutely useless. If someone really wants the information that badly, it can be achieved much more effectively with categories. --Hetar 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are exactly that -- lists by name. And they're automatic. Categorize or delete, and User:Nintendude needs to have a look at WP:POINT. TheProject 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize, although once again Nintendude is in violation of WP:POINT. 23skidoo 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Nintendude does have some issues with proving a point, he's absolutely correct on this nomination. These articles should not be lists nor categories. We do not need to put every single song listed on Wikipedia into a category simply because of what letter it begins with. It's simply ludicrous. -- Kicking222 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking. If we deleted Bands by letter, we sure need to delete songs by letter, which is 20 times as unmaintainable. Fan1967 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. DarthVader 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My recollection is that a list of songs was put up at AfD 18 months ago and the result was to delete. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. --kingboyk 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete this list, but Nintendude indeed may be accused of WP:POINT violations. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He may well, but in some of these cases he also has a point. There has been some ridiculous listcruft out there besides his. Fan1967 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, another bad faith nomination and WP:POINT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with nintendude (or rather, he with me. I nominated this years ago) -- GWO
  • Delete DGX 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of sorting should be done through categorization, not another list which will be very difficult to maintain. Zaxem 06:42, 21 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. Rje 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about homosexuality

Wikipedia seems to be stiffening their standards against listcruft.

  • Delete as per the AFDs that people have been nominating on song lists. --Nintendude 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination, WP:POINT refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I guess there are a lot of people who might actually be interested in such a list. — N-true 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you soure that? --Crossmr 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could make a lot of lists about a lot of things. I see this making a great blog post, or maybe an article or faq on a gay and lesbian website. I don't see this having encyclopedic value --Crossmr 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: agree with Crossmr, "List of x's about y" is usually not encyclopedic in my opinion. N-true: lots of people might be interested in lots of things, and yet not all of them are necessarily encyclopedic. Abstain LjL 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize or delete and refer User:Nintendude to WP:POINT. TheProject 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - narrow enough list. I'd also support categorizing. And once again send Nintendude a copy of WP:POINT. 23skidoo 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How is this list listcruft? See Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Hyacinth 19:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List guideline doesn't talk about what's acceptable in a list, and Lists is very vague on the topic. However, see Wikipedia:Listcruft, noting that it is not an official guideline (but is linked to by the former two guidelines); you'll probably find the stuff it lists is still kind of subjective, but I'm sure you'll agree that, by its token, this article can be considered listcruft by some. LjL
Question: Explain it to me. How so? Hyacinth 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
  • The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
  • The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.
You'll find that, while quite subjective (that's why it's not a guideline I suppose), the above points could certainly be considered by some to apply to this article. LjL
Thanks. Hyacinth 08:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So is beer, so are cars, so are a million other things. That doesn't mean that a list of songs about them has any encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is interesting to note how few songs that achieve mainstream success deal with the topic because sex is so fundamental to the human condition and the acceptance of homosexuality is one of the chief social issues of the late-twentieth and early twenty-first century. It is conceivable that someone might have an interest in the subject (homosexuality in popular song) and that such a list could prove very helpful for them. Cedars 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasonably short list with subsections that wouldn't work well as a category. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, exactly per LjL. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting as useful, as said above. --Andromeda 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: another nomination in bad faith and WP:POINT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of songs about homosexuality or bisexuality. -Sean Curtin 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hopelessly incomplete, a category might be more appropriate. ♫ This old man, he played six, he played knick-knack on my stick... ♪ Ewlyahoocom 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — List should be more complete, but, believe it or not, this sort of thing is actually QUITE useful for writers and researchers... and I second or third or fourth the Bad faith nomination comment.
  • Strong keep I suggest the nominator look up the definition of listcruft. Beno1000 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I suggest that it be updated. The information is vital to the gay community, who struggle to identify with and relate to mainstream culture. Accessing specific music celebrating homosexuality is therefore extremely validating.
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 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sopogy

Delete. This is a protologism (see also previous revisons of that page). It also is likely spam, given the first hit on google for this term is sopogy.com. cmh 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and its fairly devoid of information. --Crossmr 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real content, the only external link is broken, and what Cmh said. LjL 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appears to be the name of a small solar energy company without much media attention and I don't thinks it meets WP:CORP guidelines. At any rate this article is lacking of any real content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:15, 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 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Cappuccio

Being the author of a minor free software program does not make you notable. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc4 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: I don't know enough about software to make a determination here, but at the time I write this, the nominator's account has made only three edits, all of them connected to this AFD nomination. As such, I suspect bad faith, or at least a hidden agenda. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm really a Linux-hating Windows-loving zealot. Not. WP:FAITH. Sc4 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless there is no real content to the article. Were a properly constructed article created with notable bio-graphical details AND this person had notoriety to begin with maybe. --Crossmr 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as the article subject (and creator, and probable only real editor) has proposed the article for deletion. [35]. I'm removing the prod tag as it's inappropriate with an AfD going on, but the dif shows he did request it. Mangojuicetalk 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, personally I think there is no need for my biography to be in Wikipedia yet. Please delete this article. --Rcappuccio 08:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no meat to this—can't really be called an article, and notibility is also in question as mentioned above. Vegalo 11:58, 17 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 11:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rye House Speedway

Advertisement. Prod removed by anonymous editor, who also removed details about race results. However, it's still just advertising. Accurizer 15:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a target of vandalism too, not an effective advert. --Crossmr 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 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 11:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kessler-Standard

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia, and particularly, to this article, are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely by the closing Administrator.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be: we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff, because this is not a vote. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Unsourced, can't find anyone using the term on google. Looks like original research; term invented by R. Kessler, article created by User:Rkessler06. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article does refer to something began in August 2005 at Johns Hopkins University's Bologna Campus. Although it is not on a clearly academic topic, it is something that became a norm of this campus of the university. If you ask any of the 180 students at the Bologna Center about this term, they will know what it refers to exactly. The source is the creator of the Standard, but of course he is the one who came up with this norm that the rest of this campus of the university began to use and accept as a norm. Therefore it should not be deleted, but rather it would seem as students from this campus disperse it may become a widely used Standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro223 (talk • contribs) 18:14, May 15, 2006
  • This opinion is seconded, as this Standard has become very important e-mail operating procedure that is destined to live on.it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatYank222 (talk • contribs) 18:36, May 15, 2006

KEEP! It even became quotable among the whole Bologna community... it is making its circles, and the "editor" of the article is not the founder of the standard. It is true, he started the first anti-spam email, but we named and created the standard! tania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.174.190.59 (talk • contribs) 19:40, May 15, 2006.

Please see comments regarding this article on the home page. I can confirm that this standard is currently applicable in Rome and Washington, DC, and further comment on this standard should be expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.106 (talk • contribs) 19:48, May 15, 2006.

  • Delete - Get real. If as academics you want to use wikipedia as a viable source of information there is no reason to add your personal slang. That is what the - urban dictionary was created for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.136.107 (talk • contribs) 19:59, May 15, 2006.
  • Delete Unverifiable, original research, vanity. -- Kicking222 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A piece of slang common among a small campus of 180 people qualifies as something made up in school. - Fan1967 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP!!! this fits all of the wikipedia standards and when has wiki fought against the inclusion of term developing in pop culture? if pages like those for nobel prize winner Bob Mundell includes things like his appearances on Letterman then surely this is equally worthy. just because the term hasn't spread to your area of the world yet does not mean you should shoot it down. even terms like hetero-normativity and flexual had to begin somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.74 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Wikipedia is constantly fighting against the inclusion of terms that are "developing". Come back when they have developed. Fan1967 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's incredibly unverifiable, and from the comments of the article's supporters it seems that this is a term used in only one small portion of the world. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. DarthVader 22:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this article could be said to correspond to the oft-sited definition of original research, it seems to me to be a report of an already-existing standard if people are already using it. I fail to see how it matters how small the "portion of the world" is in which it is being used - Wikipedia has articles on organisations who's membership is less than 200 and can still be considered de rigeur...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.106 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment There are groups of less than 200 listed here (example, the United States Senate, which has only 100). However, the issue of notability is relevant, in that they are groups that many people have heard of. This article, on the other hand, is about a catch-phrase used by less than 200, and only known to those 200. If this article stays, then Wikipedia is opening the welcome mat to every catch-phrase or saying that crops up in any high school, university, dorm or workplace in the world. Fan1967 19:30, 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 KEEP. Rje 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BC Coast

PROD was removed. I propose deletion on the grounds of non-notability (only 27ghits - 4 are Wikipedia or Wikimedia related) Computerjoe's talk 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be speedied kept unless all delete votes are withdrawn. Computerjoe's talk 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Competitions/titles at the same level in the U.S. are accepted (e.g. we have at least one state-level pageant for every U.S. state). This is a sub-article of Miss World Canada, which clearly is notable. It should be possible to have detail here, that wouldn't fit in, at the higher level. --Rob 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good aritcle. (Steve)
  • Delete At the time of writing this, it doesn't appear to even be linked back from Miss World Canada so I don't find that to be a valid argument. This was only started last year, and as noted it is non-notable. It could be merged into the Miss World Canada article until such a time that it receives enough notoriety to warrant its own article. --Crossmr 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above Jcuk 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Miss World Canada does link to Miss BC Coast - at Miss World Canada at the bottom of the page, they make reference to the first Miss World Canada contestant being crowned last July, in 2005. I also feel that there is no way for a competition to gain strength if it keeps getting cut down.

Julie 15 May 2006,

Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Its an encyclopedia. I was referring to the Miss Canada Wiki Article, it does NOT link to this artilce and thus doesn't qualify as a sub article. If it was a valid sub article it should be linked. Not to mention the page you cited as a reference only mentions the competition it doesn't even link anywhere, let alone this article. Its easy to say keep if you just make stuff up.Not that we should expect less from the creator of the page. Why don't you post with your real username, or are you trying to disguise your opinion?--Crossmr 02:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, articles for all the Miss World Canada regional pageants will serve the same purpose as the 51-state/district pageants serve for Miss USA. But, for now, there's just one regional pageant, so linking to (or merging) just one, makes Miss World Canada seem somewhat unbalanced. Of course, we can't get to the full proper use as a sub-article, until more are made (without deletion). Oh, btw, technically speaking you were *not* "referring to the Miss Canada Wiki Article". --Rob 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And until they gain notability they don't deserve to be separate articles. Simply creating them in the hopes that they gain the notability necessary is pointless, and if that is how you want things run, I could create a lot of articles on speculation. And technically speaking in my original post which this referenced I was referring to the alleged parent article of this as it was said this was a sub-article. The parent article doesn't even link to this article. That's proof positive how non-notable this is, not to mention the traffic stats. --Crossmr 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wow Crossmr - so i'm not alowed to have an oppenion without being attacked ? first of all my name is Julie, and i have an account under Miss BC Coast - I am new at wikipedia, I hope your high & mighty self isn't insulted that I am participating even though I do not know all of the ins and outs of wikipedia. I am also wondering what you have against competitions ? It feels like no matter the comments you will be against the idea of having a miss bc coast article... julie
"I also feel that there is no way for a competition to gain strength if it keeps getting cut down" from that sentence it clearly looks like you're more interested in pushing an agenda than caring whether or not the competition has gained any notability and is worth a separate article. --Crossmr 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a valid and notable topic (in other words, if the mayor of an 18th century town that has been absorbed into a larger city long ago is notable enough for a page here, then certainly this is). --Kickstart70-T-C 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the mayor is a notable person than yes. As shown above, this subject doesn't have any notoriety. We're also discussing this article, not another. If you have an issue with another article you might want to address it there. --Crossmr 02:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We want notability, not necessarily not notoriety. "notoriety" is "ill fame". We need neither the "ill" nor the "fame" (though fame is obviously welcome). Notability is "Worthy of note or notice". Pageants of this level are in fact found to be worthy of note or notice. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be covered in the media (albeit local/regional media). --Rob 04:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And thats your opinion on how notable it is. The traffic indicates differently and as I stated the parent article doesn't even link to this one. Unfortunately your opinion doesn't make it notable, if thats all it took, I've got a ripping article I could write about my left big toe that I find really notable. This new pagent isn't one thats been around for years, it only started last year.--Crossmr 04:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What traffic are you talking about. I assume your not talking about Alexa, as I'm sure you know it's not useful in a case such as this. I'm sure you also know of the serious problems of using it, even for websites. This article is not about a web site, so I assume you're not talking about web traffic. What traffic are you talking about? Also, if you can get your toe in the newspaper, we'll talk about it. But somehow, I suspect there is not one single specific fact about your toe, which is verifiable, as the term is used in Wikipedia. --Rob 06:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that's your opinion on how non-notable it is, which is just as valid as anyone else's, but no more than. Time is not a vital aspect of notability...do we not talk about news occurences just because they are current events? This is as notable as thousands of other very good pages. It made the news many times. It was noted in country-wide newspapers (albeit far off the front page). A lack of notability here is an incorrent assertion. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since its up for deletion, its up to someone to prove how notable this is. I'm only as far away as Calgary and this is the first I've heard of it. I read the paper and watch the news on a regular basis, so the media cover obviously isn't that thick. I also wouldn't call a mention in the Globe and Mail or The National Post the qualifying factor as to whether or not something is notable.I've mentioned it more than once, and no one has bothered to explain why this "notable" article isn't even linked back from Miss World Canada. The claim was made its a sub-article, that isn't even linked. Were it so notable, I would expect it to have been linked right away.

--Crossmr 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' Crossmr what is it that you hate so much about this page ? Do you have a rival competition ? If so please creat a page, I welcome it :o) Other than that it is evident that regardles of it's notability people are enjoying the article. And who determins if something is notable ? Just because something isn't popular, that doesn't mean that it's not respectable. Julie
A wiki article has nothing to do with respect. You determine notability by citing sources. News stories, broadcasts, information from other already notable sources, traffic counts, etc. A mention on 1 website, and an alleged inclusion (which no one has cited yet) in a national news paper doesn't really build or prove any kind of notability. --Crossmr 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a mention in a national or international newspaper grants notability. Notability can be gained by the web, though methods or assuming this vary. Computerjoe's talk 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if its just some brief paragraph buried deep in the paper. Which I'm still waiting for a citation on. Its just someone's claim that it was mentioned somewhere "far from the front page" --Crossmr 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between WP:Notability and WP:V. Remember. Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is, but in this case, I'm not about to take the word of someone who obviously has an agenda that this is a notable topic. If this really is notable, they should be able to cite some sources for that notability, otherwise its just their opinion that it is. --Crossmr 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to remember I'm the one who nominated this, I'm just arguing for the balance! IMO, notability is borderline but this will set a precedent. Computerjoe's talk 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well notability requires that its known outside of a small group. I'd just like to see some evidence that there is really interest outside the people who are directly or indirectly involved with the pagent (e.g. friends and families of the contests/organizers as well as the people in the town where its held/going to be held). A national newspaper article that is more than a couple lines consisting of "xxx was chosen as Miss BC Coast on such and such a date" with a picture, would be a good step towards establishing notability. --Crossmr 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect thing would be to merge this in Miss World Canada, but it would cause a big imbalance. Computerjoe's talk 19:57, 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 speedy deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Mao

Irrelevant to Wikipedia Dicdoc 15:50, 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. Sango123 (e) 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London-West PC Youth Association

This is an article about the youth association in one electoral district of a political party in Canada. It is not verifable, and appears to have been written by the group's president. Ground Zero | t 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If any of this is notable at all, it could be part of an article on the provincial association. JPD (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed this should be merged if relevant or removed if it doesn't really tie into anything. --Crossmr 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per above. -- Kicking222 20:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and above. Ardenn 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Article does not even try to assert notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 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 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aprigo Run

No context provided, article title yields zero unique hits in Google. Seems to lack notability. cholmes75 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In fact, it's almost a speedy for lack of context. JPD (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even aprigo run without quotes turns up nothing of value on google. --Crossmr 17:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: I don't see why this is being singled out to be deleted. Content is gradually being added to it.

  • Comment - So it's a vanity project then. In that case, I reiterate my nomination. --cholmes75 11:49, 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 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canuleze language

This is most likely what I would call a "private conlang", only used by one or two persons; I couldn't find anything about "Canuleze" or "Cánulze" on Google. The article was written by the inventor of the language itself. Anyway, I think it's a non-notable language. N-true 16:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. — N-true 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Says itself that it is is a constructed langauge spoeken by a small group. If it is indeed notable, this should be citable. JPD (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cedars 03:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds unimportant or completly made up. If deleted also delete its userboxes in the Babel section. Felixboy 16:53, 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 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Msgurl

Non-notable web site. No Alexa rank, according to google "msgurl.com" is not mentioned anywhere or linked to by anyone. Deprodded with the note that the site is now listed on "The Museum of Modern Betas". Weregerbil 16:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless this site sticks around and actually builds a name for itself there is no need for an entry. --Crossmr 17:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination says it all. -- Kicking222 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:38, 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 11:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cumiskey

This article is nothing more than a Vanity Page (Steve 16:35, 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 redirect. Mailer Diablo 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seosamh Watson

Copyvio, and duplicates Joseph Watson. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:51, 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 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke C. Swiper

Probable hoax. Definitely non-notable. Google turns up no relevant hits. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obvious hoax, no hits on google, and a russian born wih the name Luke? I think not. --Crossmr 17:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-verifiable WP:V. Also it may be pure chance but Google also turns up another Luke J. Yarger

[36] [37] who in 2003 planed to major in computer science engineering at University of Illinois.--blue520 23:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Divas Do New York

Recreated article about a direct to video DVD. This non-notable release lacks adequate sources to allow for a neutral and verifiable article. Jester 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously pointless and devoid of any useful information. --Crossmr 17:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing notable about it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If other direct-to-video releases have articles, including other WWE releases, then precedent exists for this one to be kept as well. 23skidoo 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, and the precedent is made now, unless you can show us a previous AfD of a similar article were the result was keep. --Eivindt@c 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if any before got created, they should be deleted. Thank God for WP:NBD - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these DVDs/videos into one article. -Sean Curtin 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same reason as 23skidoo --sonicKAI 12:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Until and unless there is sustained study and reporting on the subject "WWE Divas Do New York", published in reliable, reputable works, we may not write an encyclopedia article on it. Wikipedia is not a space where anyone may leave jottings on any subject, however trivial, however utterly unresearched, without due consideration of the article space policies. If reliable sources focused on the subject "WWE Divas Do New York"—books, monographs, theses, journal articles, even a thoughtful analysis in the pages of, say, The New York Times—are located, I will be glad to consider the matter anew. Regards —Encephalon 10:54, 20 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 early close due to article being blanked by author -- Francs2000 10:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moodkiller

Speedy tag removed by author w/no comments. nn WP:AUTO myspace musician - google on artist name plus album title gets 0 hits, on artist name alone only 600 but many false positives Jamoche 17:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


sorry this was an accident - didn't mean to remove it. New to uploading stuff to wikipedia.

The album title is self released and available by digital download when requested to the artist direct. she is an evironmentalist who is making music available in a new way - not about economies of scale - the success of an artist should not be about how many records they sell. She is currently undertaking her MA in Music Business Managment and her thesis in on 'Music and its Impact on the Environment'.

I am not sure what false positives mean ?

I feel moodkiller is a worthy artist who has been working under this name for sometime - she is about to trademark the name as well - she owns the domain name and myspace name.

132.185.240.121 18.45 15 May 06

False positives means that most of the Google hits were not for this person, so that the actual number is something significantly less than 600. Band notability doesn't depend on number of albums sold, or we'd only have articles on people who make the Billboard charts. Anyone can get a trademark, domain name, or myspace name - myspace is very popular for self-published musicians, so that's not really "making it available in a new way". Also the article was created by Moodkiller, which indicates it may be a vanity article (though that's not in itself criteria for deletion, if other editors come along and improve it; sometimes that happens as a result of the AfD process)--Jamoche 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article started by a user of the same name, so this is a strong candidate for a Vanity delete. --cholmes75 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok that all makes sense - but what does google hits have to do with her credibilty as an artist and the worth of her creative contributions - she is an established artist in her own right. I am her Manager Mazen Murad we keep everything under the same user name.

It's not so much the number of hits (though that's a factor) it's that they didn't turn up anything that would establish band notability. --Jamoche 19:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion has nothing to do with "her credibilty as an artist and the worth of her creative contributions". You should not feel this is based on that. It is based on her lack of notability. Wikipedia does not document little-known artists. Fan1967 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

really ? I am aware of other 'little known' artists on wikipedia - also I wanted to say distributing music by consumer request is a new thing to do - mp3 for widescale use has been around for about 6 years - before that it was all physical sound carrier format - going way back to good old Thomas Edison and the phonograph. So I would dispute this is still a new and developing means for distributing music - especially seeing the actual music industy is still relatively challenged by it.

  • Comment Distributing mp3's for download is routinely done by every teenager with a garage band and a myspace page. Realistically, Wikipedia has to set standards higher than that. Try reading the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Fan1967 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact she distributes mp3s has anything to do with her credibility of being on wikipedia - feature films, composing music that wins awards, having her work used by MTV UK is not notable enough? Nor is the fact that Terence McKenna requested to work with her on his Australian tour - I am intrigued by your definition of higher standards.

  • This certainly needs more documentation than you've provided. First of all, you claim she has credits under two totally separate names other than this one. That can raise some red flags on verifiability. She "collaborated with" someone who had a song featured in a film. What does that mean? She wrote backup music for a travelling speaker. Kind of iffy. Can you provide some documentation on the Pavo Cristatus album? Google returns results on the bird. It may be that she does meet the standards, but we need more than a website and a myspace page for verification. Fan1967 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please see links provided now on article page - will provide more in a minute


http://www.libertyinrestraint.com/crew.html

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=33488 (scroll down to Skin review)(makes Tammy Brennan and Pavo Cristatus connection)

http://justinecooper.com/scyn_synopsis.html ( shows history with Justine Cooper and myself working with Moodkiller as her long time manager and producer)

http://www.imastering.co.uk/engineers/mazen_murad (this is me, proof I am a sound technician)

http://www.endorphinmusic.com/bio.htm (shows calibre of Endorphin and proves the tracks were on the movie - under fast facts)


another link http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/S2000-Nov-2/http://www.immedia.com.au/im_m/archive/000215-195/eliezer.html

to a news paper article that discusses another CD compilation that Pavo Cristatus were included on - scroll to Fahey Returns

http://www.internationaldigitalart.com/Harries/harriesonline/pages/INV_hall_videostill.htm ( proof 'Saved By Science' won the National Digital Art Prize - scroll to bottom to see our names again accredited for the sound design

http://shop.chicagopride.com/shop/item_display.cfm/varasin/B00004SF7D ( another compilation with Pavo Cristatus)


http://www.gemm.com/item/PAVO--CRISTATUS/PAVO--CRISTATUS/GML759925371/ (someone is selling a second hand Pavo CD from England)


This is all I can currently find on the net - a lot of her work and press is not commented on or archived on the internet.

Lastly, I have already located two great, but very unkown bands on wikipedia - yet seem to have been allowed to post an article.

  • Delete on grounds of vanity. The included links are very nice and all, but hardly evidence of notability. Nothing was linked to regarding anything high profile, such as said films or MTV UK usage. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar and concerns about WP:VAIN violations. -- Scientizzle 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow this is like a modern day lynching - extremely interesting stuff here. Can you please explain how other non high profile bands are on wikipedia ?

    • Comment Please don't take this personally. Guidelines such as WP:MUSIC help to sift through the deluge of (currently) small-time bands and artists. Wikipedia is not an advertising service for new or struggling artists, it is an ecyclopedia, and therefore a subject can and should only be included if already notable. -- Scientizzle 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the links to the films and MTV UK are at the actual article - but here you go anyway, bu t please review all the links provided in the article as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/review/film/s130454.htm

http://www.clicksuperstar.com


Also - I am also interested to know why it is that notability is defined by returned search engine results - is it now that success is defined by how much evidence of a persons career is on the internet?

  • Comment Well, we could always just take everyone's word that they're a famous musician. Of course, that way, we'd end up with an article on every teenager who's learned to play three chords. The fact is that, in 2006, if you're not being talked about on the internet significantly, then you're probably someone playing local clubs and haven't yet broken out. Fan1967 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my question as to why other 'unknown' bands who are still playing local clubs are on wikipedia - has not been answered. I never said Moodkiller was famous - she is a very accomplished musician .

  • Comment Many unknown musicians are still on Wikipedia because no one's noticed the article and targeted them for deletion. If you've seen some who don't satisfy WP:MUSIC please let us know. It is about notability. If someone's a very talented musician with no significant releases, that practically nobody's heard of, they don't meet the standards. Fan1967 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Surely social networking counts ? that's very internet 2006 - moodkiller's 780 fans online with over 152 direct comments - that is internet activity is it not? Myspace isn;t just utilised by the unkown either - every band uses it to connect and get internet activity happening around their music.Her myspace profile grows by the day.


I will reiterate - evidence presented shows Moodkiller is certainly not 'practically nobody' playing local clubs. Her work is international and at a sophisticated level. She is 'heard' of and her work is 'known'. She has had a significant release with Pavo Cristatus - the print sold 1500 copies and the duo have been on many compilations that have also sold well. She has been on national and international radio. She has been reviewed in notable print music press. She has been a guest co writer on Australian Dance Act of the year in 2000 with Endorphin and the track was used on a recognised Australian Feature Film. She has worked with MTV and had her music used nationally on the TV Lynx Click Superstar series - promos which are around every bus stop in central London. Again something I would consider beyond a 'practically nobody playing around local clubs'. But hey I only work as a mastering engineer for London's premier recording studio the 'metropolis group' with clients like Pink, Iron Maiden, Jamiroquai etc - so what would I know about notable musicians? I would also like to say that during the course of this discussion the article has been edited and improved to meet the wiki standard.

A point to note- while the above mentioned google search does not reveal an acceptable number of site this does not mean the artist in question is not "notable". I have spent many years in Australia involved with other bands and from past experience know that much of what is published in print media never makes it onto the internet. I am also aware that many radio staions including the major national youth network triple j, do not always publish playlists. As a typical Sydneysider I was definitely aware of Pavo Cristatus and could guess that for every CD purchased, several were copied.

From where I am in Japan I am also familiar with Moodkiller and know she has a growing following among underground gothic-type scenes here. It must also be noted that on certain Japanese peer to peer sites such as "mixi", Western names are often written in Japanese, sometimes using several different spellings based on pronunciation, and therefore would not come up in a google search. While I understand Wiki endeavours to maintain certain standards, soley basing the basis for publication or deletion on google hits seems to be quite limiting.

It's not just based on google - that's why we have this process. AfD isn't just a vote, it's a discussion process that exposes a questionable article to a larger audience so that it can be improved. The article as originally written set off several warning flags - and most of the time the articles like that disappear uncontested because they really are just vanity by garage bands on myspace. --Jamoche 13:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The links provided so far fail to establish real notability, and it concerns me more than anything else that the article appears to be written by the subject. Kuzaar 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on what I see, I don't see enough to justify keeping. An album that sold 1500 copies? 152 posts on her web forum? Sounds pretty minor league to me. Fan1967 02:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a comment from Jamoche (please read above) 'Band notability doesn't depend on number of albums sold, or we'd only have articles on people who make the Billboard charts.' So Fan1967 - what exactly is your point? Apart from the fact it sounds like you only have commercial music tastes.

She actually has over 1601 profile views on her myspace profile with 2016 total plays - currently has 786 friends - not every one leaves a comment on a myspace page. That number grows organically - numbers which are significanlty higher than the 'unknown' bands that still remain listed on Wikipedia.

note further article editing has taken place.

Comment. Please read WP:MUSIC. - Fan1967 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that "only on number of albums" - someone could be influential without being a top seller. It's a contributing factor, not the sole criteria, but there is a point at which the number is so low that it really is non-notable. --Jamoche 18:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


yes I have and according to criteria listed she meets it under the following: As a lyricist who wrote and performed lyrics on two tracks on an album that chartered in Australia and won best album in 2000 at the Australian Dance Awards - Skin was released by major label Sony. Of which Anguish was featured on the Australian Feature Film Looking for Alibrandi. Moodkiller is Tammy Brennan. The chain of events proving this have already been presented.

http://www.endorphinmusic.com/music2.htm (please not also that Endorphin has supported Massive Attack, Faithless and Portishead) http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=385547

another article/interview where it is fully established that Tammy Brennan was on the album - http://www.verstaerker.com/sitephp/artists/artist.php?d=Endorphin

notice mention of Pavo Cristatus (again)

dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2328/183/1/CDRevARAug00.pdf another review

http://www.vivamusic.com/dance/cd_endorphin.htm

http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/handle/2328/183

success or notoriety of an artist needs to take into account all album sales - so if you factor in tracks appearing on the compilations she has appeared on (4), the Pavo album, being a writer on 'Skin' etc, along with the EP downloads that take place off her myspace - significant numbers. Oh and the UK MTV Airplay with the Lynx Click Series - three tracks used - that is national broadcast is it not?

  • Comment Myspace downloads are worth basically nothing. The 1500 copies of the Pavo album, not much more. What's left seems to be entirely supporting work on other people's projects. Fan1967 04:11, 18 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 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryze

I am relisting this for AfD under the procedures of WP:DRV when a deleted article is overturned. I undeleted the article following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ryze, but see The article's original AfD vote. Personally, I prefer keep, so don't count this nomination as a deletion preference. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I have {{prod}}ed this article in the past, it now has significantly more content. Crucially, it's notability has now been established through mentions in several press sources (linked from the article). I therefore consider it to meet the guidelines at WP:WEB. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per UKPaolo. Kukini 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this version of the article. I have no relationship to the previous versions or previous authors, but I do believe this web site meets WP:WEB standards. I would also note it has a very high Alexa ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlazzaro (talk • contribs)
  • exactly, this is essentially a different article about the same subject, and one which unlike the previous version, establishes notability. Nice work, Dlazzaro. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 07:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a Speedy Keep. Thanks for persevering, people! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although reluctantly, because it's still very stubby and I wonder if it'll improve -- but those aren't grounds for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It now passes WP:WEB, but it's a dagnabbed stub. Grr. How can I vote to keep when it established notability but doesn't say anything? Geogre 12:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If possible, I will expand the article when I have some time. I will admit I am not an expert on the inner workings of the service. Dlazzaro 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without any kind of reluctance whatsoever. Silensor 22:39, 18 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 (G4). Petros471 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROFIT

Recreation of previously PRODed article. Advertisement for non-notable software from a minor software developer. Jester 17:26, 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 11:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4 Drams

(contested prod) Non-notable band: complete lack of verifiable evidence, advertising, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Pak21 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fail to see how it is adveritising....no more advertising than say the Bob Dylan page or other musical bands pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment: 1. Bob Dylan has had many, many hit records. The 4 Drams have done nothing. 2. To quote from the e-mail you yourself sent me: "The page was created as a promotion for their forth coming and eagerly awaited album "[snip]" which will be released on "[snip]" on the 22nd of August 2006." (snips by me to prevent more advertising here). You created it for the express purpose of advertising. --Pak21 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no album, no tour, don't even appear to have played a gig. At best, very premature. Ac@osr 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and per Ac@osr. Aaaaaaabsolutely no notability at all. Why speedy delete? Well, does the author even try to establish a reason for the band needing a WP article? -- Kicking222 20:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: At User talk:Pak21#The 4 Drams, it is claimed that the band have been seen by over 100,000 people, which is what stopped me from trying to speedy this one in the first place. Cheers --Pak21 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity articles generally aren't grounds for speedy unless the meet the other criteria, such as being nonsensical. This is certainly vanity though, as the original submitter seems to be part of the band. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Computerjoe's talk 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is being carried out as a personal vendetta by all parties against the Wikipedian Democacy Movement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cicero Dog (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Certianly not notable, as mentioned above not a good enough reason really to provide this band an article JRA WestyQld2 12:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, and Cicero Dog advertised for support votes: Cicero Dog would also like to take time to draw your attention to The 4 Drams article which, for the good of humanity, must be saved. - Pureblade | Θ 18:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE this article provides information about a band that the whole scottish folk community is dying to hear more about. Deleting it serves no purpose. Perhaps people should research the band more before they try to delete it. Cicero Dog 20:38, 18 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 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EF Records

The only google hits for this subject are from Wikipedia, eBay, and Myspace [38]. It doesn't appear to have any level of notability. IrishGuy 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also adding E-F Records as it is the exact same article. IrishGuy 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Never establishes why the label is notable, or even what artists are on it. It simply claims it's a record label, and that's that. No information + no web hits + no notability = speedy. -- Kicking222 20:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not. An article only qualifies for speedy deletion due to notability issues if it is about a person, group of people, band, etc. and has no assertional of notability. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no releases yet as per their own website - a label cannot be notable before they've released a record! Ac@osr 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ac@osr. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 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 BJAODN. Mailer Diablo 12:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wroon

Possibly the finest candidate for BJAODN I've evr seen. Impressive, but delete to BJAODN. ES2 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Archive and Delete per nominator - hillarious BigDT 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN somebody put way too much time into this. Dspserpico 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Funny, but no. SCHZMO ✍ 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's very, very good tho'....Ac@osr 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN User:Dchelson did quite the job on this bad boy. -- Kicking222 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Store forever - but not in the mainspace :) Is anyone here active on Uncyclopedia? Would this be appreciated there? Haukur 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to tell. But the whole point of BJAODN is the storage of things that don't belong in mainspace but are far too funny to remove from the site entirely. Confusing Manifestation 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, you really have to admire the effort... Usrnme h8er 02:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Photos, even. AnonEMouse 13:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Transwikification (or transunning, as they prefer) to uncyclopedia is impossible due to license incompatibility. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archive and delete as per nomination. Agree that this a very fine piece of BJAODN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 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 BJAODN. Mailer Diablo 12:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assicon

Listcruft. cholmes75 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh good grief, speedy this patent nonsense. BigDT 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. SCHZMO ✍ 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. DarthVader 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Funnily enough, it's not patent nonsense (it's understandable), and in fact it's not even really nonsense (the content is true, for a given value of true), it's just not encyclopedic. Confusing Manifestation 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN skorpion 06:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN is the only winner here. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 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: reported at WP:CP

European wild cat

Copyright violation (I guess), because it's just copyied from http://www.agarman.dial.pipex.com/silvestri.htm N-true 18:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator... is this the correct procedure for copyright violations? I'm not sure... — N-true 18:06, 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 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lozl

Slang dictdef, transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and transwiki as Internet slang. SCHZMO ✍ 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the protologism section of Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 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 11:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging Systems

Non-notable company, PROD was removed with no explanation. Delete Catamorphism 18:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, advert Optimale Gu 12:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert; mostly external links. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 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 and BJAODN. Sango123 (e) 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bjarang

Probably a hoax. Only 91 google hits for Bjarang, none of which are about a sport. SCHZMO ✍ 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. Looking for the tallest blade of grass will be an olympic sport? Yeah sure. Weregerbil 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Hoax. DarthVader 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense/hoax. It's not a BJAODN candidate- aren't those supposed to be funny, as opposed to just stupid? -- Kicking222 22:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the basis is correct, but some details look although thay have bben vandalised, the basis is ok, it just needs cleaning up, otherwise its viable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Munumana (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 Assault on Precinct 13 (2005 film). There is no content to merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 07:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organized Crime and Racketeering Squad

Contributor contested prod, I really don't think an organization in a movie passes WP:FICT. Besides, Assault on Precinct 13 (2005 film) isn't that notable of a movie. Dspserpico 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete, no content either in article. --Zer0faults 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Assault on Precinct 13; we have a lot of less-notable films in the wiki. Her Pegship 03:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I know that there are far more obscure films on wikipedia but an article of a not so notable fictional organition in a not that notable film seems wrong, Rebel Alliance this ain't. Dspserpico 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to the movie title. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was inspired by Street Thunder --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Not enough content to merge. Paddles 23:22, 20 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. Rje 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Blick Art Materials

Delete minor corporation, WP:CORP. Deprodder says it's "one of the primary suppliers of mail order art supplies in the United States." Even assuming he's right, it's still NN. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep with 1,410,000 google hits for "Dick Blick" [39] and an Alexa rank of 9,014 [40], I'm going to go ahead and say this company is extremely notable. IrishGuy 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy there. 128 unique Google hits for "Dick Blick" [41] including many porn sites. Few of those are quality hits, which is very low for a company that conducts its business online. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment So you find an Alexa rank of 9,014 [42] to be an indicator of low quality traffic or non notability? IrishGuy 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as very notable. They've been around for years (I know people who've been ordering from them for 30-40 years). They've only gone online in the last few years, but they've been in business since the early 1900s (I forget the exact year). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked their website, and they've been in business since 1911. Definitely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nihonjoe. --Craig Stuntz 20:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely an important company as far as art supplies go. They're more brick-and-mortar (and mail-in) than online, but there's nothing wrong with that. No doubt about my vote on this one. -- Kicking222 21:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough, such as per Alexa and Google. --Philosophus T 01:16, 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 11:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to defeat Skeith in .hack//infection

Doesn't belong on Wikipedia Shizane talkcontribs 19:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arwen Elys Dayton

Subject is a published author, but of a pair of minor sci-fi/fantasy books. One of them isn't even in print any more, according to Amazon. The article states she is up-and-coming, but WP:NOT a crystal ball. cholmes75 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (weak). I'm not completely sure, but it reads like a typical vanity article reads, has crystal ball content, and seems from a search to be fairly non-notable. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 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 KEEP. Rje 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frieda Van Themsche

Bad faith article, trying to create a POV in connection to Hans Van Themsche.1652186 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm in agreement with the nominator. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She is a Flemish parliamentarian, so an article about her could be included in wikipedia, but as it stands now, the article is pov and stubby. Intangible 10:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the article from 2 sentences to what I hope is a sufficient stub. Her connection to the shooter is hard to avoid, but verifiable, and, I believe, can be presented in an NPOV way. AnonEMouse 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the article is NPOV now, but I still think Frieda is nn. 1652186 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep parliament members. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: you know, somewhere I agree, but to be NPOV we then have to include all MPs, i.e. multiple hundres for Belgium alone. 1652186 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We include 535 members of the United States Congress some of whom haven't been written about in connection to major crimes. OK, only a few ... but still.. To show what highly notable congress-persons from there qualify, I give you the highly notable Julius W. Blackwell, Richard Biddle, and Jesse Atherton Bynum, from the 26th congress. AnonEMouse 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to write those articles. Incidentally, that does not follow from NPOV, or at least not from my reading of it. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 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 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Pickleman

Appears to be a vanity page. Seaweed 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity, add, non encyclopedic, whatever you want to call it, kill it. --Crossmr 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A1, A3, and A7. No assertion of notability, and few words other than those necessary to string together four external links. --Craig Stuntz 20:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious vanity and incredibly non notable. IrishGuy 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:23, 15 May 2006
  • Edited. User:Blacktaxi


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 I'm going to merge. Clearly this subject is not sufficient to excite much commment on AfD, and as merging can be done without AfD's help ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary MacLeod Trump

Completing the AfD nomination process for JBellis. Not notable person. DarthVader 22:21, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 07:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Las Divas of the WWE

Originally nominated for PROD by User:Court Jester, I am instead placing it on AFD as WWE_Divas_Do_New_York, a similar article, is currently up for AFD under this same date. Court Jester's reasons for PROD were: Direct to video DVD. Article contains no meaningful information other than a listing of the DVD's scenes. This nomination should not be considered a vote on my behalf (I will vote below with reason) or on behalf another Wikipedia editor. 23skidoo 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, due to precedent. Other articles of this type for made-for-video productions exist on Wikipedia. It needs expanding, however. 23skidoo 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Diva (professional wrestling) into an article about the video series It doesn't need its own article. joturner 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggested compromise - I'd also support the merging of the articles into one single one about the WWE Video Line. I think they DVDs are too popular to be merged into the Divas article, but they can probably stand together as one article. 23skidoo 19:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's correct. I changed my vote because article isn't about the series; I meant the article should be merged into an article about the series. joturner 20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Until and unless there is sustained study and reporting on the subject "Viva Las Divas of the WWE", published in reliable, reputable works, we may not write an encyclopedia article on it. Wikipedia is not a space where anyone may leave jottings on any subject, however trivial, however utterly unresearched, without due consideration of the article space policies. If anyone locates reliable sources focused on the subject "Viva las Divas of the WWE"—books, monographs, theses, journal articles, even a thoughtful analysis in the pages of, say, The New York Times—do let me know and I'll be glad to take another look. Regards —Encephalon 10:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This video suffers from the same basic problem most direct to video releases suffer from: A severe lack of reliable sources to allow for a neutral and verifiable article. Material of this sort is appropriate when information such as critical reviews (Amazon comments don't count) and sales and rental numbers are published by credible sources. Jester 12:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't merit its own encyclopedia page. Zaxem 06:44, 21 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 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jugopedia

nn wiki, with, according to its main page, "Jugopedia tiene 135 artículos." (135 articles) and 49 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn site, and the article is kind of nonsense. -- Kicking222 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable yet. rbonvall 22:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable is a charitable description of what's going on here. - Richardcavell 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - man, was I disappointed with what this turned out to be. -- GWO


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 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Gamma Epsilon

Non-notable fraternity at only one campus. Previous prod tag removed. ClarkBHM 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, no real value --Crossmr 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity fun. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the artice stands right now, it is vanity and a rush brochue at that. However, a local fraternity to survive so long without affiliating with a national organization has some kind of notability. But this article needs to go. Dspserpico 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan, except stronger. This belongs on their own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 23:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of congenital disorders

Seems like a useless list. There are a few redlinks in there that should probably be converted to stub pages before deleting this, but other than that the category seems a much better option than the list Hirudo 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perfectly good interesting list. Jcuk 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't necessarily think we need this list, but I do think it should be a category. -- Kicking222 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It already is: [[Category:Congenital disorders]] -- Hirudo 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with category. Kukini 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's possible. You can't include entries like "Chromosome 20 abnormalities" in a category, and Chromosome 20 shouldn't be in the category of Congenital disorders. Mangojuicetalk 23:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic list; in some ways better than a category can be. Mangojuicetalk 23:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reason given by Mangojuice. Crypticfirefly 04:07, 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny squirrel

Originally nonsense; page has since been blanked by creator. Keppa 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing that happened here. The speedy tag shouldn't be added again, even if deleted by a vandal, correct? Keppa 21:43, 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 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMontreal Computer Repair

Spam. Need I say more? Okay, I will. There's nothing decently notable about password recovery. Many companies do it. TheProject 21:45, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disc_Repair

Not a notable subject. Appears to plug a commercial company Etimbo ( Talk) 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and recreate as Compact disc repair. The topic is actually notable, but there are dozens upon dozens of disc repair devices, and the advertisement kinda sinks this article (not to mention the shoddy writing). But there is definitely an article that could be written on the topic. -- Kicking222 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above comment, but isn't it best to just delete it and let someone else write it from scratch? - Richardcavell 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thinly disguised advert. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 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 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiremore

Delete seems to be a mixture of non-notable neologism and original research. Prod removed without comment. Gwernol 21:52, 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 18:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attack! Marketing

Spam - Aero 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. 100% advertising, without a doubt. --Takeel 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which CSD criteria is this? DarthVader 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam and not notable. DarthVader 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarthVader. Kukini 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hastily though DV is right, it's not speediable. JDoorjam Talk 00:31, 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. Rje 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Perfect 10 models

It's an unencyclopeædic list made up almost entirely of non-notable people (ordered, tellingly, by first names). The first AfD ended in no consensus; this second AfD was prompted by a message left for me by Bastique, who reports an e-mail from one of the people listed: "This young woman is non-notable, doesn't wish to be notable, and apparently her picture was published without her permission. Note: the models are generally not from English speaking countries and do not enjoy the same protections that the western world offers." Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The claim that the list is encyclopædic because some of the names on it are notable is, of course, absurd. A List of people who have shopped at Harrods would doubtless also include many notable names, but wouldn't be in the least encyclopædic. It's the list that's being considered here, not the members of the list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A much better list comparison would be to the ones that are similar, already exist, and have been pointed out below. --Alsayid 14:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you dare even compare Perfect 10 to Playboy and Penthouse with regards to notability? Bastique▼parler voir 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't compare the magazines, I compared the magazine model lists, which is appropriate. I believe I also mentioned the List of Playboy NSS models. Actually, there are three or four of them. Second, if the argument is that many of the models listed don't have seperate entries, then it's only reasonable to point out that the Playboy (six or seven of those), Playboy NSS, and Penthouse lists include a great many models without Wikipedia entries. The precedent for such lists is clear, and shouldn't be ignored. --Alsayid 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Unfortunately, the first time around this entry was quickly nominated and voted against by some due to a lack of familiarity with the magazine title "Perfect 10" (thinking it a POV).
Regarding notability, whether the models are listed alphabetically by first or last name is an issue of format, not merit. As of today, over 40 models on the list have Wikipedia entries of their own. Rather than judging by those who don't have articles, we should judge by those who do. They include supermodels, Miss Universe contestants, Pets, Playmates, and mainstream actresses.
There are also lists to Playboy Special Editions models, Penthouse models, and big-busted models, so there is definitely precedent.
If the real problem is that one of the models doesn't wish to be listed, then why not address her specifically rather than the entire P10 model entry, which includes so many notables, and ties back in the same way as other lists to the magazine entry? --Alsayid 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Those are established editors/admins who had "voted" previously, or been involved in editing the entry. There's even a Wiki template for Pete's sake. --Alsayid 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That template is designed for contributors to an article, not previous voters. It is also designed in order that all people weigh in, not just the ones you expect to vote your way. To have used it properly fairly, you should have put it on the talk pages of the people who voted to delete before as well. Bastique▼parler voir 04:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I did use it for contributor Azerus here, which you seem to object to. Further, I can't find anything against it in the guidelines, but if contacting someone who "voted" previously is wrong to you, then what you did to begin with as seen here and here is wrong by your own definition of "fair." --Alsayid 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... I didn't nominate the article. I mentioned the complaint to Mel, but decided to stay out of the process. At least until after I'd seen the process had already been compromised. Take a look at those dates. Bastique▼parler voir 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked. You weighed in here a full day before you'd seen that the process had "been compromised" and made a sharp comment about it. So you compromised your own ethic, though I still don't see any guideline stating that I did something wrong. --Alsayid 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted after the process had already been compromised by your actions. You have no idea when I saw it, and when I pointed it out to you is inconsequential. Bastique▼parler voir 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's clear when you took a shine to me. But please, either back up the charge of wrongdoing with a guideline/policy link, or stop casting accusations and let's focus on the article. --Alsayid 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)--Alsayid 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Abu Badali 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is not unencyclopedic, and there are several notable people in this list, like Marisa Miller. We have similar other lists like the List of Penthouse Pets. This problem with this young woman is not a reason to delete the entire list. In the worst case scenario, this young woman's name should be removed. Carioca 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry to say that there is some stench of bad-faith surrounding this nomination. First, you want to delete the entire article because of one so-called model (who is anonymous to us) asks not to be on the list? Where, pray tell, is the common sense? Common sense dictates that it is the model who should be expunged, not the list. Second, we do have lists for models from other magazines, as indicated above -- and those lists are ordered by first name as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Data is verifiable and way more notable than tons of other things already in the Wikipedia. A model's picture being in a magazine is a fact, even if it was done without authorisation; not having his/her name in this list won't change that fact, and anyone with a copy of the magazine will be able to reach that information. If a model has a problem with Perfect 10, (s)he could sue them, but that won't change what has been done. Remember that wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia. I am sorry for that girl though. Mariano(t/c) 10:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as similar lists exist for other magazines. This article has already survived AFD. If the model has an issue with being recognized with the magazine, she should go after the magazine, not an encyclopedia. Like it or not, she was in the magazine. 23skidoo 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Includes too many non-notable names. It's listy. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimination collection of information. Bastique▼parlervoir 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Bastique. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LjL 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we delete this we should also delete Penthouse models, and Playboy models 1953-1959, 1960-1969, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-present. --Maitch 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the good reasons stated above. f(x)=ax2+bx+c 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alsayid and Joe Beaudoin. Zeromacnoo 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. This is not quite the same as the lists of Playmates or cover models. An issue of Playboy has only one of each, but could have dozens of other models in pictorials (don't they have several "women of the something-or-other" issues every year?); we don't list everyone who has ever appeared, just those in the more notable positions. If Perfect10 has an equivalent, "featured" model, we could list those - but not everyone who has ever appeared in any pictorial, please. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no way this can be in NPOV and is non notable -- Tawker 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more list cruft. -- Drini 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic list with no value outside of those obsessed with collecting pictures of supposedly "beautiful" women -- and only small value to those. Content like this can find a better home than Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a magazine index. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Sjakkalle said. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 03:50, 20 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 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barton Act 2006

This seems to me to be a page with no useful information, no explanation of notability, and the text on the bottom makes it seem like an advertisement. Rioux15 22:12, 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 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Viewing Timeline

A rambling and immense diatribe of pseudoscience, conspiracy, and original research. Apparently is trying to reveal use of Scientology "technology" by the US government. While some people may have spent a long time on this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Note that WP:NOR includes making controversial and non-obvious conclusions from synthesis of multiple sources. Delete --Philosophus T 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOR, and inherently not verifiable. Silas Snider (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't possibly say it better than the nominator. -- Kicking222 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR per nom. --BillC 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It would be posible to right a remote viewing timeline (you base it around project stargate then move on to the various companies that surfaced after the US goverment wrote off stargate). This isn't it.Geni 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Das Nerd 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being based on sources not considered reliable by our standards and for the synthesis clause of NOR. --Pjacobi 08:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything verifiable is already in remote viewing, and it's hard enough to keep a lid on this crap in one place without adding more. No reliable sources, nor any realistic prospect of finding any. For the most part this is Hubbardcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and get a space ready at BJAODN. tregoweth 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete What I found here was a properly annotated timeline. I have searched in vain for any diatribe, opinion or speculation in its content. As a result, I'm left to ponder the reaction this document has produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.192.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of works of original fiction. --Carnildo 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on my 11+ years of study of Scientology and other pseudosciences including what paradoxers call Remote Viewing, I can state with high certainty that almost all, if not all, of the Scientology propaganda in this article is not only false but well-known to be false. The article also completely violate's Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View mandate. Also, almost all, if not all, of the Scientology propaganda in this article does not even belong in an article about Remote Viewing. The article should be deleted. Desertphile
  • Do Not Delete The article is well-researched, but tends to go off-topic. There are some salient entries regarding Scientology's influence on the SRI work, and these should remain (and perhaps be augmented to show the direct connection). The conspiracy theory entries (i.e. US Gov vs Scientology) should be removed as off-topic. Having a timeline showing the origins of RV though, including the Scientology influence, is valuable. GreatGatzby 00:47am, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Anyone interested in an accurate timeline of RV. GreatGatzby 12:16pm, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Delete and Rewrite An accurate and succinct timeline of remote viewing would be completely appropriate, and a useful aid to the Remote viewing article. But glancing briefly at this timeline it seems to me that a) there is an incredible glut of information either too detailed for a general timeline or only tangentially related and b) any attempt to verify the multitude of questionable statements would be stopped simply because of the massive number of references (not that references are bad, but this amount harms more than helps). This would be great for a private website, but not wikipedia. Joshdboz 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a Rewrite. GreatGatzby 05:20pm, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Just to clarify, when I said rewrite, I meant Start from scratch. Joshdboz 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unsalvageable, full of distortions and misleading citations, and very much against WP:NOR. Also, please have a look at Remote Viewing and see what else this new user has done to what was a decent article, that covered as much as needed to be covered on that topic. Also please note one point that the original nominator might have missed - the vast bulk of this was created by a single user - User:Huntley Troth. Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't you the original author of the article? Joshdboz 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I forgot to sign it - sorry! :( --NightMonkey 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Immense" doesn't even begin to describe this article: it's 144 kB, currently within the 100 longest articles on Wikipedia. This isn't a good reason to delete on its own, but the vast amount of original research makes it a definite delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, and the author of the article wants it to be deleted (see above). RexNL 17:16, 20 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, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Comments like "who ever you are...your a faaaagggg!" do little to refute the basic point made by the nominator. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanky

This article is a dictionary definition, and I can't think of a way that it could be expanded beyond one. The reference to Lanky Kong isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia entry. ~MDD4696 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save Keep the Lanky article! PLEASE just edit it. correct your mistakes. but dont delete the LANKY article! 58.178.17.192 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Keep the lankies! 08:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)~~
  • Delete as dicdef. And the word 'lanky' has been around a lot longer than the 1999 origin suggested in the article. --BillC 22:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef with a stupid picture and a stupid "etymology". -- Kicking222 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef. DarthVader 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef spreading ignorance; the Oxford English Dictionary has citations for this meaning of lanky dating back to 1818. --Metropolitan90 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save with a bit of editting it can be fine! it is supposed to give deeper insite as too the use of the word lanky in slang terms. Other words have a page like this, i fail to see why this one cant. adon 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save lanky is the coolest page apart from ranga —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.100.29 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Save this is a very accurate and informative article....there needs to be a wikipedia page on the word "lanky", i would like to see you make a better one --midget in a bikini —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.192.226 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • save The people need to know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by That Lanky Kid (talk • contribs) 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • save this is another important article and should be treasured. The masses should learn and u sir should to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.54.80 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • save Save the Lanks!!! who would delete the page!! who ever you are...your a faaaagggg! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.132.216.120 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kicking222. Page looks to have been made up in school one day. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • save this is the best thing that ever happened to me, i am so glad that there is finally a reference to a commonly used term! please save the page, tom gilmore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.10.122.241 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete does this belong here at all? I would say OK, if it were only a dictionary, but no to the encyclopedia. Seems like it is a joke trying to be passed off by a group of anon. friends.Vegalo 12:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary Defination - and certainly it had nothing to do with Nintendo - I used to be lanky when I was at school and that was certainly before the N64, in fact it was before the SNES or the NES. This is only my second edit on wikipedia, although I've lurked for a while - I know that this is taken into consideration in AfD discussions and thought I should bring it up. Wolfsbane Kane 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an excuse to have a picture of that kid. The JPS talk to me 12:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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, because it's a copy of an advertisement. However, Dwiki's point about the notability of Panago is an important one, and if he recreates it as a good article I'm sure nobody will mind ... right? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panago

Delete as nom - Content does not assert notability; this is an advertisement for a Pizza chain, no more or less. Colonel Tom 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need that big bold "Delete as nom" thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 22:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert and copyvio from www.panago.com/. Doesn't meet all the copyvio criteria from WP:SPEEDY to make it a speedy delete, though. --BillC 22:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify - Panago is a major chain in Canada, and I'm sure it has a rich history which could be added later. I suggest using Image:Panagologo.gif as its image instead, as it doesn't contain a phone number and is less advertis-ey. --Dwiki 00:15, 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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sickanimation

This page seems to be about an unnoteworthy internet comic site. It also appears to have been created by someone close to the project as spam. The alexa rank is 143,574. skorpion 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are the other pages linking that need modification or deletion: Hans Dick, Sickanimation.com and June Gloom --skorpion 12:01, 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 Userfied to creator, user:mwhistler. I had actually cleaned it up but then realised that some of the info conflicts with other articles on the subject of pairs trades and couldn't be bothered to fix up the autobiography any further. Just zis Guy you know? 20:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Whistler

It appears that this page should be deleted due to not meeting notability with sufficiency. When I ran a search on it, I found evidence of only one book published in Amazon [43]. Although there were a number of hits on the name, it appears that many of them are from discussion pages around the internet and that there are a number of individuals with this name. I also posted this in AfD due to the fact that a few non-administrators (as far as I can tell) removed the speedy deletes prior to any administrator overview. Kukini 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - he is an author but until re-write as NPOV its too much like an advert --MarsRover 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rather messy and fails WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Googled with only on publication found, the links don't point to subject, agree fails WP:BLP, vanity.--Dakota ~ 19:32, 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 18:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever in Effigy

Standard band vanity. NN Bachrach44 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kukini 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--blue520 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. skorpion 01:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Myspace page: check. "Surprisingly popular": check. No label details: check. Creator's sole contribution: check. Yup, standard band vanity. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN band. --Ragib 17:14, 20 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 18:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthism

Current text is different from the previous version, so CSD G4 doesn't apply. "brannon benge truthism" (without quotes) returns zero google hits. Now deleted article Brannon Benge (by the same editor) says he's born in 1985. Either a hoax or a non-notable new theory. Delete. cesarb 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Probably a hoax, almost certainly nonsense. Only 8 total G-hits for "Brannon Benge", even with out the truthism part. -- Kicking222 23:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it smells like a hoax, but regardless it is neither notable nor verifiable. IrishGuy 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unverifiable, nn, probably a hoax as well: a "famous philosopher" that has zero Google hits? (Only 3 distinct hits exist, two are accidents from word lists, the other mentions a Brannon Benge solely as being a grandchild of someone who has died). -- Karada 00:00, 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. Sango123 (e) 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Fuck Fest

Delete per WP:WEB. Deprodded by anon w/o explanation. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spamvertising. IrishGuy 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanispamcruftisement - Richardcavell 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Richard. (great word too!)Kukini 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe that this site is significant enough in regards to ranking and google hits to warrant its own article, even if I don't like the particular content.--Andrew c 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really hate to keep an article of this variety, but 1) It's Alexa rank is around 6,550, which is certainly high enough; 2) "College Fuck Fest" gets 421,000 G-hits, so if even a fraction of those relate to the site, that's far more than necessary for passing the Google test; 3) The article is in no way written like an advertisement- hell, it's actually kind of critical of the site, and the stub is generally written quite well. I would give this article a strong keep, but I can't bring myself to vote for a strong keep of a porn-related article. -- Kicking222 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the ad nature of the article may be more apparent if you consider the fact that the first revision was the only contribution of its creator [44]. And what about unique google hits? Only 753, and all but extremely few relate to the actual subject of this article - most are just keywords. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam advertisement should be added to WP:CSD BigDT 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website and advert.--Jersey Devil 03:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete garbage.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - you cannot use Google and other tests for notability with these types of sites. --MarsRover 06:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't need to be included. R.E. Freak 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BlNguyen. kingboyk 11:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable porn site.  Grue  15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, sexcruft, and totally ujnnecessary since the article adds precisely nothing to what one would immediately understand from the name. Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scranchuse 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Popular, probably the most popular of the genre. -Branddobbe 07:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. LjL 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Google test isn't valid for porn, as keyword-stuffing is common among porn sites. The Alexa rank is higher than the average AFD-bait, but not nearly high enough to slide by on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They've been in the news. I saw an article that focussed specifically on them and their tactics but couldn't find the original online but here's a reprint [45]. I did also find this [46]. Therefore, they met WP:WEB. Mangojuicetalk 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated the article and sourced it. Mangojuicetalk 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely unencyclopedic. An aside: the "Google test" isn't valid for anything. —Encephalon 04:07, 20 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.

I have speedily deleted this page under WP:CSD G4. This AFD is hereby closed. —Encephalon 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes

Originally a WP:AFD candidate here, a new user re-created the account with the same format and style. Delete since it is not notable in its own article and could easily be merged into the separate song articles such as Behind These Hazel Eyes and Because of You. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as awful, awful listcruft. -- Kicking222 01:04, 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. Rje 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windforce

  • KEEP Windofrce is really popular on the west coast...I went to school in Los Angeles, and i saw quite a few...it wasn't a party without it.
  • KEEP Just because a handful of losers have not heard of Windforce is not grounds for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbp126 (talk • contribs) 01:46, May 19, 2006.
  • KEEP Does ne 1 who posted to delete have a fuckin life? How did you find this analysis of a beer bong. HOW!!!!!!!!!!????? Thus it is amazing and i think you should keep it. I am a nice child who likes candy and walks on the beach, does ne one wanna take me out on a date. Im looking for someone a lil younger than me, like mayb15 years. I like their tight pussy's. It makes my nuts snug. If you are between the ages of 10-12 and are living cantact me. My sn is littlenastygirl1992. Make sur dateline isn't there when i will meet you. The things i will do to you you wouldn't imagine. I am a true thrilla in manilla. I could bring my dog and we could make this a good old fashoned game of farmhouse gangbang. Dogs on the otherhand are more fun than girls, because their assholes are so tight when they cut off the circulation in your wanker it sends a rush of blood to your brain. I usually eat the dogs after i plant my seed in them. Well im off. Just remember Windforce=sex with tiny twats=dog sex= a grand old time.! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.172.198.89 (talk • contribs) 01:17, May 19, 2006.
  • FUCK WEIKIPEDIA I WILL spread ur asscheaks weikipedia. just relax ur ass hole and i will be fittin to try me some of this at home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.172.198.89 (talk • contribs) 01:11, May 19, 2006.
  • I think this is a neologism. Joyous | Talk 23:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Andrew c 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this neologism does exist, it exists in one dorm of one college. "Windforce" + "Beer bong" gets only 6 hits, of which only 3 are unique (and the first is the Wikipedia article). Windforce + funnel gets only 91 G-hits, and aside from the first one (which, again, is the WP page), every hit is a false positive. The article, thus, is nonsense. -- Kicking222 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is true, I hear it here in Maryland! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs) 02:32, May 16, 2006.
  • KEEP The first time I came across windforce was my freshman year at Hampshire. Following that I heard it multiple times up and down the east coast. I am positive windforce exists as far as California.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.159.189 (talk • contribs) 02:45, May 16, 2006.
  • Delete never heard of it. not notable. --MarsRover 06:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NEO. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks any reliable sources, and I couldn't find any on Google. I think Stifle has it right. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The windforve does exist ignore anyone who says it doesn't I have been to parties all over Massachusetts and areas around here and numerous people have them. The windforce device is truely incredible and they are easy to make. Not to mention the after effects are more than pleasing. I think any true partier should have one. Windforce is not a myth! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jwilkz10 (talk • contribs) 20:40, May 16, 2006.
  • KEEPWindforce rules keep it! It will get you drunk! --Jwilkz10 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment seems like the sockpuppets gone wild here. MarsRover 06:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If deleted, the image needs to go, too, as I believe it's a copyright violation. Joyous! | Talk 10:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It seems that people are considering it as a neologism, this needs to be proved. Also, just because people have not heard of it does not mean that it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEPSome people say that the Holocaust didnt occur....tell me that didnt happen. As far as windforce goes, it is the greatest creation ever known to man.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.137.121 (talk • contribs) 00:27, May 19, 2006.
  • KEEP This is a legitimate term. Anyone who says otherwise must live in Morocco or in a hole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.7.54 (talk • contribs) 01:07, May 19, 2006.
  • KEEP If this page gets deleted then i wouldn't know where to get my sorce of beer knowledge from. I WILL go on a mad retard riding campaign if this gets deleted. Enough said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.135.82 (talk • contribs) 01:09, May 19, 2006.
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. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 Corinthians 14

This article has very little content, and does not explain why out of the 16 chapters of the epistle, this one stands out enough to be significant in an encyclopedia. Surely we could create articles like this one for every single chapter of every single book in the bible, but previous consensus seems to suggest that that isn't a good idea. Andrew c 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - bugger previous votes. If chapters of the Bible aren't notable, then I'm Mickey Mouse. Note the author has also constructed 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 13 as well. - Richardcavell 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians. Subject seems notable to me, and I think there's plenty of verifiable information about it, even enough for its own article eventually. But for now, First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians has more than enough room for discussion of the individual chapters. --Allen 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In expanding Wikipedia, subjects must have a transition from a stub to a well developed article. This article, and all the chapters of First Epistle to the Corinthians are in this stage. True, there isn't much content here and many other chapters of First Epistle to the Corinthians deserve their own articles, but this will come with time. I'm currently working on expanding the content of this page. It would become too specific too merge with First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians. Merging until more content is written is a fine alternative too, but unneccessary work. Further, 1 Cor is a better known and used book, both in pop religion and theology. --Ephilei 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some chapters are more notable than others. I heard of this one. but should be expanded. --MarsRover 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep somewhat notable as a contentious passage in terms of the ordination of women. Just zis Guy you know? 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Bible is, arguably, the most important or at least most influential book ever written. We have articles on every album by bands that most people have never heard of and even articles on songs from those albums (I'd say a song in an album roughly equates to a book chapter). We have articles on characters so minor in Star Wars and Star Trek that even devoted fans are hard pressed to indentify them. If in this mass of information and our more than one million articles we do not have a place for articles on biblical chapters, then we a lot of other pages need to go. Despite apparent previous consensus, I would support the writing of articles on every chapter of every bible book. Yes we are not a Bible wiki, but this is some of the most notable writing in the history of mankind. ShootJar 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I apologize for referencing the larger issue of whether bible chapters are significant enough for encyclopedias. The issue at hand is that this is a stub article that basically says (now after JzG's changes) that this is a chapter about two topics already discussed elsewhere on wikipedia. Perhaps everyone can imagine a well expenaded article about this chapter sometime in the future, but my point is that whatever we have in our imaginations does not exist yet in this article. I guess a AfD is a little premature, but I hope that this article does get expanded.--Andrew c 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no doubts about the notability of the subject, largely agreeing with ShootJar above. The article is a little weak, but many good articles began as stubs and later were expanded. So, let's keep it and hope for expansion. Cool3 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears to be stub with possibilities for expansion. I'm not convinced about whether we should have articles for individual Bible chapters rather than entire Bible books, but until there is a decision that this is inappropriate, this chapter is notable enough that it could warrant an article. Paddles 23:08, 20 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 as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Tummy Sex

Not notable, not an identifiable function as described by the article. BD2412 T 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable. Probably a hoax/something made up to promote the station. Definitely not a widespread term. - Richardcavell 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Kukini 04:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too specific. not notable. --MarsRover 06:41, 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. Rje 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Academy

NN fictional location. Prod was formatted incorrectly - I changed it to a correctly-formatted Prod but this was leter removed. Article adds nothing of substance not already included in the two pages that link to it. Paddles 11:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_15&oldid=1081096882"