Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 16 April 18 >

Purge server cache

April 17[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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) 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Stiktion[edit]

This is another amongst the non notable webcomics which proliferate on Wikipedia. You can find the comic here, and it's 12 member forum here. Smack jeeves is a small webcomic hosting site with an Alexa ranking of over 100,000 and the pulp stiktion page isn't even mentioned on their report. Google gives back 11 unique hits. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 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. Sango123 (e) 00:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is A Question[edit]

Here is a Question, is this webcomic of note? It's hosted at stage-select.com, what that portal site is for I don't know, but you can see the comic here, however, the comic subdomain is not mentioned at all in the 300k+ Alexa ranking traffic report. The website is labelled JNVComics, and that terms gives back 9 google hits. Here is the answer - No. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: With an Alexa rating in the 350K range for the host site? I'm certainly willing to credit that the comic has a topic on a forum where all twenty people who read it avidly discuss it. RGTraynor 15:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind giving us some links referencing those followings, while I'm thinking about it? RGTraynor 18:21, 19 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. Sango123 (e) 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point Guardian[edit]

This webcomic can be found here and has no Alexa rank. (However, it probably has an alternate Comic Genesis mirror). Is this a notable website? Has it seen serious review in respectable sources? Google gives 182 hits for "point guardian", however, the majority of these hits have nothing to do with the webcomic in question. - Hahnchen 00:17, 17 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 Speedy Delete. A group of 4 people with no assertion or indication of notability. kingboyk 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTK[edit]

Fraternity with only 4 members. Delete as non-notable. Speedy/Prod removed so listing here. exolon 00:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would have speedied it by now, but since it's disputed, I concur with the nomination. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:22, 17 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Stern[edit]

Gaius is a friend of mine, so this AFD is nothing personal. However, I don't believe he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for living people. The only article that links to this is Carper Award, and whether the Carper Award is notable or not, I don't think its notability implies that everyone who has received the award is notable. The article doesn't mention that he co-founded the predecessor organization to the Academic Competition Federation; however, I don't think that affiliation automatically makes him notable either. Perhaps someone will edit the article so as to better assert the notability of the subject, but I don't think it's possible. Delete. Catamorphism 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: founder of and key figure in an organization relevant to a large number of American college students. In fact, this organization is apparently notable enough to merit its own wikipedia page. In short, keep because Stern is a notable figure in the world of collegiate academic competitions. Quepasahombre 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And is this notability verified at all? Where do these articles state Stern is a "key figure" in anything or that this organization is relevant to a "large number" of college students, or are you just presuming that? RGTraynor 06:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 57 Unique Google hits (most of them lecture notes), about on par with the average University professor. Not notable, end of story. TydeNet 06:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per above. Some vaguely notable things but nothing really important. Some guy 07:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tone 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see any notability in him, an award doesn't make him notable. --Terence Ong 10:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This might be found useful in the years to come should his quite notable organisation become famous. He's also as a result acheived some renown in newsworthy events. --Knucmo2 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- mholland 16:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is not a proper criteria for deletion (verifiability would be, but the information is verifiable) dml 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and notable. Jordanmills 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above areguments. Perhaps borderline notability, but, as an inclusionist, I'd rather to presume notability for potentially useful articles (like this one), than over-delete. Interestingstuffadder 02:53, 19 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 05:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow dancing[edit]

Delete content-free dicdef ("Slow dancing is when a couple dance slowly"?) At best might be transwikied to Wiktionary. Was speedied, then prod'ed, each time the original editor removed the notice without comment Gwernol 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Keep** This is a good term. Anyway, it says if you disagree with the delete, you may remove this message on the notice - so I did. Keep. April 21
  • Delete as per. Rklawton 02:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add clean-up and stub tags: I am tempted to say delete because the content is so limited. But the concept of slow dancing has so much cultural relevance -- coming of age, songs, movies, etc. This could be a really worthwhile discussion of the ways in which slow dancing is a significant act in our society. At the same time, there is something borderline absurd about the article as it stands, so I wouldn't cry if it were to be deleted. Quepasahombre 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add clean-up and stub tags as above. Jesustrashcan 15:10, 17 April 2006
  • Keep and add clean-up and stub tags as this is a legitimate form of dancing, just that this article needs some real cleaning up. :: Colin Keigher 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, seems like a notable topic needs much more expansion. --Terence Ong 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and hope it will get expanded later. I doubt Wikt would keep this. But then again, maybe it would. I'll ask them. --Dangherous 12:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unfortunately, b/c article is probably destined to be a one-line stub. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean Jordanmills 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded it a tiny bit with completely unsourced information from my head. If anyone challenges the information I added, they should of course delete it, but even then I'd support keeping the article. References for this have got to be out there somewhere. --Allen 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • """Keep""" why would you delete


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omerta (Online)[edit]

spam. prod removed by author. Bachrach44 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising for a yet non-notable game. JIP | Talk 05:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa ranking in the 14,000s, which isn't insignificant. A directed Google search for the game (including the website in the parameters) returns just under 500 unique G-hits. I wouldn't call this non-notable quite yet. RGTraynor 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certain spam. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a game, 500 ghits is non notable (games usually garner considerably more, due to multiple file mirrors) ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:33, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIC[edit]

- Originally a disambiguation page with the bio of a rapper being added later, the disambiguation content has been moved to a new page LIC (disambiguation). The remaining content on the rapper LIC seems not to meet notability criteria guideline WP:MUSIC. Delete.--blue520 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to the disambig page and redirect the disambig page to it. The rapper isn't notable enough. JIP | Talk 05:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and forget he ever existed. Even by the standards of non-notability, this guy is a black hole of nonentityhood. His all-time big throw down was witnessed by "15-20 adolescents" and his sole recording might survive? RGTraynor 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an article on a member of an indie band that appears to be solely based on Internet download. The band is nowhere near "popular" as the article suggests :: Colin Keigher 06:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -- Comment Wrong article :: Colin Keigher 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore disambiguation and if suitable, create a page LIC (Rapper) for that content. Usrnme h8er 13:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and restore disambig page. -- mholland 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:54, 18 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. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Riggen[edit]

Appears to be a NN musician, according to guidelines in WP:MUSIC. No entries in the All Music Guide, and the hits that show up via Yahoo! imply he is a lead singer to an unsigned band [1] which doesn't have an entry on Wikipedia nor on All Music Guide. --Ataricodfish 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If the band to which he belongs has fewer than 140 unique G-hits, he can't be a font of notability. RGTraynor 06:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an article on a member of an indie band that appears to be solely based on Internet download. The band is nowhere near "popular" as the article suggests :: Colin Keigher 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn musician. Some guy 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, nn. --Terence Ong 10:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Knucmo2 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:53, 18 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. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Videohypertransference[edit]

Aside from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors "Videohypertransference" does not appear to exist. I'm not sure whether this counts as original research or just nonsense, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here. Delete AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom & un-verifiable WP:V.--blue520 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Google hits all seem to stem from the Wikipedia listing. Rklawton 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources cited in the article :: Colin Keigher 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Some guy 07:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete - it's a neologism, bordering on psychotic. Parts of the text are good, but not in an article of this name. - Richardcavell 12:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense --Paul Carpenter 13:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To justify an article like this it needs to be tightly referenced. Tyrenius 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as largely unsourced, and with no evidence for the claimed term. -- Mithent 18:55, 17 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 keep. Good work, people. DS 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia graham[edit]

Delete. Individual fails to meet the guidelines established by Wiki guidelines for academic notability. See WP:PROFTEST. No one has attempted to adhere to the guidelines after a request was made in the article's talk page. Established guidelines are:

  1. The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field.
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality).
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work.
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements.
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student.
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

--Strothra 02:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. May I say, yikes? Nearly 400 unique G-hits under her full name, 247 under just plain Patricia Graham. She has a profile at Forbes' website, for heaven's sake [2], she holds a major chair at Harvard, she really was a dean at Radcliffe, she was Harvard's first female dean, and they named a chair after her at Harvard [3]. She's not only notable, but about as notable as it gets on campus short of winning a Nobel. This information, just off Google hits, took me exactly two songs on WJDA to get. RGTraynor 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why don't you add that info to the article? That would be helpful. Some guy 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the stuff in the article doesn't meet the listed criteria per se but it still seems notable to me. I haven't checked RGTraynor's information or I would do a regular keep, but assuming he's right there's certainly no reason to delete it.Some guy 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand --Tone 09:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor Henrik 11:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pwe RGTraynor Computerjoe's talk 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor: meets the test in several particulars. Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 17 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 05:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Bodyspray[edit]

Do we really want to list every new product that comes out? That's over 100,000 new products per year. I think we should wait until a product gains some notability (other than self-promotion) before we consider it encyclopedic. As a minimum, this one fails the notability test. In my view, it fails the SPAM test as well. Rklawton 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (I think we're about to see viral marketing at work...) Rklawton 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. _-M o P-_ 02:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The commercials are on all the time on pretty much every channel, so Id say that makes the product notable.--Pal5017 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There's nothing notable about a product that's advertised "all the time" Rklawton 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Product with humorous nationally-televised commercials in my face all hours of the day. Far more notable than the zillions of video games and anime-related nonsense that is poured into Wikipedia dozens at a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect It is a project by a major manufacturer, so it could be mentioned on their page, but I don't think it should be completely deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 03:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've seen the product mentioned and advertised over the last year in various major magazines. Perhaps not one of the most vital pages on Wikipedia, but noteable enough that it's a product by a major company with a national campaign. --Ataricodfish 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just did a major expansion (and move), and I'm pretty sure more can happen. Jesuschex 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. You gotta be kidding me. "Do we really want to list every new product that comes out"? No, but we might want to list one that's used by probably hundreds of thousands of people now (including me on occasion) with a vast marketing campaign. Grandmasterka 06:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a popular product. I can see good reasoning for it being an article :: Colin Keigher 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a popular or at least frequently advertised product I would assume everyone has heard of. Far more notable than many of the other things that get posted. Some guy 07:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable product. --Terence Ong 10:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has notability based on references in the article. On the other hand, I hope nobody ever starts an article about "BOD". --Elkman - (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Global_Gillette (or somewhere appropriate) and delete - product is not notable enough for a separate article, and not advertised outside of the US. -- mholland 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this product seems well-known enough to me. -- Mithent 18:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rest Jordanmills 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep highly notable product. BTW, I have 3 of them in my bathroom ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A valid topic for an article because it is used widely and has many well-known advertisements. AmbExThErMaL 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jaranda wat's sup 03:36, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Severin[edit]

Apparently a NN author with no published books by a major publishing house, per Amazon.com. Search at Amazon shows a single collection of short stories released on electronic format only by an independent publisher, #3,290,833 in Books according to their sales. Ataricodfish 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete first, then block, then shoot. Please. Rklawton 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One wonders if this is a vanity article, it's so NN. RGTraynor 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After seven revisions it's still hopelessly non-notable. Some guy 07:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 10:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Doesn't matter if its a major publishing house or not. If the books (each by themselves) have sold 5,000 or more then its notable enough --Knucmo2 14:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, except that with a sales rank of three million, two hundred and ninety thousand, eight hundred and thirty three -- meaning that in an average week, Amazon sold 0-1 copies -- this did not sell 5,000 copies and it's no different than including a download on an unsigned band's website. --Ataricodfish 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet requirements ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prove to me that it has an audience of over 5000 and I may be convinced to change to keep. But for now, delete. Batmanand | Talk 22:51, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Names[edit]

This article isn't really encyclopedic, but I'm not really sure what category it would fall in, so I wanted to do an AFD to check. Delete. _-M o P-_ 02:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - was PRODded by me but removed by the article's author (no reason given). Unencyclopedic, and falls into the realm of "indiscriminate information"....Scott5114 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as kittynamecruft. Doctor Whom 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you serious? Kill it in the face, then kill the corpse ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there any name one cannot apply to a cat? Fishhead64 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ceci n'est pas un chat"? JIP | Talk 09:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, cruft. (besides, obviously not encyclopedic - my cats were named "Chocolate-chip Cookie" and "Spot") Shenme 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone remind me to award the Most Original Pet Name award to Shenme. _-M o P-_ 02:21, 18 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 06:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gratz[edit]

Article appears to be for a NN author, per guidelines for living people in WP:Bio stating "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Author's only book has not yet been published per Amazon.com [4]. As the creator of this article's screenname is AGratz, this might also be self promotion.--Ataricodfish 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article reads more like a CV/resumé. Heycos 14:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete I'd prefer a wikify Jordanmills 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. This is verifiable. For great justice. 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, but what has been verified is that the author is non-notable according to current Wiki rules at WP:BIO. Page was created six months prior to the release of a book that hasn't been released yet, and as the book has not been published and not a single copy purchased, the book has not sold 5000 copies. If the book is published and sells 5000 copies, then he qualifies for notiable. Until then, he's one of a million new authors. --Ataricodfish 00:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fishhead64 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep article states Alan Gratz has had his work on the A&E Network. Article needs better referencing if it is all true. --ElectricEye 15:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won the Kimberly Colen memorial award, an impressive feat to be sure.--CastAStone|(talk) 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is listed as a writer for A&E City Confidential on IMDB. I'm adding a reference for the Kimberly Colen memorial award now. I will work on verifying anything contributed (and removing anything non-verifiable) by AGratz to avoid the obvious Wikipedia:Autobiography concerns. • WarpFlyght (talk) 22:36, 19 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. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Butchery[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable band which doesn't meet WP:BAND. Haven't found any verification anywhere and I'm having difficulty proving that the band or either of it's supposed albums actually existed. http://www.metal-archives.com lists two similarly named bands but neither are even from the U.S. (and that website has a ridiculous number of metal bands in its database). Even if the band's existence can be verified, they don't appear to meet the band standards anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search at AllMusic.com could not find a listing of the band. Searched at Amazon.com as well and no CDs were located. --Ataricodfish 03:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, possible vanity and hoax. --Terence Ong 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Jonas Silk 13:54, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Flash Bros.[edit]

  • Delete: NN website that appears to be vaguely simillar to Homestarrunner (although a lot less notable). Can't even afford their own server, no alexa ranking, and 519 Google hits. I see no assertion of notability, and nothing that meets WP:WEB. --Hetar 03:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable website. JIP | Talk 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable here :: Colin Keigher 05:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. TydeNet 06:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rawr. Destroy. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:58, 17 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. After some investigation of the discussion, the band really does fail WP:MUSIC, and the votes that state it fulfills the criteria there are, well, not right. Proto||type 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead[edit]

The band still fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing personal. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hollywood_Undead. Delete. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, of course, but isn't 'deleted article re-creation' a speedy candidate any more (I haven't been around much the past 6 months or so)? Niteowlneils 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article went through proposed deletion before coming here. Oh, and as for speedy deletion, I think that only applies to articles restored to their pre-deletion state. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 03:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- still fails WP:MUSIC.--blue520 03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is tough, because, until recently, the concept of a "notable download band" didn't exist. But with over 4 million hits in Google for "Hollywood Undead", it looks like we're there. They seem to meet WP:WEB. Myspace Records[5], which is a joint venture with Interscope, does sell Hollywood Undead on a CD, and that CD can be purchased from Amazon.com.[6]. --John Nagle 04:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and protect as a recreation of previously deleted content. Releasing one album via a myspace album does not satisfy the requirement that the band have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." --Hetar 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't like the band but they've worked up a sizable buzz. I think those aforementioned four-million hits would consider Hollywood Undead a notable band. As John Nagle said, they released an album on a label which is a joint venture with Interscope - a rather major label which has been around for a number of years. They're really an Internet phenomenon more than anything else, and since there are pages for pretty much every Internet phenomenon ever, I think it should be kept. Jesustrashcan 10:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)contribs) .[reply]
  • Comment: This might seem like the pedant's march, but the Myspace records album is a compilation. WP:MUSIC reminds us that compilations or soundtracks are NOT enough by themselves to warrant an article, excepting those which only consist of one artist (I can think of Highlander and Mortal Kombat right now). Also, even if that album counts, it takes two such albums to qualify under WP:MUSIC. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 05:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others above Deleuze 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and nom :: Colin Keigher 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a page for O RLY?, so why not a page for Hollywood Undead? Jesustrashcan 10:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of those four million Ghits, 265 are unique. Adding the qualifier "band OR group" to the searchstring returns a total 356,000 total hits.
Ah, interesting. Thanks. I withdraw my "Keep" vote. That's worth sending in to Google Search Improvement as a bug. --John Nagle 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. -- Saberwyn 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many times have I written this for non-notable bands...if they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. doktorb | words 13:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a while ago my friend told me about Hollywood Undead on MySpace and I came here to find information. And I found information. - Stoph 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful info Jordanmills 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. Verifiable. For great justice. 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Fishhead64 01:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, band actually meets WP:MUSIC thanks to this article on Slate about MySpace music. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually that mention in Slate isn't quite "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". It's a brief mention of them as a wannabe band, in a list of "a cast of demi-celebrities of varying talent", not an article that features them.--John Nagle 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited access to news archives, if they made Slate, they've certainly made something else, and I'm fine with erring on the side of caution on this one considering Slate's reach. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Notable Band--GorillazFanAdam 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails - Hahnchen 00:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Taken right from WP:MUSIC "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." Myspace is considered very notable media, therefore it should in fact be kept. --GorillazFanAdam 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Also, not to metinon Hollywood Undead pioneers the fusion of Hip Hop, Screamo, and Hardcore, a very bold step taken that qualafies for notarity. --GorillazFanAdam 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment MySpace is not a media source, it is a platform on which anyone can make a place for advertising. Also this non-notable band are certainly not the first group to fuse such music genre together. This non-notable band should make it in the real world first before they can make it here doktorb | words 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - And posting your photos on MySpace makes you a notable photographer does it? What about the film directors on YouTube? - Hahnchen 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MySpace is not the media. MySpace is a user-generated social website designed and instituted primarily to facilitate dating. More importantly, the music made by Hollywood Undead is not licensed to nor intended primarily for use by MySpace, but is only hosted on MySpace's servers. Also, if I was feeling irascible and pedantic, I could make and push the idea that Linkin Park fused hardcore and hip-hop a long time ago. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Linkin Park blends rap with nu-metal, a lot of bands do that, it is much easier to do that. Name me one band that blends screamo, hardcore, and hip hop either than this one. --GorillazFanAdam 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MySpace does license music by Hollywood Undead, see MySpace Records Volume One - Stoph 18:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bit of Googling and looking at the various sites with them has convinced me that they are indeed notable in their own way. Perhaps WP:MUSIC needs an update to take "Internet fame" more into account. TH 07:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Uh-oh, be careful with that. This particular band are, strictly speaking, non-notable by the rules of WP:MUSIC. Attempting to stretch the boundaries of those rules for one specific case will only make subsequent debates even harder to undertake. I thought the non-notable band argument had been sorted, but obviously not! doktorb | words 07:58, 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 no consensus (note that there's nothing stopping someone subsequently merging this, which was a fairly popular choice) Proto||type 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill[edit]

The article seems to be meaningless; it refers to an individual but there is little or no context given PaddyMatthews 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a joke article, like the similar article I found for Michael Hill (21st century composer) and nominated for deletion below. --Ataricodfish 03:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Weak delete My initial Google searches found nothing, although having read the below and now finding the Guiness Book note here [7], it's obviously not a joke article. That having been said, I still don't know if I consider it notable, despite the Guiness record, so my vote for delete remains, however weakly. --Ataricodfish 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- seems to be un-verifiable WP:V.--blue520 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PaddyMatthews & Tyrenius, and clean up (remove dessert reference).--blue520 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not convinced that the place for this is in an article of its own - it might make more sense to refer it in the articles on Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage case. PaddyMatthews 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point Merge into Penetrating head injury or the Phineas Gage as both have content (and positions) that are sutable.--blue520 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Penetrating head injury doesn't have the right tone to include it, and Phineas Gage is about a specific individual. I have put "See also" links between the articles, so anyone interested can get to the other pages. Now it is verified, it might be neater to leave things as they are. It was after all the lack of verification that was the initial problem. I've also removed "dessert", which seems to have been written in error. Tyrenius 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tyrenius, I'd lean more towards merging it into the Phineas Gage article myself. If you look at the Similar cases section of the Gage article, there are a series of cases there similar to Hill's. The most notable thing about Hill's case is the size of the knife; as far as I can see he's not any more notable in his own right (or as a medical phenomenon) than the other cases mentioned in the Gage article. PaddyMatthews 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I suppose notable as world record holder. I don't have a strong opinion either way on keep or merge. Tyrenius 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a different Michael Hill is a prominent NZ businessman and entreprenuer who deserves an article. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- must be a joke article :: Colin Keigher 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This article is about the dessert"? Obvious joke article. WarpstarRider 06:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. It now appears the subject of the article is a real person, not a joke. Even so, I'm still doubting the notability of the person himself, despite the world record. WarpstarRider 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slendidlydelicious 08:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a Google, there is verification of sorts : [8]. Whether the individual is worthy of an article for that alone is another matter. PaddyMatthews 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how the article is a "joke article", "nn" (not notable) and "unverifiable" when a google search for "Michael Hill" + knife, brings up as the second result Guinness World Records, which states:
Largest Object Removed From Human Skull
The largest object removed from a human skull is a 20.32-cm (8-inch) survival knife, which was plunged into the head of 41-year-old Michael Hill on April 25, 1998. Michael survived the ordeal and the next day astonished doctors by functioning normally, although it was soon clear the knife had caused permanent damage to his memory and paralyzed his left hand. Looking back on the nightmare, the father-of-one says, "I didn't feel the pain initially and it was only when I was at the hospital that it hit me and I felt like my eyes were bulging out. I know people in worse shape than me now and so I consider myself lucky."

The first google result will get you an X-ray of the knife in the skull. I suggest that before voting on AfD it would be beneficial to make some research first. It is not beneficial to Wiki to "guess" whether an article is true or not. Tyrenius 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, this is a good examply why WP:W point 2 & 3 are nessary. As for the "guessing", I did try Google (for example "Michael Hill" +attack +April 25, 1998) and seemed to cum up with nothing, which was one of the basis for my "seems to be un-verifiable" response. It just goes to show how the choice of target words can effect google.--blue520 16:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that it should have been WP:V.--blue520 04:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the search. Understandable that you thought it was unverifiable in that case. Tyrenius 17:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tyrenius. --Saforrest 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The debate stays open for one week. Bearcat 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When this article gets deleted please note that the creator moved the original "Michael Hill" article to "Michael Hill (Disambiguation)", so the disambig page can get moved back to where it belongs. Qutezuce 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved this article to a disambiguated title and moved the dab page back to the undisambiguated Michael Hill. I've also doublechecked; everything is correctly linked. Bearcat 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's in the Guinness Book of World Records, I'd be okay calling this a weak keep, although I can't particularly claim to be enthused about it. Bearcat 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he is a significant case in neuroscience, like Phineas Gage. It's a stub at the moment, but could be filled out more. Davidgauntlett 19:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment;why did you move the article back to the disambiguation,since there are only two cases where there is an article,its easier to direct michael hill to one article,then at the top of that article the link to the other,like i did,what do you think?

  • The rule on Wikipedia is that your approach would only be permissible if your Michael Hill could honestly be said to be significantly more notable than any other person of the same name with an article. Since that clearly isn't the case, your Michael Hill does not get the undisambiguated title "Michael Hill". Bearcat 21:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont mean nececerly this michael hill,but you couldnt apply it to the other michael hill either because there both not notable enough?192.30.202.14 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No...a disambiguation page at the main title is the appropriate solution in this kind of situation. Bearcat 01:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, the other Michael Hill article was deleted per its AfD nomination, so there's currently only this Michael Hill article active in Wikipedia. See here [9] for the AfD nomination showing delete. I have updated the disambig page to remove the composer link. --Ataricodfish 17:48, 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. Mailer Diablo 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Baumann[edit]

Appears to be a NN artist and the only entry by User:Alandbaumann. Yahoo! search for name locates approximately 100 pages including the Wiki articles and mirrors, see [10]. In my opinion, does not meet notibility Per WP:Bio, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field".--Ataricodfish 02:59, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hill (21st century composer)[edit]

Similar to the Michael Hill article mentioned above and nominated for deletion, article appears to admit to being NN and after a quick search on Yahoo, no listings of this composer could be located. Dates of birth / death in article give the appearance he died at age 14. Likely a joke article. --Ataricodfish 03:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete- I am aware of the group pish posh and there information can be easily located.Being that he died so young, it is hard to find information on the ninternet. They also were very esoteric and have more of a cult following than a mainstream internet one. I don't think's its fair he should be deletead just because you cant find information. If you cantact me i would be happy to direct you to the people closest to him and his family( who wn the irhgts to his hundreds of composistions and contributions from such a young age.
Comment Despite this, Hill remains nonnotible. I've tried several searches, including one for "Michael Hill" and "Pish-Posh" on Yahoo!, and obtain 5 hits, and only related to this article or completely unrelated [11]. As a musician, Hill does not qualify per WP:Music for inclusion in Wikipedia. As well, the article fails WP:V, since no information can be located to confirm the article. Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --Ataricodfish 03:27, 21 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. DS 16:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples[edit]

I really have no opinion on this article, but it has been called into question on its talk page, so I thought I'd put it up here to get some more opinions. (Ibaranoff24 03:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Who cares? Interracial couples are common. Why should we list them here like it's some kind of unusual or rare phenomenon for two people of different ethnicities to come together? GT 06:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Seriously. I can't put it any better than GT just did. Grandmasterka 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see this as completely racist to even list. :: Colin Keigher 07:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete racism or listcruft or... something. Some guy 07:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GT. --Tone 09:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But the accusation of racism is prima facie nonsense as it is mainly liberals who obsess about race nowadays. CalJW 10:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, what is wrong with interracial couples, this is racism. --Terence Ong 11:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see this as racist, who cares about interacial couples? --Differentgravy 12:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Racist and pointless, as others have said before me. Elrith 13:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbritary list, can be too large to maintain. --Eivindt@c 13:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Idiosyncratic and listfare --Knucmo2 14:50, 17 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, anon IP interventions notwithstanding, there's a strong consensus here. Proto||type 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People for Change[edit]

  • Delete nn political forum website. Alexa ranking of 683,268. [12] And, from the information given in the article, does not appear to meet any of the three WP:WEB criteria for notability of websites. Jersey Devil 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as above. :: Colin Keigher 07:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Delete request politically motivated , related to the Progressive Independent Article delete request. Amfortas 14:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why does every political site AfD have to be politically motivated, what ever happened to assume good faith? Anyway while the article is pretty well written the notability of the site in question is questionable. While it got to 8mil hits per day on 1 day in Feb it rarely gets any traffic in the last 6 months and was barely hitting 2m in Oct last year which was a Presidential election year where as a similar site was receiving 200mil per day in same time frame. Again as with all nn deletions if it becomes notable the article could be written then.--Tollwutig 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and because it is my goal to rid WP of all progressive topics. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like polispam Jordanmills 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just curious , what is the threshold for notabiliy ? I mean what if the alexa rating was 60,000 rather than than 600,000 , would it make a difference ?
  • Delete per nom Fishhead64 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These online games batting Wikipedia around like a child caught in an ugly divorce are ridiculous. As the site owner I really have no desire to be in Wikipedia if it's going to attract the various denizens of internet trollery who deem it necessary to remove anything anywhere not related to praising the Neocon movement.

God, put yourselves out of your misery and take the People for Change article down. It's not worth a thing one way or the other. Alexa the harlot , who will boost your rank if you advertise with her sponsors, is not really germane to anything. None of this is important, and to those of you who actually took the time and posted "delete", I fart in your general direction. Screw you, and your little internet games, you whiney douchebags! Sincerely Yours 70.32.164.21 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Mike Hickerson , owner, People for Change.[reply]

  • Delete Is that even a site? There seem to be 5 active users, and mostly petty posts. The entry is entirely misleading as to the nature of the site. If this entry still exists for historical reasons that would be fair, but then ALL verbs should be modified to be in the past tense (People For Change WAS this and that). Currently, there is nothing going on there of the sort described in the entry: this statement is objectively verifiable by anybody who cares to look. --FairGirl 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User's one and only contribution. That being said, while normally I know how I'd vote on this, the partisan meatpuppetry of the CU crowd's disgusted me enough to force an absention from me. RGTraynor 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the simple reason that it was good enough for 2 years and relevant to the Democratic Underground page. Our intent in mentioning this page in our comments was to show how partisan the fight over Progressive Independent had become. Both sites were created in protest of Democratic Underground's policies and attest to the disatisfaction of Progressives (properly filed under criticism). If some people here feel that neither PFC nor PI are notable, that's fine, but the criticism of DU remains and the fact that many people, (even though they're still carried on DU membership rosters), have left it to form other projects, remains. Both instances should be noted under the criticism paragraph of Democratic Underground because it IS criticism. And as in a printed encyclopedia, when a reference is made to a person, place, thing or organization, there should at least be a corresponding description, in my opinion. Otherwise you stem the flow of knowledge for which we rely on encyclopedias.
Wikipedia is about facts. Facts are that people die and statistics change but the notable events of the time remain notable. When approximately 1000 mostly Dean supporters abruptly left left DU in 2004, taking their pocketbooks with them, that was notable at the time- very notable.
Thank you --Tinoirel 4:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, this internet forum is not notable.--RWR8189 07:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, expect meatpuppets to fill up this afd with systematic keep votes as well. [13]--Jersey Devil 08:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for the reasons Tinoirel cited above). I also note that the constant references to "meatpuppets" are a clear violation of WP:CIV and possibly WP:NPA. Atlant 13:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" - Few political threads and zero references to Howard Dean on this site - description seems outdated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.145.158 (talk • contribs) .

Note: The above is 70.17.145.158's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 16:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AfD nom is politically motivated, a CYA response to defense of the Progressive Independent article. Moreover, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. 'Notable' is an artificial quality that can be created with enough money even absent any sort of real value at all. The advertising and public-relations industries make billions of dollars every year doing just that. (I would add to Atlant's comment, above, by noting that User:Jersey Devil's ascription of meatpuppetry is completely one-sided: his and other deletes are motivated by high-minded principle, but the keeps are nasty meatpuppetry. This is consistent with bad-faith political motivation, since it implies that persons urging keep are not stakeholders in the issue, but were merely recruited 'off the street' as it were.) Katzenjammer 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the shoe fits. Someone whose first edit is in an AfD is, in fact, being recruited off the street. RGTraynor 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe check your facts more closely before making such unsupported statements? I'd suggest starting with the definitional article about meatpuppets. Katzenjammer 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Obviously, contributors to this entry are people who are interested in the topic and read the Board in question. Why else would they care and how else would they know? The fact that one's first edit is in an AfD means nothing about where this someone comes from; it certainly does not imply recruitment off the street for disruptive purposes (statement, which, in itself borders WP:NPA ).
Could you clarify your meaning a bit so I know whether to jump up and down on you for it? :-) Katzenjammer 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's a startling series of assertions; do you genuinely believe that someone whose very first contribution to Wikipedia is in a AfD voting "KEEP!" (generally with an extremely passionate defense that makes no attempt to address or refute the reasons for the nomination) is in fact not invariably a supporter of the article launching in with the sole purpose of plumping up the totals? There's a honking big template sitting at the top of the page that seems to disagree with you. Whether they intend to be "disruptive," per se, I leave to the mindreaders and soothsayers, but it is unmistakable that their purpose is invariably to defend their article to the end -- or alternately, as in this particular case, fight those they perceive to be their "enemies" on every battleground they can find -- as opposed to dispassionately gauge whether the article satisfies Wikipedia rules and guidelines for inclusion. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see more Delete than Keep votes here, both by first time users. In my opinion, the "Delete" votes are more factual than the "Keep" votes, at least in this case. I agree, some of the "Keep" votes by first time users are quite passionate and kind of irrelevant. So, they are suspicious. But, not just because they are by a first time contributor.
  • Delete Complete mismatch between the content of the entry and that of the actual Board. Specifically, as it has been pointed out above, there is nothing about Howard Dean on the Board. At minimum, the entry should be updated to describe the Board as of 2006. PS: this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, like it is for many contributors on this page. --Shadowfrog 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, with editing: JerseyDevil, a DU member, has argued for the deletion of TWO articles about former DU splinter sites. There couldn't be a political motivation, here? Nahhhhh...and OF COURSE we must judge this RfD "objectively", no matter what the nefarious motivations of those arguing for deletion may be. Funny how Wikipedia mirrors real-life, with Democrats and Republicans collaborating to squelch dissent and alternate viewpoints. Well, as someone who was BANNED from People For Change and strongly disagrees with the political agenda of that site, let me state that although I do believe this article violates NPOV, reads like an ad, and is need of some serious editing, it should be kept. Unlike some people here I'm not gonna let my political bias or a petty grudge drive me to try to censor or silence articles that reference a website or organization I disagree with. The Progressive Independent article has already fallen victim to censorship egged on by vindictive and politically-motivated Wikipedia editors/users, it should not happen again. --Nicky Scarfo 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So ... stipulating that JerseyDevil is arguing for the deletion of this article solely out of political motivation (and that's presumably Wrong), it is therefore alright for you to argue for the retention of this article out of political motivation (and that's presumably principled and Right)? Hm, fair enough. RGTraynor 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, plus the little fact that I am not a DU member nor have I ever even edited the DU article (the only political forum I am a part of is Utopia-Politics which I list on my user page, it doesn't have an article here because it does not meet WP:WEB and thus is in fact by wikipedia standards not notable). Maybe it has to do with my deep hatred of people trying to use Wikipedia to promote their non-notable sites. You could easily prove me wrong, and show notability per web in the article forcing me to change my delete vote but you won't because your forum is not notable and thus you must come here (as a meatpuppet mind you) and smear other veterans users here who have earned their reputations by...you know, actually contributing to other articles.--Jersey Devil 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it simply doesn't meet WP:WEB. These claims of "politically motivated deletion" are a bit disingenuous in my opinion. If anyone can prove this meets WP:WEB, please do so, hit me on my talk page, and I will reconsider.--Isotope23 14:10, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 07:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDSB Gifted Program[edit]

Delete A municipal school district's gifted program doesn't seem overly notable to me. Objectivist-C 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it doesn't seem notable to me either. JIP | Talk 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I do not believe it is worthy of a mention here. Also, the article is poorly written. :: Colin Keigher 07:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Admrb♉ltz ( T | C | E ) 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but Rewrite (See Talk Page for details & comments)—G.He(Talk!) 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For such a vote, it is better expressed as keep and cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 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 keep improved version. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Currents[edit]

Vanity. Author (who has since been banned) created article on small local newspaper with practically no text about the paper, but uploaded images of three articles, about himself. If anyone can think of a speedy category that fits that would be great. Material is tied to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The Long Island Project. - Fan1967 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The pictures are ridiculous, and I've removed them. Despite the vanity motives involved in creating the article, we should judge the stub on its own merits. Gamaliel 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there enough of a stub left to justify an article? Local paper with a circulation of 75K seems iffy. Fan1967 04:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn has 2.5 million people. Seems possible. Gamaliel 04:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless expanded. Some guy 07:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete this looks like one of those newspapers you'd pick up from a restaurant to read over coffee. I see this as insignificant :: Colin Keigher 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flagging this stub out of spite for its creator is not necessary. It may be a free newspaper, but there are free newspapers listed across Wikipedia. This is not the only one. Katherine 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete article stub does not seem expandable and there seems to be no desire by the parties to expand. Strothra 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that it's not longer WP:VAIN, seems like a decent stub Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because its free doesn't mean its nn. As noted above, plenty of free newspapers with much lower print-runs have entries. Fishhead64 02:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, print run seems to work. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article appears to be headed in the right direction now. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen AMNew York on this website--and they have a similar run. Almost Famous 07:17, 19 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of terms specific to a single game. I put prod on this awhile ago and it was removed; time for a full AfD, then. Cyde Weys 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic gamecruft. JIP | Talk 05:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is more of a FAQ than an article :: Colin Keigher 06:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also didn't Eve hit that great zapper in the sky?--Tollwutig 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to MMOGChart.com it's gaining subscribers, actually (though from my own experience, it's not for everyone). At any rate, Delete this as above. -- Mithent 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about transwikiing it to Wikibooks, where game manuals and such can reside? Misza13 T C 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If World of Warcraft terminology is acceptable, I don't see why this isn't. Landeyda 07:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to contest the acceptability of World of Warcraft terminology. It seems like gamecruft to me. JIP | Talk 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Landeyda, but I wouldn't be adverse to moving both articles and any other similar ones to Wikibooks. Sadmachine14 14:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WoW has over 6 million subscribers (obviously anything made by blizzard means it's infinitely better than everything else, just ask a Korean), Eve doesn't. I don't particularly think Wikipedia should be a place for WoW slang, and Eve just isn't popular enough to warrant a gameguide dictionary. And I also dislike the dumping of random faq pages and strat guides to Wikibooks, I really don't think that was wikibook's original intention. - Hahnchen 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've only recently become interested (and engaged) in EVE, but I enjoy it; much more than say: World of Warcraft (which my wife plays) or Guild Wars (which a friend bought for me). That being said, this is not a qualifying article for Wikipedia (nor is World of Warcraft terminology for that matter, and whose deletion I would support) and would fall under "gamecruft" as JIP called it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:17, 23 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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (Thelema)[edit]

non-notable concept of fringe religion 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. 999 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument for keeping The Abyss (and it's spirital crossing) is a major concept in a global religion, and while certainly not mainstream, it has tens of thousands of adherents (if not more). The concept of the Abyss is a core theme of arguably the most notable occultist of the 20th century, Aleister Crowley. Moreover, the concept appears in many books, by Crowley as well as more recent authors. The Abyss represents a culmination of spiritual attainment, and the current stub is but a placeholder for a potentially rich and useful article that can bring further insight to a complex and growing religion. Give it a chance to grow before judging its merit. Ashami 06:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "religioncruft" and merge to Thelema. And are we allowed to remove the header of the previous comment? It's disrupting this AfD entry. Some guy 07:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm thinking it is ok to clean up attention-grabbing devices that disrupt the AfD page. Will act accordingly. Weregerbil 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17 This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. Weregerbil 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per my nom means: per my nomination. --Eivindt@c 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema. --Eivindt@c 13:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Since when is "fringe" an excuse to delete? What kind of discrimination is this? Somecallmetim 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The concept is significant not only in Thelema but also in some versions of the Kabbalah, where it divides the highest and most abstract manifestations of the Godhead from the lower and more concrete ones. A finished article should also mention Crowley's claim to have crossed the Abyss: in essence, Crowley announced his self-deification. Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema, and be sure to have a link to the related, but seperate, concept of the Abyss in Kaballah. Alba 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ashami. As this article was only created yesterday, I think it deserves some time to expand beyond its current state. Merge if it does not. --Joelmills 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Thelma article is large enough on it's own and since Wikipedia isn't paper, there is nothing wrong with having more information on it. Since Thelma is the basis of most modern occultism, it's pretty far from nn. That Thelema is a "Fringe religion" doesn't mean anything. Greek polytheism could also currently be considered a "fringe religion" but Greek mythology is still important from a historical perspective. Shadowoftime 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - to correct misrepresentation, Thelema is hardly the basis for "most moderrn occultism" - modern occultism is an extremely large topic, and there are many large, well-established occult organizations which are non-Thelemic, even anti-Thelemic. The second supporting argument is ill-conceived as well, but I will leave the reason for that as an exercise for the reader. :-) -999 15:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If major, well-established occult organizations consider themselves anti-Thelemic, that shows the influence of Thelema just as much as if they considered themselves pro-Thelemic. (why bother considering yourself anti-Thelemic if Thelema is just a non-notable fringe religion?) The question here is the verifiability and notablility of Thelema, not whether or not people like it. Shadowoftime 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - you like to mischaracterize people's positions, don't you? I never said that Thelema was non-notable. I believe that it is notable. It is the specific concepts that are not notable enough to have separate articles. They can all be described in the main article. -999 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and the actual topic (of the Abyss) is barely scratched upon by the current article text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I have created the Thelemic mysticism article, which includes the info in this article. Although I would like to see this article remain and become expanded, it would not be unreasonable to have it redirect to the new article. Ashami 23:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The Thelemic mysticism article is a good place for it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City of the Pyramids[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Who is to say what is fringe? Its my religion, then am I too fringe to be represented here? I think not. krishnahermes 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nom. 999 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: topic is both notable and Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Moreover, the "fringeness" of a religion is not a reason for deletion. Ashami 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT- To the Thelema page. TydeNet 06:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: topic is notable. Thelema is a recognized religion, large enough to have texts in multiple languages. This is one ref. to CoP; however, CoP is not strictly a Thelemic construct and therefore should not be merged. Cannot find any reason for deletion cited in Wikipedia AfD guide in THIS article. Clea023 07:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
At the moment, this new user's only edit is to this AfD. Weregerbil 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17
This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. Weregerbil 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "per my norm" is not what user 999 wrote. "Per my nom" is common shorthand on AfD pages for "for the reasons I stated in my nomination of this article for deletion." Barno 20:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Thelema. --Eivindt@c 13:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: CoP is a legit topic that deserves an article. Who gets to judge the importance of a topic like this? If it can be made into a legit article (which it already is), then it should stand. Issues like "fringe" and "non-notable" are discriminatory and have no place on Wikipedia. Somecallmetim 13:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema. --Terence Ong 15:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thelema, in agreement with Terence Ong Ekajati. Not everything having to do with a notable topic is itself so notable as to need an article, rather than a couple of sentences in the parent article. A redirect is enough to make the information available to users searching on this name rather than looking first under Thelema or Crowley. Barno 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per arguments above. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fringe but notable
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that important concepts of a notable religion deserve their own page, when they go beyond just a definition. --Joelmills 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and this is another topic not adequately covered by the existing text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I have created the Thelemic mysticism article, which includes the info in this article. Although I would like to see this article remain and become expanded, it would not be unreasonable to have it redirect to the new article. Ashami 23:23, 21 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Pan[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. 999 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: topic is both notable and Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Ashami 06:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a religion that is not notable :: Colin Keigher 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
  • Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Thelema is most certainly a notable religion. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17. This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. -999 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema, too many quote filled stubs in this semi walled garden. --Eivindt@c 13:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Non-notable? Fringe? Hogwash! Somecallmetim 13:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema. --Terence Ong 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thelema per TOng. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Thelema is pretty long already. What's wrong with creating a new article about an obscure concept of a notable philosophy? This article does not fit with the usual reasons given for deletion: it's not a dicdef, it's not original research, it's not POV, and it is verifiable. So the question is whether it's notable. I'm guessing it's notable to thelemites. We are talking about a religion, not a TV show, so it is encyclopedic. --Joelmills 02:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and this is another topic not adequately covered by the existing text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 2006
  • Keep or merge: I have created the Thelemic mysticism article, which includes the info in this article. Although I would like to see this article remain and become expanded, it would not be unreasonable to have it redirect to the new article. Ashami 23:22, 21 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon (Thelema)[edit]

non-notable concept of a fringe religion 999 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. 999 05:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There should be a section for "religioncruft". Danny Lilithborne 06:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: topic is both notable and Thelema is a recognized religion with tens of thousands of adherents. Moreover, the "fringeness" of a religion is not a reason for deletion. Ashami 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aleister Crowley's works were taking up a good amount of shelf space last time I visited a New Age/metaphysical bookstore. Granted, he only claimed to be the devil, but I'm still missing how part of the work of one of the great occultists of the last century, which has considerably influenced many new religious movements such as Wicca, can be seen as "non-notable". Kiti 07:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful article. 'Per my norm' is inadequate reason to delete anything. Daimonos 10am GMT April 17 This new user's only edits are to Thelema-related AfDs. -999 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he meant "per my nomination", as in what he stated immediately above. That aside, I voted keep. Jordanmills 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valuable well written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowatdawn (talk • contribs) This new user's first and only edit. -999 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Jesustrashcan 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This topic is a big deal in Thelema and it needs an article. Is someone trying to pick on Thelema? Bad form! Somecallmetim 13:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fringe, maybe, but a notable fringe religion, and a notable concept within that religion. Fan1967 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge to Thelema. The religion is significant enough to be encyclopedic, while the concepts within it may not be notable enough to merit separate articles and should be included in the main article, if at all. Ekajati 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thelema, for the same reasons as City of the Pyramids and other Crowleycruft. Notable only as part of this field of "knowledge substitute". Barno 15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thelema per Barno.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all these little stubs with Thelema. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fringe but useful Jordanmills 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per above. Fishhead64 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important concept of a notable religion/philosophy. Too big to merge. --Joelmills 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Thelema oreb 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Thelma article is large enough on it's own and since Wikipedia isn't paper, there is nothing wrong with having more information on it. Since Thelma is the basis of most modern occultism, it's pretty far from nn. That Thelema is a "Fringe religion" doesn't mean anything. Greek polytheism could also currently be considered a "fringe religion" but Greek mythology is still important from a historical perspective. Shadowoftime 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - to correct misrepresentation, Thelema is hardly the basis for "most moderrn occultism" - modern occultism is an extremely large topic, and there are many large, well-established occult organizations which are non-Thelemic, even anti-Thelemic. The second supporting argument is ill-conceived as well, but I will leave the reason for that as an exercise for the reader. :-) -999 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If major, well-established occult organizations consider themselves anti-Thelemic, that shows the influence of Thelema just as much as if they considered themselves pro-Thelemic. (why bother considering yourself anti-Thelemic if Thelema is just a non-notable fringe religion?) The question here is the verifiability and notablility of Thelema, not whether or not people like it. Shadowoftime 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - you like to mischaracterize people's positions, don't you? I never said that Thelema was non-notable. I believe that it is notable. It is the specific concepts that are not notable enough to have separate articles. They can all be described in the main article. -999 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, avoid merging, and expand The Thelema parent article is already pushing the boundaries of useful size, and this is another topic not adequately covered by the existing text. For similar odd once-stubbish articles about minor beliefs in fringe religions, see Kolob, or Xenu (the latter article eventually became a front page FA). Ronabop 05:35, 20 April 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 07:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetcricket[edit]

Alexa rank 286,156. Created and primarily written by Duffarama, a staff member, a violation of WP:VANITY and is also self-promotion (WP:NOT). Other staff members have also contributed. Nothing links here, short of a couple userpages. Loaded with crufty information. Articles have been created on team members, that have either been speedied or userfied. Prodded a couple days ago. The tag was removed by an anon, who only addressed a rather small concern, and none of the rest. Drat (Talk) 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete frankly, I don't think it is notable enough with only 10,000 members. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Where (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Where.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity adcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The members has been changed now to the updated 15000 members. What parts in particular do you deem as self promotional, the article on the history is unbiased.. 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley College Republicans[edit]

If the state-wide organization isn't notable enough for an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California College Republicans), then a local chapter certainly isn't. Calton | Talk 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would have voted "keep" for the statewide organization, but university-level organizations like this one are not inherently notable. Although being at an overwhelmingly liberal university adds a little quirk to it. Grandmasterka 06:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe they need to band together, for protection. --Calton | Talk 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything wrong with it. Checkerpaw 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Up until twenty hours ago this user has made only 7 edits.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn organisation. --Terence Ong 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with Grandmasterka—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn student group.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless they've made world headlines on their own, then add a mention on the University page. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm pretty sure there was an article a while ago about this group in The New Republic. (Supposedly they, along with the Patriot magazine that the article mentions, were at the forefront of a wave of young conservatives in America.) At any rate, I've heard of it indepedently, and I have no connection to Berkeley or College Republicans. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This particular group may have made some noise on campus but I don't think that makes them more worthy than other campus clubs. The College Republicans article could probably be expanded to include particular chapters that have done something extremely notable or are in the five largest in the country. Montco 23:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason for deletion given. For great justice. 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean other than the one I actually gave, no. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I meant that the one you gave was not good. The fact that a bad decision was made once does not mean another one has to be made. For great justice. 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other words, vague handwaving. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fishhead64 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable due to multiple media mentions. [14] [15] -badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Daily Cal is the campus newspaper, and the Berkeley Daily Planet is the local (free) daily). So technically media, but only within the city limits of Berkeley. --Calton | Talk 07:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn (and banal) student group. Catamorphism 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is nothing but a way to seek publicity for a nn group.Wfgiuliano 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and per Metro and Grandmaster. Joe 05:48, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James river assembly[edit]

This page is not acceptable as the church has no significance :: Colin Keigher 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Check edit history, the original nomination description was vandalised by the User:Macs417. This page should be watched carefully. Some guy 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This page is not acceptable as the church has no significance. :: Colin Keigher 06:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save- Links have been made to this article from other articles. Example: Andy Collins (radio). 01:04, April 17, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macs417 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment - Looks like the submitter decided to remove the AfD off of the article :: Colin Keigher 06:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looks like the deletion suggestor decided to remove the article before a deletion vote was even possible and the submitter had to repost the entire article. Michael Smith 01:40, April 17, 2006—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macs417 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Um... What are you talking about? Nom has only one edit to the page, to put the AfD notice there. Anyway, I don't think this is notable enough. If it expands to becoming a nationwide thing, or a widely recognized megachurch, I'll reconsider. Grandmasterka 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Note from the logs: 03:27, April 17, 2006 Slendidlydelicious (New user (Talk | contribs | block))
—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable church. Don't see adequate substantiation of why it is important politically. -- Samir (the scope) 13:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn church. --Terence Ong 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual churches are not inherently notable.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rasputin. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parishcruft. Fishhead64 02:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and rename James River Assembly of God (Ozark). In its current (07:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)) form, it's just advertising and out-of-context trivia, and the church and "I Love America" seem to only have the location in common. But theoretically the article could establish notability, so I think it's too soon to delete. Peter Grey 07:53, 18 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 redirected NSLE (T+C) at 06:30 UTC (2006-04-17)

Cyclone Monica[edit]

Non-notable cyclone, Australian Category 1, has not even made landfall; see this page for typical layout of non-notable cyclones in the region. This is just plainly superfluos. Delete. TydeNet 06:20, 17 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Design Automation, Inc.[edit]

Nothing notable here :: Colin Keigher 06:21, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Steinhice[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:22, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Windham[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. One of a series of recently created articles about obscure collegiate "quizbowl" participants for which several AfDs have been filed. RGTraynor 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this article appears to be just fluff :: Colin Keigher 06:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh this smacks of vanity. Nobody cares about what you do, doc, get a personal webpage! TydeNet 06:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity article. WP:NOT MySpace or Trivia Central. Only reason this doesn't qualify for speedy is the Carper award, which barely survived an afd itself as nn. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Catamorphism 02:20, 19 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. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MayDay Group[edit]

  • Delete: Advertisement for a nn group that does not meet WP:WEB. No assertion of notability, 21 Google hits, and no Alexa ranking. --Hetar 06:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significance in this article :: Colin Keigher 06:36, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works For Piano[edit]

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are certainly notable piano recordings, but no evidence is provided here as to why this is one of them - there must be hundreds of recordings more notable than this one. As an aside, Works for Piano is not a helpful title for this article. --RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agreed. A search for this CD will turn up 200,000 hits that will lead to other terms. This seems like a generic CD from the late 80's that you'd see in a bargain bin anyway. :: Colin Keigher 06:58, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KURSK[edit]

Google gets almost no relevant hits for this band. Delete unless notability is clearly established. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:26, 17 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. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ORION ERP[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 07:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Buddha Online Library[edit]

  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 this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

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 are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


Subject fails WP:WEB; article is largely an attack page Alphax τεχ 07:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the website has an Alexa rating of just below 100,000. The website seems to be of little significance and doesn't fit with Wikipedia's guidelines. :: Colin Keigher 07:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Slendidlydelicious 08:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The website itself is non-notable, and the wikipedia article about it seems like just a pretext for a rant. Jonas Silk 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ranttackycopviocruft and per nom —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 18:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment. (request for vote stacking removed) Buddhism's rotted masters cannot be left alone. Geir Smith 22:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article consists almost entirely of frothing attacks, and the Alexa rating around 100,000: clear delete. Geir, your opinions of the teachers named are not relevant; the question is whether ABOL meets WP:WEB, which it manifestly does not. bikeable (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV views of my wanting vote-stacking not receiveable; I'm on the contrary just making it known that this issue about ABOL is now adressed directly to the widely read ARBT newsgroup for judgement and will not be judged among some peer-pressuring insider-voting done by disciples of the teachers and fraudulent gurus that ABOL denounces. Know it. Geir Smith 07:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since, with the exception of me, everyone who has spoken up on the issue so far is a regular AFD patroller, <sarcasm>it is quite obvious that there is an organized movement to bring about the destruction of the religion.</sarcasm> What you have implied is that you are organizing a meat puppet army. Please note that this is not Votes for Deletion. It is based on community consensus. Random folks from some newsgroup are not the Wikipedia community and are not in a position to pass judgement. I don't even know what you mean by insider-voting. I will also note that if you are in favor of the ABOL, you might want to consider rewriting it so that the ABOL is cast in a good light. Or just leave the discussion and article alone since you clearly don't wish to give an opinion in the context of the debate.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article consists almost entirely of terrible POV attacks, the article itself is terribly written, and most importantly of all, it fails notability criteria. --Halloween jack 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. BTW, Geir, you're not helping this by leaving your propaganda messages in talk pages. I'd forgotten AFD patrol after a short wikiholiday, but you reminded me I had to get into it again. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Jonas Silk and others above. -999 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I personally find ABOL fascinating, and a valuable and interesting viewpoint, and a good resource -- However, I don't feel that its article, as it stands, fits in with WP's standards. Zero sharp 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mind you... Delete ALL T'ebay'tan guff - would get my vote. JulianLZB87 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC) -- vote cast by 172.143.96.154, and is that IP's only edit. User JulianLZB87 has no edits. bikeable (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • False, the person says he has been on Wiki since last year at least contributing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Sutra#External_links so that claim is just false and misinformed/ Actually the person must be a regular poster to Buddhsit articles just like all of you here. So, this is a case of fellows fighting together. Not my fight. This is yours seeing the same people that post for years are now pitching up and digging into ditches to fight it out facing each other on some front. I'm on no agenda. New kid in town. I'm just passing on the info to others, that's all. Geir Smith 21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABOL also is just passing on information and not POV. It's just about people with courtcases pending against them in Buddhist erroneous worlds. Geir Smith 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not using sock-puppets. I don't know this person myself. Geir Smith 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have blocked Geir Smith (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption of this process, attacking editors and spreading misinformation. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:27, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marks & Spencer locations[edit]

An unencyclopedic list of shops. Listcruft. kingboyk 08:04, 17 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 Speedy Delete by Geogre as G4 and vandalism, as the user moved it to user page and then reposted.. --Hetar 17:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworks The Homecenter[edit]

Blatant advertisement, deleted once before.. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 08:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is obvious as soon as you see "About Us." Consider having this locked so it cannot be created? :: Colin Keigher 08:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, it should be noted that this is not quite a recreation; the previously deleted article was in user namespace. --Nlu (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G4, The page was created in the talk page of user space where the previously deleted material was, then page moved to it current location.--blue520 09:04, 17 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 keep - definitely not a delete, may be a merge, but perhaps not since the rewrite. Proto||type 11:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

44 Scotland Street[edit]

This article has nothing of relevance. In fact, I have no idea what it is about. :: Colin Keigher 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is a novel, this article needs to be explained more in-depth. :: Colin Keigher 08:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've done some cleanup and removed what seemed to be unencyclopedic blurb. There's very little left, but it's a start. Robin Johnson 12:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a recent book (2005) of a living author with many published works. His wiki article is at Alexander McCall Smith. The book currently ranks about 2,500th on Amazon.com and 5,400th on Amazon.co.uk. I'm voting delete because there are thousands of books like this and they are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own article. Smith is not a "major" author, but he's notable enough to get an article and that's fine. But unless this book is a milestone in his career, (like 1984 would be for George Orwell), then I don't think it should get its own article. Slowmover 15:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to merge per others. That makes more sense. Slowmover 15:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Alexander McCall Smith. Some guy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am just starting out reading Alexander Mc Call stuff and this article really put me onto one intresting page turner! --Persis219 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to author article. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, agreeing with Killer Chihuahua. --Lockley 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, me too Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per KillerChihuahua. Peter Grey 07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, book published by very notable author, article might eventually be expanded, but even if it isn't an accurate stub with a link to the author's page is better than a redirect to the author's page (IMO, of course). Polotet 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the book has an interesting origin as a serial novel. I expanded the article to add this information and some external links. JohnWhitlock 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wasn't sure originally due to lack of content. But the expansion has been sufficient in tipping me over the fence. - Hahnchen 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think the re editing by John is informative. The article is a good source of reference for literature buffs and I think its definitely worth a keep Also, since articles are only put for deletion if they are complete nonsense and devoid of any use or if they are ephemer and therefore deletion of this article should be the last step. --Wildflower686 09:00, 25 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 Speedy delete (A7: Unremarkable people). TigerShark 12:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Naveed[edit]

NN person :: Colin Keigher 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) -- Re-added comment as author removed it :: Colin Keigher 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person, vanity to the highest extreme. Jesustrashcan 10:31, 17 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, if it's not verifiable, it really shouldn't be merged. Proto||type 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kallahkhel[edit]

The only source of information on this is Google and it links back to this article. :: Colin Keigher 08:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think Google is the ideal tool to establish the notability of a Pakistani clan; it is one of those subjects that can be notable without a strong English language internet presence. That said, it's a really very short stub so I think we should merge and redirect it to Niazi. It can be recreated later if there is more verifiable info. David Sneek 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. MaxSem 18:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn group, no assertion of notability - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:40, 23 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 per consensus of registered users. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Ross (conductor)[edit]

Dr Ross has impressive credentials and a promising future: however his accomplishments thus far do not merit a Wikipedia entry. The ensembles Dr Ross has conducted are all minor. As far as I can tell, none is a professional group, and none is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia entry (as of the time this article was listed for deletion). The article reads like a resume, which perhaps it is.

Interestingly, Dr Ross doesn't even seem to be the most distinguished orchestral conductor named James Ross: a Google search reveals another James Ross born in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied with Kurt Masur, Seiji Ozawa and Leonard Bernstein, conducted the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra and has a position at the University of Maryland, but no Wikipedia entry. Grover cleveland 09:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn conductor.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems ok - fits music criteria as placed in major music competition and international touring, plus plenty of publications and top on google86.133.23.9 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re "interational touring": the article mentions a list of countries where Ross conducted but has no references to back up the nature of these engagements -- he could have just been taking masterclasses/lessons or conducting local amateur groups. His publications don't qualify him for notability under WP:PROFTEST. Couldn't find out anything about the conducting competition via Google -- only hits were pages promoting Ross. Grover cleveland 15:39, 26 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary - I did so, so delete the article. --Celestianpower háblame 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scundered[edit]

Northen Ireland slang. Very small websearch results Dangherous 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other - move to Wiktionary; dicdef. Elrith 12:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - move to Wiktionary - Kittybrewster 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki To Wikiionary Aeon 06:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki agree with other users that a move to Wiktionary is needed. FloNight talk 11:05, 26 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 Proto||type 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tank commander[edit]

unuseful stub, prod tag was removed as well as wikictionary tag Melaen 12:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as "A+B = B+A" dictdef, nothing more. If wiktionary want it, they can have it, but get it out of here. -- Saberwyn 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary already has it. Neier 13:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary has never had it actually. --Dangherous 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. This and Skid marks both crossed my watchlist this morning. I got the two of them confused when I saw the Afd. Still think they both should be deleted though. Neier 14:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete esentially worthless dicdef.Some guy 17:36, 17 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. A close one, but consensus seems to be that this is not notable enough for a standalone article. However, it was a close call between deletion and relisting (or closing as no consensus), so the poor article quality swung it. I have no objections to recreation at any time if a better article explaining why this branch is notable is written. kingboyk 11:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Queensland Branch Pauline Hanson's One Nation New South Wales Division[edit]

POV fork. In itself this organisation is not notable. Delete and redirect to Pauline Hanson's One Nation RicDod 13:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody on Earth will search for that title, Delete no real need for redirect. --Eivindt@c 14:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comment.This article has a number of problems. Firstly, it has verifiability problems given that the sources consist of minutes of the Branch meetings and no sources outside One Nation are cited. Secondly, notability given that individual branches of political parties are generally not notable. Thirdly, this appears to have problems with WP:NPOV given that it is written and authorised by a party official. Lastly, it may well be a copyvio. No redirect as noone would look for One Nation under that name. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see A. Y. Artos's comments below. Delete vote changed. If it is more substantial than a branch and there is verifiable evidence for it such as Electoral Commission registration or some independent verification such as third party media reports then it might be worth keeping and renaming.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think it should be redirected to Pauline Hanson's One Nation which we say ceased t exist from 2005. It seems to be new as it claims to have been formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. Needs to be verified as registered.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename: From the electoral commission site: "Application by Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) to change its registered Party Name and Party Abbreviation" was refused June 2005.[16] There is however One Nation Queensland Division which was registered on 22 April 2005.[17] This is a separate party to Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Article should be kept and renamed. I think, ironically, it is not clear if One Nation is indeed one national party or a series of separate state entities. For example, if you look at those who objected to the renaming of the NSW branch you will find it is their One Nation colleagues in WA who did not want any confusion. Accordingly I support keeping a state branch article - this is not quite the same as an individual branch as per comments by User:Capitalistroadster. I agree it may well be a copyvio but I did not find evidence of that when I searched.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I might be confused and it might be a Queensland branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) which wasn't allowed to change its name in June and thus a separate entity to the Queensland One Nation mob registered in April last year. Still should be kept on the grounds of notable wierdness. Next election, state or federal, it will be useful information if wikified, verified and otherwise improved.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I am inclined to think that the NSW Division might deserve a page as a separately registered and separately operating political party which has had members in parliament. Info on Queensland branches should be included there (or all of it included at Pauline Hanson's One Nation, but I don't see that this branch is significant enough for it's own article. JPD (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Taking the article at face value - and it does need to be verified - and lining it up against the Australian Electoral Commission's reports of registrations and name change refusals, it would seem that there are now two One Nation parties.
This article states: "Was formed in Ipswich Queensland on the 11th of April 2005. The branch was the second in a growing list of New South Wales division branches to form in Queensland. The first Queensland branch of New South wales division of P.H.O.N was Darling Downs/Locyer Branch which was formed in January of the same year."
The AEC registered a Qld One Nation Branch on 22 April. In June the AEC refused to change the name of the NSW Branch of Pauline Hanson's One Nation - the objection to the name change coming from the WA Branch of One Nation. In Qld therefore we have branches of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and One Nation - the former party being only registered in NSW but having branches in Qld.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing worthwhile or salvageable in this article, which seems as though it were copied from an obscure pamphlet. Besides which, in all instances the party is dead or dying; consequently, a "branch" or "division" of it scarcely warrants its own article.--cj | talk 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I am not sure that wishful thinking that something is dead or dying is a reason for deletion. I can find no evidence of a web based copyvio, although I agree it may have been copied. However,it doesn't appear quite fluent enough for any publication, even a pamphlet with dot points that have been compressed. Salvaging might take some work and one would have to muster up the enthusiasm and the Reliable sources.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't my reason for voting delete. My stance is that a branch or division of PHON does not warrant its own article - not even the major parties have separate articles for state divisions. Ultimately, however, I can see nothing in the article that is worthy of publication.--cj | talk 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 02:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the information (while poorly written) is interesting in explaining the machinations of One Nation politics, surely the One Nation article can include a paragraph on the goings on explained here, rather than a whole new article. --Roisterer 14:11, 20 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danys[edit]

Meaningless pseudo-religious nonsense, unsourced or verified.--Zxcvbnm 13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could be referring to Danys Baez the relif pitcher for the Dodgers, but I don't think he's that good... Gwernol 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete also wrong gender to be Baez... nn, or, neo-religious, unverifiable, unencyclopedic cruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 04:57, 18 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glaswegian Postman[edit]

Another made up phrase. Zero hits on Google. Zero hits on MSN Search. A single hit on Yahoo Search that is referring to something else. OR. Delete AlistairMcMillan 14:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, WP:NFT. Gwernol 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-notable and not verifiable. --Lockley 21:54, 17 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 Proto||type 11:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badock Hall[edit]

It's a dorm. There are no sources, and no indication of significance. It's already mentioned in University_of_Bristol, which I think is an appropriate level of detail. Thus, I suggest deletion rather than merging, since the relevant info already exists elsewhere. Friday (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, individual Uni halls are surely not worth their own articles. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless something notable can be said about this individual dorm. Note that there has been previous discussion of a Bristol University dorm at University Hall (Bristol). — Rebelguys2 talk 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T delete - surely it should be expanded to contain more information for potential applicants to the hall? Each hall of residence is different so should contain its own article. Benbristol 13.06 18th April, '06
  • We're not trying to replace housing brochures. Each blade of grass in my yard is different too, but there's nothing encyclopedic to be said about them individually. Wikipedia is not a phone book, so just because something has an address doesn't automatically get it included. If you want to know what happens when dorm articles get expanded, check out the mess at Odell Residence Hall, Lewis & Clark College. Friday (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously your example is a ludicrous one and one that must be edited/abridged, etc. But I don't see that each hall of residence has to have its articles deleted. It isn't just 'something with an address' - I still vote for expansion. Benbristol 16.12 19th April, '06 (GMT)
  • I'm at this Uni, and so I'm not goint to notvote on the issue at hand. However, I'd suggest that if you want it to stay 'deleted' that you make it into a redirect back to the Uni article. Otherwise, it will spring back into life before long. If there are multiple Badock Halls in the world, we can deal with the disambiguation when we find them. -Splashtalk 14:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would generally tend to agree. The main reason this is on Afd is the redirect I did previously was already reverted. This doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention from experienced editors, so I thought Afd might help. Also, I'm hoping to propagate the general opinion that simply being a building isn't enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, among people who participate in Afd. Friday (talk) 14:09, 21 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, with a recommendation to use PROD for these sort of nominations in the future. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravestar[edit]

Either delete or redirect to rave culture. Dangherous 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and does not seem notable. PJM 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki. Colonel Tom 01:07, 26 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 keep. While it may have copyright issues, those are not settled here, where the consensus is clearly keep. Turnstep 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management[edit]

pure advertisement text (reads like a brochure MaxE 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete || we,we,we,...

"The personal, almost family-like atmosphere at the School is characterised by the fascination and commitment of everyone involved." this is not wiki MaxE 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its a real educational facility, judging from the number of Ghits. Have stripped it down to a bare stub. Jcuk 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, the subject is verifiable. Bahn Mi 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, see [18]. School may deserve an article but this is not it. Accurizer 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a highly notable business school, ranked at the top of the list in Germany. This nom is akin to filing a AfD on the Harvard Business School. [19] Two minutes of research, folks. RGTraynor 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take exception to the above comment. I performed research before voting; this article is a copy and paste from a copyrighted website. I provided the link for others to follow. Accurizer 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is grounds for cleanup, not for deletion. Worst comes to worst, a copyvio tag should have been placed. RGTraynor 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep obvious. Sorry, nominator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per reasons above. PJM 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it as a copyvio and blanked the article, but the subject is obviously worthy of an article. Just not a copyright-violating one. Keep any new version. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:48 UTC
  • Keep and cleanup the cut&paste from the school. Restore the info box and just leave a stub. School is certainly notable. Kuru talk 21:51, 25 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. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantified Marketing Group[edit]

Advert for a company Edward 14:37, 17 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 keep. This does seem more of a content dispute than anything else, but the fact that this it is a name used at least somewhat commonly in India rules out a complete delete. Of interest is the fact that the word "Gurunath" does not even appear on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page, which certainly does not help the argument that the Gurunath article should be about the word coinage claim. The page will be kept, but primarily to mention the use as an Indian name. The other section should be removed, or put at the bottom of the page *after* it is at least mentioned (and referenced) on the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page. Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurunath[edit]

Insufficient notability with respect to content. There are between 4 and 50 google hits when you search for "shri gurudev mahendranath" and "gurunath" or "mahendranath" and "gurunath". Most of these don't even apply to the content. Whereas "Gurunath" alone gets almost 52,000 hits, since it is a common name in India. The individual who gets the most hits (1,140) for "gurunath" is "yogiraj gurunath". I suggest deleting this article and redirecting link to his article. Hamsacharya dan 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - nominator has made it clear below that this is actually a content dispute. He is also guilty of harrassment, having stalked me to this article in retaliation and in an attempt to intimidate with respect to a content dispute in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ---Baba Louis 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Who was the first person to even edit a Gurunath page? I suggest you look before indulging in accusations. If anything I would point to the reverse scenario. Hamsacharya dan 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - you were. And because it was an inappropriate redirect, it was listed on Redirects for Deletion, and is in the March archives [20]. The result of the nomination was "Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title." which was done by your old friend Adityanath... Here's a copy of the archived entry:
The nominated redirect was speedily kept as the nomination was withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gurunath → Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath -- Gurunath is a title used by people other than the redirect subject. For example, the current leader of my lineage is Shri Gurunath Kapilnath. Adityanath 12:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Rather than deleting, edit into a description of the title. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment This doesn't address the topic of this AfD, which is the issue of notability. Google hits for Gurunath consist of 50,000 given names, titles, and religious proclamations. The only individual that gets more than a few Ghits for Gurunath is Yogiraj Gurunath. Wikipedia has already deemed twice (based on two AfD's - you and I both attempted at different times to have Yogiraj Gurunath page deleted) that he is notable enough to keep on wikipedia. I don't think "Gurunath" by itself has any use to be on wikipedia. So either the page should be deleted, or it should be a simple redirect to Yogiraj Gurunath. Also don't forget that until proven otherwise, you are still a confirmed sockpuppet of Adityanath per wp:rfcu.. Hamsacharya dan 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the word is a title and not a name, it would be inappropriate to redirect to any one individual. User:Hamsacharya dan is a student of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath who is trying to inappropriately promote his guru on WP. In point of fact, his guru is no more prominent than Shri Mahendranath. "gurudev mahendranath" gets 920 Ghits [21] and "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath" actually gets a few less, 910 Ghits [22]. Surely if it is true that the use of the word as a title predated Shri Mahendranath, it must be listed in a dictionary or two which can be cited. Other editors have provided no cites, only anecdotes. ---Baba Louis 15:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Question: What do you think the word "Gurunath" means? Guru + Nath = Spiritual teacher + Irradiant Lord . These are ancient words that come from an ancient spiritual/religious context. Isn't that how we often name our children in the west - based on religious or biblical connotations? Well it's no different in the East. That why the word Gurunath came to be used to name children in India. Isn't that obvious? Not the other way around - Mahendranath didn't take a "given name" and turn it into a religious title. That's ludicrous and probably unprecedented. It's like saying "You have achieved a great spiritual stature. I now bestow the title of 'Jimmy' on you." Maybe in Wikipedia getting a title of "Jimbo" might mean something great...but that's neither here nor there. The term Gurunath has been used as a title for saints and avatars for thousands of years. "Bolo Sri Sat Gurunath Maharaj Ki Jai" is a proclamation that is perhaps millenia old. Here are some refs to appease the skeptics: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29] [30] [31] [32] Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what's obvious is that if it was previously used as a title, it would have a dictionary entry or academic reference. Feel free to visit the library. I've looked myself, but didn't find one. ---Baba Louis 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - and it still doesn't have one, even AFTER Mahendranath. So that tells us absolutely nothing. Compounded with the fact that most sanskrit texts have never been translated. Hamsacharya dan 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - it doesn't really matter, does it, whether Gurunath is a name or a title, you cannot redirect it to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. As a title, it has been given to other documented individuals. As a name, it is the name of numerous individuals. Would you redirect "John" to some individual named John who happens to currently have more Google hits than any other John? You are not making sense. This AfD is a bad faith effort to delete this article only so you can make an inappropriate redirect. I suggest you withdraw it. ---Baba Louis 17:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - whether they decide to redirect it is up to the voters. It was just a suggestion, which I feel to be a valid one. Hamsacharya dan 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - nomination is clearly in bad faith. -999 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just because one cannot find references in libraries or the Internet doesn't mean it cannot be apart of a living, breathing tradition. For example, buying a Lonely Planet book on India will give some information about local customs and sayings that one wouldn't necessarily find in a formal publication. Also, there are some publications that are either out of print or very hard to track down - further still remember that India is one of the biggest publishers of books...the wealth of literary gems found there beggars belief when one takes time out to look for things (again some translations not always being available in English). The religious tradition in India is VAST. It is impossible to have it all readily available for us all that are information or reference hungry. Also, it takes alot more than taking a short visit or googling and then thinking one knows India (and Her manifold religious traditions) inside/out in actual fact. 86.10.229.248 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]
    • comment - Please note this is a delete vote. User has forgotten to clearly embolden the delete nomination. Hamsacharya dan 05:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks for reminding me to embolden Hamsacharya Dan!86.10.229.248Shaninath[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, but without a reference any such information cannot be included in Wikipedia due to the no original research rule. This article cites the necessary documentation and thus is acceptable. According to WP rules, if you would like to include additional uses of the word, you simply need to provide a reference. The onus for providing a reference falls on the editor wanting to include the information. —Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shaninath (86.10.229.248) and Redirect per Hamsacharya Dan - This article only has notability in the same way the word John has notability - a generalized word will have plenty of google hits, but wont merit an encyclopedic entry in and of itself. That's why Ghits don't tell you everything. Kalagni Nath 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obscure, but well-documented from primary sources. Also, since it has been stated to be a common name and surname in India, it should not be redirected to a specific individual even if the existing article is deleted. -Ekajati 22:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason to delete. —Hanuman Das 00:59, 25 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 - Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayCork[edit]

Non-notable website.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a little too specific an audience to be notable. --Bachrach44 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:06, 25 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 keep. No Guru 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Who's Back[edit]

{{prod}} removed by anon Computerjoe's talk 15:18, 17 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 no consensus. There would just barely be a consensus to redirect, counting FreplySpang's "Redirect or Delete" vote as "Redirect" since no one else voted to delete, but there is also some indication the article was cleaned up in response to one or two redirect votes. Of course, anyone is free to redirect or merge it, provided there's no consensus against that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Religion[edit]

WP:NOR Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jedi census phenomenon, as Jedi religion already does. Or just delete it. FreplySpang (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather redirect to Jedi, which deals with the "religious" aspects of Jedi (which Jedi census phenomenon does not). —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 @ 01:55 UTC
  • As much as this pains me... there are enough people taking this seriously to (cringe) Keep it as is. The sci-fi aspects of Jedi don't touch on any current real world interpretations, that I see, and the census phenomena really doesn't address anything about the actual adherents' philosophy or religious views. It's probably notable enough in comparison to say Discordianism or Church of the Subgenius, or all the people who take being Klingon really seriously. Georgewilliamherbert 06:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jedi. Also, the "news articles" section seems to be copied and pasted from the articles themselves, which means it's probably a copyvio. BryanG 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've removed the copy'n'pasting and requested that sources be referenced appropriately. Heycos 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jedi per above. — Deckiller 22:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Use the force, Luke! -999 04:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While the Jedi article discusses Jedi philosophy, it doesn't really cover the Jedi religion as actually practiced on present-day Earth. And even excluding the Jedi census phenomenon, there appears to be a small number of people who actually genuinely believe in the Jedi philosophy. The question is whether this number is large enough as to be non-trivial. -- wacko2 05:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, redirect to Jedi. Weirdy 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jedi census phenomenon, which has the information that people landing on this page are most likely to be looking for. TH 07:13, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic flight 815 website[edit]

  • Delete. The info on this "official" website is there for fans, and consists completely of teasers, potential red herrings, easter eggs. Fancruft by definition, and not notable. PKtm 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert its notability. Wikipedia articles should not be about a single promotional site, no matter how interesting to fans. --LeflymanTalk 17:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an official ABC website & thus official for the series Lost. I would prefer that the article was merged into an article about all of the official US Lost websites, each detailing the Easter Eggs, trailers, etc in each website. I discovered this website through wikipedia, I feel it should stay on there - Shaft121 17:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be an official ABC website, but that does not mean that it requires its very own encyclopedia article! There are literally dozens of websites that detail all the easter eggs and trivia and websites of Lost - Wikipedia is not the place for that. Danflave 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I feel that it should be as it is a perfect example of synergy within the media & therefore a fantastic encyclopaedic resource. As a media studies teacher I know that synergy is taught every single year & several of my students this year have chosen Lost. I'm sure this number will increase in the future - Shaft121 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable; Wikipedia is not a source for indiscriminate information. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Jordanmills 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I watch the show, but I'm at a loss to explain why Wikipedia should have an article on this. --C S (Talk) 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa says this site rates at 111,500 and falling. According to Google, [147 unique sites link to this webpage, the majority of which appear to be weblogs. An external link in the main Lost article is provided to this site. In my opinion, this is all we need. -- Saberwyn 03:42, 18 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Baker[edit]

Vanity article consisting of text copied from non-notable subject's website and written by Russ Baker. [36] Tomstoner 15:25, 17 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 speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 17:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shatnermosism[edit]

I'm speechless...... well-thought-out and entirely bogus. WP:BJAODN a must, but delete it from article space. FreplySpang (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While perhaps not the most widespread religion, still contains a group of legally ordained Ministers under the Universal Life Church. No reason to delete this article. wentwj Founder of Religion, writer of article Shatnermosism —The preceding kind of unsigned comment was added by Wentwj (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete everyone knows that Raptor Jesus was not the real get. Kotepho 16:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Raptor Jesus mentioned in the religion is entirely unreleated from the raptor jesus I have just now become aware of. There are no photoshoped pictures, no mocking of the historical jesus. Simply a seperate, Raptor Jesus. --Wentwj 16:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be a supporter of Shatnermoism and feel that this article should not be persecuted against simply because its a small religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.21.243 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, preposterous. Punkmorten 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a legally ordained minister of the ULC as well, but that doesn't mean anything significant. It takes (quite literally) two minutes on their web page to be ordained. Delete a non-religion. Zetawoof(ζ)
  • Zetawoof is more charitable than I am. Delete as complete rubbish. Montco 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty sure this was written by William Shatner. Fishhead64 02:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Chuck Norris...is inherently inferior to both Shatner and Stamos gives it away as a hoax. Peter Grey 07:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Please, Jack Bauer could kill Chuck Norris just by sheer will. Roodog2k 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a devout Shatnermosist, I find it insulting that simply because my religion's beliefs seem far-fetched to some (no more far-fetched than the beliefs held by Christians, in my opinion) and that our following is small and our organization new, that you denounce my faith as some sort of cheap joke. 68.117.100.37 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, {{db-club}}, tagged as such and BJAODN. --Rory096(block) 16:27, 19 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, Afd vote was vandalized

Delia Associates[edit]

advertisement Aleph4 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article says that the company has 7 people, and google gives only 168 unique google hits. nn Where (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant spam Jordanmills 22:25, 17 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. Angr (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen W. Linzmayer[edit]

The topic does not appear to be noteworthy or encyclopedic. While it is about a published author, the article does not establish importance and has the tone of a vanity page. Dpv 16:10, 17 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 raise on RfD. —Whouk (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me[edit]

This recently created redirect page redirects to Pardon (as a legal notion) which has little to do with colloquial expression Pardon me. Alexei Kouprianov 16:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this belongs on WP:RfD rather than AfD. —Whouk (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I did not know that RFD exists. What I am to do now? Nominate it for RFD? Alexei Kouprianov 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :-) Longer response on your talk page. —Whouk (talk) 17:23, 17 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 raise on RfD. —Whouk (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me[edit]

This recently created redirect page redirects to Pardon (as a legal notion) which has little to do with colloquial expression Excuse me. Alexei Kouprianov 16:32, 17 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 with no prejudice towards future pages asserting both notability and verifiability. Turnstep 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Yraola[edit]

Person not at all notable. Possible vanity page. iKato 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor actor in a TV show [37]; does not deserve his own article Where (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not properly sourced and the subject does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 21:05, 25 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 as a copyvio. While this is a school and thus not applicable to either WP:BIO or WP:VANITY, the page is a total copy of the URL given below by User:Where. It's certainly welcome to come back in a non-copyvio, referenced, and hopefully cleaned-up format, but it currently has been a direct copy of the external website since March, with a single change made to hyperlink the name of the school back to its homepage. Turnstep 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela de Nuestra Señora de La Salette[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. Article seems to be about a principal of a Spanish school. Only 16 unique Google results [38]--TBC??? ??? ??? 16:43, 17 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. Leaving aside the self-promotion angle, the site is still clearly non-notable and fails WP:WEB. A local college award and a local newspaper writeup are just not enough to redeem what is ultimately a very small forum. Turnstep 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo with sprinkles[edit]

WP:WEB Non-notable web site, as article admits. John Nagle 17:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. The article even says The site is operated on a very local level, with almost all of its members and visitors living in or near north Iowa, most of whom are friends of either Norris or Brunsvold. But a "prod" tag has been deleted twice, without any other changes to the article, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For future reference, {{prod}} should not be replaced on an article once anyone removes it, per WP:PROD. Vslashg (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 103 users on the forums; not notable enough Where (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nagle's comments above. --Elkman - (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --BillC 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and John Nagel. --Lockley 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and no Alexa rank. Vslashg (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Newton465's comments on the discussion page: HWS has won awards. It is notable. I am waiting on HoodedGnome to add to the artical about the awards we have won because I don't want to incorrectly state them. - Newton465--TwoThumbsDown 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comment: HWS is a great friendly place to post about anything. It has been gaining in popularity all over, not just in Iowa as article "suggested." Kolten27 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that I'm no sockpuppet, John. I am the same "TwoThumbsDown" mentioned in the article. While it is true I created this account to defend this article, I have contributed to Wikipedia anonymously before. I ask that any deliberations concerning the deletion wait until proof of notability comes in, as indicated by Newton465 above.--TwoThumbsDown 22:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what the big deal is about deleting it. We are trying to grow out and become more known and grow in the Halo community. We are starting to get a good idea of where we are headed, manly in the creation of our own Machinima movies, but not limited to that. Right now our forum members don't understand what the big deal is about deleting the artical. This would only help our growth. And thats what we are striving to do. Grow. And to be clear, TwoThumbsDown is no sockpuppet, and neither is Kolten27. They maybe the trouble makers of the HWS Forums, but us three are the most technology minded in general and knolegable about Wikipedia. They would never do anything distructive or without having a good reason to on this site. =Newton465 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you want to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, and that's strongly discouraged. Web sites only get into Wikipedia after they become notable. Otherwise, every website on the web would have an article. Also, writing an article about yourself or your own stuff is generally discouraged. Have you read WP:WEB and WP:VAIN? Those will make things clearer. It's not just you; about a thousand articles a day are thrown out of Wikipedia. --John Nagle 02:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So becuase we are memebers of the forums, it means that we are making the article about ourselves? Let me remind you that TwoThumbsDown and I are NOT moderators of the forums (refer to article which is in question) and that the both of us have done most, if not all, the editing to this article. Therefore, we did not make it about ourselves. This article is also NOT an advertisment for the forums. All information included is imformational and nothing is said about why, how even how to join. Kolten27 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concerns about the advertising, John. A sticky situation indeed. I've read WP:WEB, and I would like to note that Brunsvold (referred to as "HoodedGnome" above), the one responsible for the creation of the website in question has indeed won an award (in his case, from a local college) and recieved recognition from a local newspaper as a result. Once again, I request some patience from all of us so that Brunsvold can sort this out. Thanks for being this patient with us for this long, anyway. It is our fault for not noticing this criteria before. If we are unable to provide proof of notability soon then the proposal for deletion is justified, in my view at least. I am also curious as to what we can do to clean up this article in the meantime to remove any self-promotion that you may notice.--TwoThumbsDown 03:28, 19 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 (with a recommendation to use WP:PROD in the future) — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AradorMUSH[edit]

  • Delete: Another nn MUSH (online game). 450 Google hits, and Top Mud Sites says they only have an average of 11-15 players online. [40] They are listed as being defunct at TMC. [41] --Hetar 17:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN gamecruft too :: Colin Keigher 18:24, 17 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. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RivaMUSH[edit]

  • Delete: Another nn MUSH (online game). Alexa ranking of 6,001,875. 177 Google hits. Ranked #873 at The Mud Connector and listed there as having under 10 players online. --Hetar 17:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN game. gamecruft :: Colin Keigher 18:24, 17 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 CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emilé Wordsworth[edit]

Looks like pure vanity. 9 Google hits. Punkmorten 18:07, 17 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 Transwiki Kotepho 07:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tongue-twisters[edit]

This is a massive and very interesting list of tongue-twisters in numerous languages. Unfortunately, I believe this isn't suitable material for an encyclopedia, for the following reasons:

  • It keeps expanding forever.
  • Most of the tongue-twisters are unverifyable and some may have been invented by the authors.
  • A lot of the content isn't really tongue twisters, but other linguistic peculiarities (such as long strings of consonants or vowels in words, phrases made out of homonyms etc).
  • Most importantly, the topic itself is unencyclopedic. Only a few examples would be required to illustrate the concept of a tongue-twister, Wikipedia needn't host a database of them.

Of course, I wouldn't want such a great list to be completely deleted. Maybe Wikibooks would host it, or some other way could be found to keep it online and editable.

Rain74 18:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikibooks Where (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. I see no indication of mass, though. Jordanmills 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. Haikupoet 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Because...
    • Wikipedia is not paper
    • Not sure you can verify a toungue-twister. Its seems akin to verifying that the sky is up. It isn't like there is an official United Tongue Twister Board of America or something. It is the most arguable point of deletion, though.
    • Just because some of the article needs to go, doesn't mean the WHOLE article has to go...
    • If a List of Tongue Twisters is encyclopedic, then so are 95% of all the list categories.

Roodog2k 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or transwiki.
    • Not sure you can verify a toungue-twister. a toungue-twister can be made by anyone does not need to be verified
    • Just because some of the article needs to go, doesn't mean the WHOLE article has to go...
    • A List of Tongue Twisters is encyclopedic.
  • Comment: we have deleted similar lists before, such as lists of jokes. Also, the very fact that tongue-twisters are unverifyable, pointed out by previous users, is an argument for deletion in my opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to explain the concept of a tongue-twister (in the article Tongue-twister) and perhaps provide a few examples to illustrate subject, not list every tongue-twister in existance. Rain74 16:41, 26 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 Keep (but you might want to look at merging it, or do what I did with KLF Communications and have the main discography and a section on the vanity label in one article. The article as it stands is not of the best quality.) kingboyk 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Funk Entertainment[edit]

171 hits on Google, a Yahoo! page, and nothing else (no domain, no nothing). NN :: Colin Keigher 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. And so what? it doesn't matter how many hits come up, but that it produced platinum albums. See Warren G. If you type "Bla Bla Records" in Googlefight it'll displays 1,410,000 (!) results. Try it! Then write an article on Bla Bla... Lajbi 19:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Warren G. The record label doesn't seem to have much significance beyond him though. --BillC 20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the essence of Vanity labels. Though it has released albums for the other artists of its roster. Lajbi 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discography with Billboard chart positions completed. Is it still non-notable??? Lajbi 20:00, 19 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. The two "keep" votes also way "but turn into a list". However, this is already turned into a list: Category:Radio broadcasting companies of the United States. There are no votes to keep the actual article content, so deletion is justified on these grounds. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio broadcasting companies of the United States[edit]

This is not a list. The article text is major portions of text from existing articles. Not anywhere complete, the article is already larger then desired at 44K. Not one has offered a response to a question about keeping the article after the question was posed 3 months ago on the talk page. Vegaswikian 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Why not just use categories for such organization? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim drastically. Way overstuffed for a list, but a useful list nevertheless. Haikupoet 01:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but listify per Haikupoet. -- Saberwyn 03:36, 18 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 Smerge Kotepho 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Amateurs of Canada Youth Education Program[edit]

NN. This could also be suggested that gets merged into Radio Amateurs of Canada instead. :: Colin Keigher 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to contact this user, Colin Keigher, as his own page does not have an email address to which I can direct queries;

The reason I wish to query is why he would put a deletion flag on this information. Yes it could be incorporated into the Radio Amateurs of Canada page; but the information is rather detailed, and many Wikipedia users might not know to go to Radio Amateurs of Canada; nor that the youth education program is hosted by RAC; while I assume that 'youth education' is a searchable phrase.

I'd like to see the deletion flag removed. This is a legitimate page, and has been sanctioned by the Chair of Youth Education, who asked that it be included in Winipedia.

Terrance Berscheid

Assistant Director, Youth Education BC/Yukon, Radio Amateurs of Canada [email protected]

  • Merge and trim drastically -- currently reads like an ad. Haikupoet 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Radio Amateurs of Canada with massive edits. The page seems to be lifted from the RAC web site [42]. The Wikipedia article should only outline the program, not promote it. &mdash Grstain 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material on Youth Education does indeed reflect what is at the RAC website; this is as RAC wishes the information be displayed. I don't see anything within the policies and guidelines which prohibit 'promotion' -- and that term would only loosely apply here, as the information is informative about how to become involved in a social program for the common good. And it definitely is not an ad. VE7TBC

  • Smerge or Delete Reads like an advert to me; it's certainly not NPOV or neutral in tone. Insert a paragraph at most into the Canada radio amateurs article. (formerly g0---). --kingboyk 01:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Intact: This obviously is no "ad", at least not in any commercial sense. Surely enthusiasm in a description is not cause for deletion. This is a summary of an obviously excellent program (YEP) aimed at youth. There is no fee levied. Radio Amateurs of Canada is a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of federally licenced Radio Amateurs across Canada. That means promoting what is not only a hobby but a valuable service. Witness the fact that RAC sponsors the Amateur Radio Emergency Service which offers trained and equipped volunteers, all at their own expense, in times of emergency, such as floods, hurricanes, forest fires, ice storms and tornadoes, to name a few. Not only does the RAC YEP encourage an understanding and appreciation for this hobby/service, but it offers a fun way of learning many educational basics, including mathematics, physics and geography. This article should definitely not be deleted. No valid argument has been made for such a drastic action. --ve3bdb 0321Z 19Apr06

  • Comment -- Look, I'm a licensed ham myself and I understand the importance of youth outreach -- the hobby isn't getting any younger and a lot of those involved in it now are snarky and unpleasant old men. But Wikipedia is not a promotional venue, and this in my book comes off as an ad, or at the very least a press release, neither of which has any place on Wikipedia. At the very least this article needs a massive rewrite into a simple description of the program from an outside POV; realistically, this particular part of RAC isn't notable enough on its own for a separate article to begin with and really should be added to the main article on the RAC. I would say exactly the same thing about an equivalent subdivision of the ARRL or RSGB -- the groups themselves are notable, but individual sections of them aren't, any more than a special interest group of something like the Association for Computing Machinery would be (and the ACM is much bigger). A final point is that no one, not the authors of the page, nor the subject, has final say over what a Wikipedia article says. Some governing body may have written and approved the article, but it isn't theirs to control -- once it goes on Wikipedia, the author gives up control. Haikupoet 04:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree totally. (And, for the record, I passed my RAE - British exam - at 14, and got my full Class A at 17. However, I've given the hobby up in favour of the internet and I can see it dying out if more young people aren't recruited. None of which makes the subject of the article any more notable.) --kingboyk 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ardenn 05:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry guys, I'm a RAC member myself, and I completely support this program, but I don't think this is a suitable topic for a wikipedia article, and even if it was, it would need to be substantially rewritted. Sorry. ve1vac 71.7.134.22 14:37, 24 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. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meli and Casper[edit]

Non notable. -- Szvest 19:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A total of zero hits on google. --BillC 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7 (unremarkable people or groups). If this doesn't apply, just delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:06, 17 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 uncontested delete. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Squadron[edit]

This page is apparently fiction, and/or has no indication of the importance of the subject. IceCreamAntisocial 19:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ISAF + google comes up with Ace Combat 04, but I am not sure. No good hits for Oblivion squadron. I am quite sure it is fiction though, unless my calender is wrong and it really is past 2020. Hmm. "Operation Katina" gets me Ace Combat: Operation Katina. I have no idea is this group is important to the game, but I'll throw it in the cat. Kotepho 23:15, 17 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: Speedily deleted as vanity. - Mike Rosoft 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LitoJ[edit]

non notable member of online forums zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:38, 17 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 speedily deleted by Pepsidrinka. — TKD::Talk 23:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simiamese Twins (disambiguation)[edit]

Accidentally mistyped Siamese when moving Siamese twin - sYndicate talk 19:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete by adding {{db-author}} to the article yourself. --BillC 20:46, 17 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 No consensus Kotepho 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Tim Whatley[edit]

Non notable minor character, not article material--Zxcvbnm 19:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even mention-in-the-Seinfeld-article material. --Calton | Talk 21:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. You're just a bunch of anti-dentites. If Soup Nazi gets an article, so should the dentist. -AED 08:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Seinfeld Wikia. Lots of Seinfeld-cruft on Wikipedia should be moved there. Whitejay251 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? Seinfeld is a great show, and once this article gets a picture and a list of episodes this dude has appeared in it will be fine. --Taurus8 sam 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just notable enough. gidonb 00:52, 27 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 uncontested delete — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxrock[edit]

Vanity page, WP:VAIN, WP:WEB. --rehpotsirhc 19:51, 17 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 speedy delete as nonsense. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers ditty[edit]

Non notable, no context or references.--Zxcvbnm 19:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no context. --BillC 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, unverifiable, and indeed non-existent for the past nine years or so. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 17 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 — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Attacks[edit]

Listcruft/indiscriminate collection of information. -Obli (Talk)? 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Listcruft/fancruft. The El Reyko 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what this is, but it's definitely not an encyclopedia article. Delete per nominator. Friday (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious fancruft. Was prodded, but tag removed by an anon claiming it has potential. Anon, this ain't GameFAQs. --Calton | Talk 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's actually from a TV show, not a game, though I've never seen the show so I can't tell you how accurate it is. It's basically the equivalent of List of Dragon Ball special abilities, except about the One Piece franchise instead of the Dragonball franchise, and without the descriptions and pictures. I don't have anything to do with the article but I think it at least deserves a discussion before being deleted, since the Dragonball Attacks article sets precedent. 4.226.111.130 21:09, 17 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death E.P.[edit]

No references, citations, google hits low, no proof of existence, terribly written, VERY likely false article created as a joke. Ryouga 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some one can prove its existence. Being a long time follower of Death I never heard of it. It reeks of bad joke. Also the user that uploaded it (Mr.Ugly) has been banned for vandalism and adding nonsense to WP.Spearhead 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 talk 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find any info about it, and Mr.Ugly is a known vandal (see his block log) so it is most probably a bad joke. --IronChris | (talk) 22:37, 17 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. No Guru 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old librarians[edit]

Presentation on how to use Wikipedia aimed at "old librarians". Delete as per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Allen3 talk 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above Trebor 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if this was useful info and placed in context, all questionable, it still wouldn't belong in an article called "Old librarians". --Lockley 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have this info in a proper context - it's called the "Help" page. I'm sure an "old librarian" would find that more easily than this entry. I'm with you, Lockley: Delete. Fluit 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article purporting to be about Wikipedia should be a shining example of wikification. This one is virtually free of any Wiki markup. -- RHaworth 00:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wha...? Fishhead64 02:16, 18 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. Shanel § 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die lois die[edit]

Delete Non-existant website that "will be up in December 2007". Despite not existing it is "a exreamly popular website" (sic). Non-notable, non-verifiable. Prod was removed by original editor without comment. Gwernol 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Die article die.... err, delete Crystal ball reasoning. I guess we can't speedy it because it is "exreamly" popular. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, the site existed in February 2004. Some quotes from the site:
    • (March 21, 2004): "Sorry, still no updates, I have been working on the new layout aswell as with a lot of media."
    • (January, 15, 2004): "I am really sorry for the lack of updates..."
    • (November 18,2003): "No updates in a while..."
    • (November 4,2003): "Yes, I am still here although not to many updates in the last month."
  • With that track record, I'm not holding out too much hope that this site will ever be back up, or that it was all that popular in the first place. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the site in question is hosted on Geocities, and indeed consists of a single page stating that "The New Layout Is Coming Soon", last modified on the 14th of March (this year). No content. Fun. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non updated website that might exist yet it's notable? Wouldn't this constitute a speedy--Tollwutig 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have speedied it, but it doesn't meet any of the CSDs. The only one it might is A7, but that is explicitly for "article[s] about a real person, group of people, band, or club" so a website doesn't count. That's why I prod'ed it to start with. Sigh. Maybe we need a CSD for failing WP:CORP? Gwernol 18:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy categories for failing WP:WEB and WP:CORP would be really handy sometimes. We've already got a speedy category for articles about bands and musicians that don't assert notability, so equivalents for web pages and corporations. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:33, 18 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. No Guru 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Street Fighter Special Attacks/Techniques[edit]

A list of attack techniques from a video game. Video-game-cruft. Calton | Talk 20:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by Hadoken TeKE 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This "cruft" thing, in my opinion, is being thrown around too loosely here. The S 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that this article is in the subspace of a list, not even article space itself. Teke 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that's because the author tried to use a forward slash (/) in the title, without realizing it would be created as a subpage. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, can I change my vote to delete? After re-reading the article, it seems like a lot of this information can be found in strategy guides, or the article on Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken. The S 17:50, 19 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 by clear consensus of actual editors involved. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of special techniques in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo[edit]

More fancruft that belongs in GameFAQs. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, not a how-to guide, etc. Calton | Talk 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I was nominating a bunch of similiar articles and I got confused/careless. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kotepho is quite right; this is a list of "special techniques" from a television show. From the sound of things, though, the show is intentionally absurd, and makes up attacks on the spot. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having seen one episode I would tend to agree with you. It is a parody of shōnen shows. Kotepho 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I don't know where to throw this one. Maybe wikia:c:Anime? Kotepho 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What makes this different than any of the other special technique lists on Wikipedia? There's ones on Pokemon, Dragon Ball, Superman... special techniques, even ones in a parody manga such as Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo are an integral part of enjoying a series, whether a comic, cartoon, novel, TV show, et cetera - where the characters have special powers. If this article is not sufficient, would making subsections under a character's article work better? The S 01:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this different than any of the other special technique lists on Wikipedia? Nothing, really -- and they should all go into the bit bucket as fancruft, minutiae that is not of the slightest interest to anyone outside the circle of fans of those specific shows (and perhaps not even then). Point me to those lists and I'll nominate them for AfD in a hot second. --Calton | Talk 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes this article different is that these "special techniques" sound like they're more or less ad-hoc: they aren't used more than once or twice in the show. If some of the techniques are used repeatedly, they might deserve an entry in the main article. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing applies to a majority of Son Gokuu's techniques in Dragon Ball; he only uses a handful of them more than once or twice. As for these lists being considered "fancruft", fancruft seems to me to be more or less a matter of opinion. Even Wikipedia's policy on such seems to be rather ambiguous on the subject. The S 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems a reason to not list those techniques on Son Goku's page, then - not a reason to list more similar information here. As far as fancruft goes, a reasonable working definition (given on WP:CRUFT) is that fancruft is material which is only of interest to a small set of fans, and which has no relevance to the world at large. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Which would account for 90% of the pop culture topics on Wikipedia, no? The S 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Hint: what does the word "pop" in "pop culture" mean? --Calton | Talk 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this is relevant; about as relevant as the topic on the media it stems from. By what you're saying, there is no difference between cruft and pop culture; it sounds like you're talking yourself in circles. Demran 13 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) User's first edit[reply]
  • Delete as being well beyond the level of detail which would be of any interest whatsoever to anyone who did not already know it. Fancruft? I would say so. WP:NOT this indiscriminate. Oh, and what makes it different is that at least two of the other examples, Pokemon and Superman, have a following several orders of magnitude larger. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So... you're basing this on relative obscurity? If Bobobo became, say, the new hot thing in the United States, or Europe, or whatever, than that would justify it? The S 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More a matter of exclusion. Trivia about massively notable fictional subjects is at best debatable; trivia about minor fictional subjects is unequivocal (for me anyway). Just zis Guy you know? 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this contributes to what sounds to me like deletion based on cruft, at times (such as this) is based on a Wikieditor's opinion more than the guidelines given by Wikipedia. The S 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If there is an entry for every Pokemon and Digimon creature, or for dark characters in old cult movies, it's totally reasonable to keep an attack list. Part of the sarcasm inherent to the series could be best appreciable with a full description of attacks. Lord Beelzebub (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:14, 26 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 keep. Both the anon IPs with few/no edits before this vote were discarded, but they cancelled each other out anyway. Turnstep 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamehameha (Dragon Ball)[edit]

Possibly the ultimate in fancruft: a detailed article about a single attack in an anime. Of no interest I can imagine outside of the show itself.) Calton | Talk 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikia:c:DragonBall. Kotepho 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say to just keep it or merge it with the regular attack page. Adv193 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the standard kai attack for the Dragonball Series, most of the Dragonball Z series, and parts of the Dragonball GT series. -- Saberwyn 03:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice 70.51.9.199 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep it, because it may just be one attack in the anime, but it is the main attack in the show, It was the foundation of all the other energy beam attacks in the series. Jrinu 8:46, 19 April 2006
  • Either Keep or Merge with Dragon Ball. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to say Keep. While I wouldn't advocate creating articles on every attack on the show, this one is pretty well known. Acetic Acid 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it.
  • Keep. --æsahættr 22:56, 23 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 as non-notable. Turnstep 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 4[edit]

non-notable music group zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you consider this page for deletion!! This page will go down in history as the start of things to come, how dare you doubt the Unit 4 mandem. We will show you all!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Consulting[edit]

Advertising Knucmo2 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can re-write into historical, factual 3rd person format. Although many of the companies listed in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_consulting

Follow similar form. My intent was not to do a drive by post, but, maintain a real descriptive entry for the company.

I'll do a re-write tonight. Hopefully that will keep it out of the bitbucket. --Oceanconsulting

  • Delete: NN local company that does not evem assert notability. Its website has an Alexa ranking of 5,368,989. --Hetar 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Alexa, but, Ocean Consulting ranks #1 when searching for terms such as 'UNIX technology consulting' and 'Linux technology consulting' on Google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=UNIX+technology+consulting&btnG=Google+Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Linux+technology+consulting&btnG=Google+Search

--Oceanconsulting 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Ocean Consulting information technology wiki site added to page. Oceanconsulting 22:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising for local company in Portland. Montco 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although we are based in the Portland metro area, we are an I.T. consulting and services company with customer's worldwide. Oceanconsulting 00:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added historical fact of note. Ocean Consulting posted the first kitecam site on the web. Oceanconsulting 00:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added information of some other companies also called Ocean Consulting. User:n/a 20:00, 25 April 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 delete. DS 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Danza sex move[edit]

Delete unverifiable sexual-stunt-cruft. Author removed prod tag. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with prejudice. The edit history of the page suggests a misogynistic bent, too. --Elkman - (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:NN. We can include it when the NYT publishes a feature in the lifestyle section. --rehpotsirhc 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Don't censor my firend's page, yall! This is important to young people who think this is notable and funny! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellmyfinger (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - per nom. Chairman S. Talk 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verifiable, to say the least. --Lockley 21:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is Wikipedia, not an alt.sex.stories.* newsgroup. Doctor Whom 21:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What about the vfd template? Jordanmills 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whilst Google is not the be all and end all of verifiability, the fact that virtually *no* proper references to "Tony Danza sex move" can be found there (beyond those that ultimately refer to the Wikipedia article) seems pretty damning to me. Fourohfour 22:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no wiktionary. Kotepho 22:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reliable references among the Google hits, and a disturbing number of those hits are Wikipedia quotes. --Allen 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and non-notable. Bucketsofg 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and notableJordanmills 23:16, 17 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 stubbed down by author but now redirected to Graduation. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graduation with Civic Honors[edit]

Vanity/personal essay. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Court Jester 21:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you feel Graduation with Civic Honors is vanity, then delete the article. However, in this case does the topic not exist? Nels Lindahl
  • Delete. Nels Lindahl is the originator of this proposal and the author of the article. Nels, if you're reading this, the proposal might be a good idea -- I personally think so -- but wikipedia is not the place to promote it. --Lockley 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page, but the existence of Graduation with Civic Honors is not original thought, students have graduated with civic honors. --Nels Lindahl 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an encyclopedic, externally verifiable article can be produced, through the use of reliable, third-party sources, on this topic, then I may be inclined to support its inclusion. At the moment, it is an essay saying "hey, my idea is cool, lets do it" (at leas that's what I'm seeing when I read it. The article in its present form is a candidate for deletion per the WP:NOT policy. -- Saberwyn 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the person who nocontext'd it earlier.  RasputinAXP  c 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some third party sources of Graduation with Civic Honors that provide evidence of the facts in question. --Nels Lindahl 04:31, 18 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, which is sad, because I always found Pikachu's speech to be cute. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Pokémon[edit]

Pokecruft, there are only a few "Talking Pokemon" and that can be discussed at their main articles, there doesn't have to be a separate page explaining them as such.--Zxcvbnm 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Saberwyn 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into the anime article. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 17:06, 20 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilburn hall/

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 § 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in america[edit]

This is someone trying to promote his opinion. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. SCHZMO ✍ 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as non-notable, non-verifiable, semi-vanity, and ranty. --Lockley 22:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lockley. WP:NOT --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates NOR (as volatile as that is right now) and NPOV. --RayaruB 22:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all other delete votes and redirect to Democracy in America (the Tocqueville book). --Metropolitan90 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all other delete votes. I'm curious as to why Schzmo didn't make this a speedy delete. Zelmerszoetrop 01:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OR is not a speedy criteria. While I'm here, delete at any velocity as original research, and recreate as redirect to Democracy in America. -- Saberwyn 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Deep Thoughts. Haikupoet 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteno it's not original research at all...--Tollwutig 14:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Did anybody happen to notice that this is an advert for a pyramid scheme type of thing???? Roodog2k 23:40, 18 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 speedy delete

"end result"[edit]

This is utter nonsense. WP:PN Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 22:10, 17 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelocale.org[edit]

nn forum, does not meet WP:WEB, reads like advertisement. A (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22thelocale.org%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) google search shows something like 350 hits. (note I didn't link it properly because google searches with my client seem to break external links, sorry). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 25 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. Shanel § 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nice Guy (2006 eBook)[edit]

This page has had a speedy delete and PROD removed. I'm listing it in the belief that it is primarily an advertisement for a non-notable eBook (created by the author of the eBook). Wikipedia:Deletion policy suggests listing an article at AfD if it is a Vanity page or it is "Advertising or other spam": I consider this article subject to both of these descriptions. Politepunk 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 22:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grutness stole my witty comment :(. But oh yeah, nom put it nicely, I guess. Mysekurity [m!] 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine humor[edit]

Original research. Rejected from PROD, so here we are on AFD -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (I don't see the citations mentioned when PROD was removed. In addition, cows are feminine!!11!) - Politepunk 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete started as a vanity page and hasnt improved. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Fishhead64 02:17, 18 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. No Guru 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Monorails[edit]

The article is essentially an unverified OR essay arguing against monorails and seems to be constructed entirely out of Weasel Words. --rehpotsirhc 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I only translated it with an aim of placing the rebuttal in the discussion. I personally disagree with every single word, and wonder why our French friends keep it still. The argument is internally sound enough, but the phrasing is contentious. I only translated it, the objectionable, rather smug language, is not mine. Gordon Vigurs 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I spent some time trying to edit this down to a NPOV version, and you end up with nothing that is not already in the "Advantages and disadvantages" section of Monorail. I don't even think this is worth merging or redirecting. The article is inherently POV from its title onwards. Gwernol 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and nominate for AfD on French Wikipedia as well. Haikupoet 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Fishhead64 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is already a statement in the Monorails article to the effect that switches are difficult. The point that complexity of switches has an implication regarding system cost and network flexibility is not made, but this can be done by adding a NPOV paragraph to this effect. Gordon Vigurs 06:40, 18 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 Thryduulf 11:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon punch[edit]

Not notable enough for an entry. Minor speculative fan terminology. Only one of a multitude of offhand phrases used to describe something that has yet to be named officially, if it ever will be. Could be considered fancruft. - Chris Griswold 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's discussion page, under the heading "delete":

  • Delete There are a variety of terms being used for this, none of them official. If anything, this entry may influence people in thinking it is an official term, encouraging the use. --Chris Griswold 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, unofficial and unnecessary term. Should remain on comics forums, where it belongs. DoctorWorm7 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment On top of being a neologism, the term appears to be restricted to the comic fandom in general. I don't see any chance of a larger appeal to a general audience, such as with the term Fonzie Syndrome. It's hard to apply "retcon punch" to other types of media.--DoctorWorm7 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Maybe allow some time to establish notability? I'm tempted to just call it a Neologism and say delete, but it does seem to be in widespread use in the fandom, and different users have started to reference it in other articles. So it could be argued there's a desire for an article. Really should've waited longer before starting an article though.Furthestshore 14:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to precedent (Fonzie syndrome and Sunnydale syndrome, both "unofficial" terms used by the fandoms to describe a phenomenon). Additionally hits on google have increased from 109 on April 6th to 382 on April 19th. The phenomenon is clearly being discussed using this term.D1Puck1T 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Now at 420 and presumably still rising. --Mister Six 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The 420 instances on Google using the term "retcon punch" (with quotations) only returns 26 unique instances. All are forums, personal blogs, or sites like Wikipedia.--DoctorWorm7 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is being used increasingly online, and having the definition/explanation available is very helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.194.41.143 (talk • contribs) .
This article is influencing the usage, not chronicling it. It's part of a weird fan campaign. --Chris Griswold 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There needs to be an article explaining the effects of Superboy Prime's effect on continuity.Until DC comes up with an official term (like Hypertime) this seems to be the place to put it, since it does look like the most used term in the fandom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.255.1.19 (talk • contribs) .
Shouldn't it just be merged with Superboy-Prime? Since it's a facet of his powers? --Chris Griswold 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Superboy-Prime article. It may be a fan term, but it's very widespread, and having encountered it so much offline, I believe we should note it somewhere on wikipedia. Even if its usage doesn't spread beyond comic fandom, anyone doing research in comic history (and having completed a cultural studies paper on Green Lantern, I can tell you it happens) needs to understand where and why this term comes up. Cybertooth85 17:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Superboy-Prime article. If 'a wizard did it' is important enough to warrant it's own article, then something that has affected a fictional universe as much as Superboy-Prime's retcon punches should no doubt have it's own article. Densetzu no Gaizen 11:03 PM EST, 24 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.170.166.246 (talk • contribs) .

Keep. I think you should keep it because it is a useful article and DC hasn't given us an official term for this important thing yet so it makes sense to use the term the fans are using. I dont use wiki often and I used it for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.146.184 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep I have a feeling that it's going to in use for a while. CovenantD 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term just sounds completely ridiculous, and I'm not sure how long it's going to be used. --Joe Sewell 16:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I fully agree with Densetzu no Gaizen, and I too searched on Google, and yes, the Superboy Retcon Punch is going to became the official "Wizard" of the DCU. Even the Wizard faded only a bit with time, but wasn't forgotten DrTofu83 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation? --Chris Griswold 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Superboy-Prime. JoshuaZ 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced cruft with a couple dozen unique Google hits. --phh (t/c) 17:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the article Sliding_timescale. Like this it talks about something that clearly exists in comic books, even if it's not an "official" word. This is something that [i]is[/i] important enough to get an article and the article has to go somewhere. A title widely used by fans is the best choice until there's an official word. Did Superboy Prime change coninuity? Yes, verifiably. Do fans make jokes about how far it could go? Yes, not [i]as[/i] verifiable, but there's such a thing as common sense. Is there an official word yet? No, so, within reason, any title for the article would be acceptable, but a word the fans use would be best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.143.243.114 (talk • contribs) . (unsign added by JoshuaZ 21:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • weak Merge to one of the articles on either the character or the event. Deletion will not bother me. -- stillnotelf is invisible 04:11, 27 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 Keep. kingboyk 05:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Biblical figures[edit]

Delete. List is short, incomplete, and will never be complete or useful. All five entrants are profoundly nn and some have lost AfD's. The Bible has tens of thousands of characters and this list will never capture all of them. Prod remover's well-stated rationale is on the article's talk page. See also, this recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adina (Biblical name). - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - this article was initially created to house minor Biblical figures who should be noted in a truly comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia, but who lack sufficient information to merit an individual article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uel. It is incorrect to say that the entrants completely lack notability: they are named in the Bible. It is equally incorrect to say that the list will never be complete - there are a finite number of persons so named for whom individual articles would be inappropriate. Granted, some Biblical figures maybe beneath mention on any list, but there are always bound to be some who are worthy of listing, even if they can never be articles. BD2412 T 22:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as it is complete, this list will serve a great purpose. Jonathan235 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your vote. I am arguing, it cannot be complete. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why do you say that it cannot be complete? It is not physically impossible to identify all persons named in the Bible. BD2412 T 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: (1) The Bible does not satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline as a history source, but the topic here is a subset of Biblical figures, so this is the absolute authority without requiring faith. (2) The problem is the existence of many versions of the Bible, with variations on spelling for some number of those tens of thousands of names. Fact-checking the "begat's" alone would take many hours. (3) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia, and minor characters in literature are not inherently notable (even if the work is the most-published and most-read book). Major characters like Abraham and Judas Iscariot can be documented showing enough significance for their own articles. Tens of thousands of stubs, each citing a single verse or minor mentions through a single chapter, won't add meaningful content to Wikipedia, and an unmaintainable (or nearly so, even with a 'bot and a problem space limited to a couple of Bible versions like KJV) list won't really improve Wikipedia. We're here for WP levels of completeness, not Biblical or multibiblical levels of completeness. Barno 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or somebody who cares build a bot for just a list, no links nor stubs, in accordance with WP:NOT and my comments above. Barno 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the decision to delete Uel (biblical figure) was a mistake; being mentioned in the Tenach is good enough for being notable, and whereas Wikipedia seems to have a hang-up with short articles, other encyclopedias have no qualms about one-line articles if that's all there is to say about the topic. But given that hang-up, this is the next best. LambiamTalk 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is particular reason why this list cannot be complete; there are a finite number of characters mentioned in the Bible (elsewise the Bible would be infinitely long!). —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 @ 01:45 UTC
    • Are you familiar with the Jewish mystical tradition (I don't remember if it's gematria or one other one) that the Torah (Bible's Old Testament) can have its letters rearranged to reveal true meaning? That would be "technically finite, but might as well be infinite". Barno 02:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful. The Bible does not have tens of thousands of named individuals - my guess is a 100—200, tops. Fishhead64 02:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP's Bible article claims there are 773,692 words in the King James version. Do you believe such a low percentage are names and such a low percentage of those are non-repeats? I don't. There are whole chunks of genealogy in there, tribal histories, battle histories. Barno 02:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response I rather doubt that the single mentions of those in the geneaologies and battle histories would be included (and I wasn't), but even if they were, do you really think the number of names will exceed 1000? I don't think they would exceed 500. Fishhead64 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I'm not saying every single name in the Bible should necessarily be listed here - but names that are just below the threshold for individual articles definitely should be, and the rest... well, if they don't make it in that's fine, and if they do, that's gravy. BD2412 T 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - it seems that at least one of the names (Abdeel) was originally an article (not a redirect) created as part of the WikiProject for missing articles, in particular for the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary. The redirect was created without discussion. I would not like to see this list developed as an excuse/reason to delete/redirect Easton's articles because they are short articles. —ERcheck @ 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's better for the encyclopedia - and better for the reader - to have such names for which there is scant information grouped together. Note that no information from Abdeel was deleted, it was simply moved to a different location. Any person interested in learning what there is to say for Abdeel would have found the information, surrounded by other fascinating tidbits. BD2412 T 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: A single article with Biblical figures that merit a line or two would be better than dozens of stubs that will never be expanded. Maybe rename as it's not really in the style of most 'List of...' articles, and it doesn't seem that it was intended to be an exhaustive list of obscure names. Peter Grey 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its all gravy, baby. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:58, 18 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 Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SciFI Wiki[edit]

Wikis are good in general but this one fails the WP:WEB notability guidelines. Sorry....Scott5114 23:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Matthew Fenton (t) 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website. Rain74 14:18, 18 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Morelli[edit]

Despite its relative length, this is clearly a vanity article about an obscure individual. Please note that his main claim to fame is a short student film. The rest of the information, such as about his political activism or interest in learning Moroccan Arabic, is utterly irrelevant and unnoteworthy. There were also inappropriate mentions of this individual in other articles, such as a bizarre in suggestion in Cuckold that unfaithful women shout "Jam! All! More!" while having sex with their husbands as a way to evoke Jamal Morelli, the real object of their desire; another example is this mention under Fes: "the Ville Nouvelle is a bustling commercial center with a popular American Language Center and filmmaker Jamal Morelli's studio." Finally, every result on Google seems to be either a Wikipedia article on which his name (inappropriately) appears, or from sites such as answers.com that reflect Wikipedia's content.Wfgiuliano 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My opinion has been made clear.Wfgiuliano 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be standard (albeit well-written) vanity. _-M o P-_ 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as vanity / bollocks. --Lockley 23:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable; vanity or publicity. Bill 20:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - and please stop deleting everything on Jamal Morelli which I and others have created. I tried to get rid of horrible things like the JAM ALL MORE; people have tried and then it is put back on. Jamal Morelli deserves to be included as a man of note for his contributions to art, peace, Moroccan/American exchanges. The assessment of his life work is strange. Interest in Moroccan Arabic? He brought it to the racist South during a time people were being arrested for that. Jamal Morelli is known as the first male Muslim artist to work with 20,000 people strong Fellowship of Isis. He worked with recording star Myshkin. And "Secrets of the Sisterhood" was not a student film. I feel hurt that so much work is just scrapped in an instant.

And as far as an interest in Moroccan Arabic being in some way subversive or novel in the late 20c! my whole (American) family took courses in it in 1963‑65.... Bill 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete: Who said it was subversive? Where does it say he was interested in it? Jamal Morelli was the first to bring Moroccan Arabic to New Orleans - this is, and was, a great achievement. Why is Nadia's work (and ours) being completely wiped out by Wfgiuliano? Our artists are not represented at all. And Bill, at the ALC in Fes, they still use the only Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic from Georgetown University - 1960-1965! We are excited at someone taking our culture abroad at a time of incredible hate between cultures. I am sorry the cafe is not letting me to log in. But I will try somewhere else. Please, be considerate of the fact we have to pay to contribute each time. Thank you for patience and forgive errors, Khalid Idrissi.


Oh, boy! This started as a simple good deed: getting a particularly obnoxious vanity page deleted from our beloved Wikipedia. Now it has turned into a crazy (albeit somewhat amusing) cultural battle.

>Interest in Moroccan Arabic? He brought it to the racist South during a time people were being >arrested for that.

That is such sheer lunacy that it's actually funny! It's really one of the most preposterous statements I have ever read. I wonder if Mr. Morelli has been telling his Moroccan friends that he risked his liberty, life, and limb in order to heroically bring the forbidden language, Moroccan Arabic, to the benighted American South? I think Jamal Morelli must really be a character, if not he surely suffers from paranoid delusions.

>We are not equipped here in Morocco with endless amounts of time in cybercafes (no, we don't have
>as many computers at our homes as you do)
>Please, be considerate of the fact we have to pay to contribute each time.

Uh, no, we won't be considerate of that, or at least we shouldn't. Such statements are logical fallacies (appeals to pity). What everyone should do instead is to consider your arguments on their intrinsic merit, or lack thereof.Wfgiuliano 05:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we will not be able to compete with you, mister wfgiuliano. you are quite violent. and if the most preposterous statement you have ever read is that during the years of 2002 on people were be arrested for arabic sympathies, with respect to you, sir, read more.

For the information of the anonymous individual: the current American governmment, for which I have little sympathy, is actually promoting the study of Arabic in this country in order to have Americans who can help them wage further wars of aggression. Therefore, "bringing Moroccan Arabic" to the US could not possibly land anyone in sunny Guantánamo since it coincides with government policy. And since you seem to have a very poor understanding of the US, let me explain something else to you: the reason why courses in Moroccan Arabic are rare in the US is not because teaching it is unlawful or frowned upon; it is simply because too few people are interested in it. The many Americans currently learning Arabic are usually sensible enough to study modern standard Arabic rather than dialectal forms of the language, which would make about as much sense as someone from China learning Gullah or Hiberno-English. Wfgiuliano 17:00, 20 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. Redundant with extant category, this article is of little use to the encyclopedia. There is an apparent consensus among established users to delete this. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 17:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent record labels[edit]

A large list, which has also had some maintenance issues (see the article's Talk page). Categories are better for record labels than lists. Delete. kingboyk 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. This is why we have categories. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many labels, most of which may or may not exist. Impossible to maintain.--Jslasher 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nomination makes the case - Politepunk 07:59, 18 April 2006

(UTC)

  • Merge - how about you do something sensible and merge it into the list of record labels macphisto
  • Comment - because that one's up for deletion, too, and rightly so. What's wrong with Category:Independent record labels? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may answer the suggestion "how about you do something sensible", I thought I already did. I've put work into the record label categories and nominated this frightful list for deletion. That's two Blue Peter badges for me don't you think? :) --kingboyk 01:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work on it - This list may not be the best way, but until all record labels are proparly categorised, I think this is the best available thing. I would like to search some volunteers who help me check and categorise them all. warpozio 07:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. "Until all record labels are properly categorized"? And then what, delete the redundant list? Why not just delete the list, and work on the categories? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless the content is actually infinite, no list is "impossible to maintain". --Gene_poole 05:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not just list the "major" labels , such as sub pop records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.109.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - I had previously opposed deletion because I find this a useful list of potential articles on independent record labels. However, removing it may encourage people to actually create an article in order to get an entry into the category, so I have changed my position. I have taken a copy of the list as a working list of labels that need articles. RayGates 15:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I second RayGates Delirium_of_disorder 19:35, 23 April 2006 (CST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Turnstep 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelvaanians[edit]

A stub about a minor race from Star Wars spin-off, information already in List of Star Wars races Eivindt@c 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two is better than one, but not on Wikipedia. _-M o P-_ 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Star Wars races. -- Saberwyn 03:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. All content has been merged. The Nelvaanians are pretty important, but not enough for their own article, especially when central races like the Neimoidians don't get their own articles. -LtNOWIS 03:41, 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 Keep. — Apr. 26, '06 [07:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

NNDB[edit]

Was given {{prod}}, removed with odd edit summary so brought here instead.
NNDB does not appear to satisfy the guideline for inclusion of websites. Google news only shows a single line in a single "net guide" column in the Edmonton Sun. While a Google search does return 24,600 hits, there are only 150 unique. Even with this dearth of hits, almost none of these are about the NNDB, but are all of the order of "See Britney/Cher/Hawking/brenneman at the Notable Names Database." This page is heavily linked thanks to having its own template but as there is no independant verification possible it should be deleted.
brenneman{L} 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some back-and-forth on this nomination of mine. Please don't edit other people's signed comments, rebut them in your own space. - brenneman{L} 07:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about the protocol breach. I was not sure what the right thing to do was. I will merely note that the statement of "150 unique" is false, and to see the fourth bullet point below. Quatloo 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other details:

  • Alexa ranking is 3,757, which indicates a traffic of 150-200,000 unique visitors/day. By contrast, the website for the Biography Channel (an American cable channel, which also publishes its own magazine, Biography) is 34,893, and Encyclopedia Britannica is 2,864.
  • It is far and away the most popular website on the Internet devoted to general biography.
Someone asked for a citation. A proper citation is not specifically necessary here because this is not an article. However, I will humor you, so I did this: [43] (Yahoo) and [44] (DMOZ), plus [45] and [46] (the top 100 results for Google searches of Biography or Biographies, extracting anything that purported to be a site devoted to general biography). All I correlated with [47], Alexa. That dragnet, simple as it is, would certainly have unearthed any site that met the criteria. Nothing came close.
  • Almost nobody refers to it as the Notable Names Database, which explains the dearth of hits with that name.
  • The figure of "150 unique results" returned in a Google search, given in the AfD above is patently false. This person simply went to the end of the Google results and assumed that since there were no more results returned by Google, that is all there is and all pages are copies of these. This is wrong. For reasons of speed, Google trims the results -- this does not mean this is all the unique ones there are. This is true of all searches. By this person's logic, there are only 856 unique results returned for the English word "cat", which is simply absurd. The message displayed on the last Google page returned for "cat" (86th page) is, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 857 already displayed." Out of 676,000,000 total results. Under this presumption, 99.99987% of all web pages are duplicates of others. Of course your mileage may vary depending on which Google datacenter you hit.


  • Delete. Being the most popular biographical website on the Internet is certainly notable on its face, but I would be amused to see this article removed on a technicality. Quatloo 09:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I certainly don't see where having this is harming anything. It is a real website and gets a decent amount of traffic. mikemoto, 10:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and it's little template too.-- Jeandré, 2006-04-19t18:32z
  • Keep. Nothing wrong here. Iloveparis 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Quatloo's (regrettably unsigned) information. Something that hasn't been mentioned is though it's kept at arm's length for various (and obvious) reasons, the NNDB is part of Rotten.com. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Usefull site for anyone editing a living person bio , deserves a Wikipedia explanation of its origin and reliability. Lumos3 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was always under the impression that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if you like the site, agree with the site, or visit the site, it gets thousands of visits each day and certainly warrants a page on Wikipedia. Any bias that it has can be included and discussed on the article page. --MZMcBride 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This site is very heavily trafficked. Rainman420 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DO BONGS Jerkcity 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete this. Xihr 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heptapod 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did anyone gave a valid reason to delete already?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariopy (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t22:53:18z
    • Other than the guideline for inclusion of websites and the apparent lack of verification for it's notability in reliable sources you mean? No, other than the bedrock upon which an encyclopedia is based, I don't think anyone has. - brenneman{L} 05:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are provided. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the nominator has been informed many times, non-notability of a verifiable item is not grounds for deletion. The website exists and is described by the article. Any unverifiable statements in the article can be removed, but this will still leave a useful article. We should not remove verifiable information from Wikipedia without a very, very good reason. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Reliable sources are provided for information about this article, then everyone is happy. Barring that, "unverifiable statements" currently encompasses the entire article. I'll spare everyone the quote from WP:V that says that the onus for verification is on those who whish material to be included. - brenneman{L} 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then correct the statements, don't delete the article. Xihr 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably more than 99% of the facts presented in Wikipedia are unsourced. I would not be surprised if the true figure were closer to 99.98% unsourced or thereabouts. The most important statements to source are those that are controversial or those that have misinformation floating about. Delete every unsourced statement in Wikipedia and you will delete nearly all of it. This is indeed a problem. Quatloo 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll resist the impish urge to put {{fact}} after those statistics! ^_^ The way to solve the problem (whatever its magnitude) is not to run to the least common denominator. Remove things that don't have sources, coach and guide people to include sources, that's the way to solve that problem, but that's not what we're discussing here. We don't vote on verification, and I've yet to see a single source provided for this article. - brenneman{L} 03:13, 26 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. kingboyk 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of photographs[edit]

Given "Category:Memorable Photographs" it becomes irrelevant. Lkjhgfdsa 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, plus the incredibly subjective nature of making such evaluations. Fishhead64 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the only entries on this list will be articles that are already in Category:Memorable photographs, this list is redundant and should be deleted. If kept, the article should be moved to a more specific title. -- Saberwyn 03:19, 18 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. Shanel § 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities playing radio show callers on Frasier[edit]

Unecncylopedic listcruft. Furthermore, it's not verifiable except by some fan-site, because the "official" link leads to a "404 not found". Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 23:50, 17 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 Redirect to List of dragons. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragon species[edit]

Even author admits that dragons are not real, but goes on to list types of species that are "known." If species names belong to a game, book, or movie, etc., they should be moved to the page appropriate to the source. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of dragons, which could have a section Dragon species, but hardly the present list: since no context is given, it is both useless and unverifiable. LambiamTalk 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Additionally "dragon species" is extremely vague and could apply to many legendaria containing dragons, not all of which agree with each other. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 @ 01:47 UTC
    • Comment Completely understand the previous two points and I agree. Of course this discussion may continue, but just wanted to express my sentiments about the past two points. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "List of Dragons" per above, or source and merge to "List of Dragons" or the main "Dragon" article. -- Saberwyn 03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Horrible abuse of the word 'species'. Something like "List of dragon species in insert-fictional-universe-here" could conceivably make an article, but not a universal list. Any "species" of dragon could only be meaningful in the context of a particular work of fiction, so the various types could not belong together on the same list. Peter Grey 07:44, 18 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bramald[edit]

Speedy tag removed. Non notable 16-year old in UK. Vanity Montco 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Yawn. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWfgiuliano 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable vanity bio. --Lockley 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination/non-notable. —ERcheck @ 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Pure vanity. Danny Lilithborne 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This person is notable and worthy of this article been kept, delete some other peoples like David Beckhams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo44 (talk • contribs) at 22:45, April 18, 2006
Note: the following votes are duplicate votes by Thommo44, which were substituted for deletion of all entries from nomination through Danny Litithborne's vote:
  • Keep! This person is notable and worthy of this article been kept, delete some other peoples like David Beckhams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo44 (talk • contribs) at 22:46, April 18, 2006
    • KEEP We all loves Charles!!! he is a hero in Yorkshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thommo44 (talk • contribs) at 22:48, April 18, 2006
  • KEEP To claim Charles Bramald is a non-notable 16 year old is completely untrue. He is RIDICULOUSLY well known in the Yorkshire area for the charitable work he does, and has appeared in the Wakefield Express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.202.183 (talk • contribs) at 22:51, April 18, 2006
  • Speedy delete. Vanity page under CSD A7. BryanG 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Belongs on the users page, or in a userspace subpage. Ansell 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 06:54, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_17&oldid=1081093940"