Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 14 June 16 >

Purge server cache

June 15[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 speedy keep. Sango123 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi[edit]

How many internet-related articles are we going to have? Not this one, at least. --XSSX 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Nominator's contributions consist solely of vandalism plus this afd nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It's hard to assume good faith with this nomination. Wi-Fi is an extremely widely-used term, recieving 141,000,000 Google results and used in names such as the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Speedy keep For obvious reasons. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Bad faith nom I think. --Charlesknight 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep. I am doing my very best to assume good faith, but I find it extremely hard to believe that this article is without merit. The basis for the nomination provides no reason why this article fails to meet any of the criteria or policies of Wikipedia. Just because there are a lot of internet-related articles is no reason to choose one for deletion. To accept that is to say we should delete Mississippi River because there are a lot of articles here about rivers. (I note the only other edits by this user were reverted as vandalism.) Agent 86 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep notable topic -- Where is Where? 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No consensus - keep. (See below for details) --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The percentage of delete votes is 75% of 8 votes counted. This is a reasonable margin for deletion, hence delete both articles. In addition, since the article has been deleted, there is no need for the disambiguation. The suggestions for disambiguation here may be used as a guideline in the future if this article were to be reinstated. --HappyCamper 15:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: Wikipedian inks was kind enough to double-check the counting, and noticed that Nandesuka's vote was incorrectly attributed as a "delete". This mistake has been corrected, and the numbers above reflect the new changes to the vote count. Of the 8 valid votes cast, 62.5% is for delete. This is marginally below the threshold of around 66% required for deletion, so the article "Liz shaw" will be undeleted and reinstated. "Liz Shaw NZ" contains the same content as "Liz shaw" as stated by 203.173.189.162. A disambiguation page Liz Shaw (disambiguation) will also be made as a result. --HappyCamper 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Liz shaw (with a lower case "s") and Liz Shaw NZ[edit]

Was first deleted before by me, but subsequently restored by me as well. There is sufficient content in here that probably should not have been speedily deleted, but I suspect this is not a notable subject and worthy of deletion. Would very much like a second opinion. Thanks very much! HappyCamper 05:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC) -- 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC): I added the other link to Liz Shaw NZ. Wikipedia shouldn't need two pages on this person? Perhaps I should notify the anonymous IP not to paste two copies of the article in Wikipedia. However, I think the reason why two pages exist is because I deleted one, and the IP created the other, and this sort of went back and forth... --HappyCamper 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Due to the recent surge of vandalism to Liz shaw, I have protected both pages from being edited during this AfD process. The images used in both articles were deleted because they were not substantiated as material compatible with the GFDL. --HappyCamper 00:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think New Zealanders are going to have to make the call on this. Is there a New Zealander project to discuss this on? Zoe 06:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I initially speedied it, but in retrospect it was too rash of a decision. Better to let vfd dialogue take over. I don't know if there is a New Zealander Wikipedian group. --HappyCamper 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is - one of the more active Country-specific WikiProjects, too, complete with portal. But I digress. FWIW, as a kiwi, I've never heard of her, but that may be just me. Grutness...wha? 08:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grutness - seeing as you live in Dunedin, there is a write up about the Liz Shaw phenomenon in a recent Critic issue. Here's a link to the online version, but I imagine you'll have no trouble finding a copy (although it's really not worth the time) :)[1]--inks 10:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Which isn't to say she's an uninteresting character. But one episode? One Idol crash-and-burn? One magazine? (Sigh.) Maybe I should submit all my rejection slips and see if I can get a 'pedia article about me :) --KJPurscell 06:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon Edit; This above point is irrelevant as William Hung has a Wiki entry, for one bad audition he did. And Liz's subsequent publicity led to an invitation to do a porn movie with Ron Jeremy. Liz's publicity, while not on the same scale as William Hung's is still prolific considered New Zealand's size. I support the renaming to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw".

Keep The Liz Shaw Phenomenon is actually quite widespread here in NZ. She is reasonably (in)famous, and has featured on several NZ websites and magazines (including one of the adult variety). With all respect to KJPurscell, she has used her rejection as a springboard to more infamy (the same kind you'd get if you posed with your rejection slips in an erotic fashion). --inks 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now there's a terrifying image. :) --KJPurscell 18:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She sounds more notable than Angelyne.  :) Zoe 06:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I'd like to hear from more experienced Kiwi Wikipedians on this issue. On the one hand she seems "notable enough" but on the other hand everything I can find online about her looks like it is sourced from the same group of Internet forums; so it feels like this might just be an attack article by some very tenacious haters. Also, the "links" section on this article is of tragically poor quality, although VfD is not cleanup. Nandesuka 12:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notability has been established to my satisfaction. She's notable. Stupid, but notable. Nandesuka 23:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was the one who placed the speedy tag on this but after it was restored I did some research and I found more than 200,000 hits in google but mostly from forums. It needs some HEAVY CLeanup ERASE THat Sex Junk thats why i placed it on speedy on the first place and erase some more of those comments and It could Stay. If Not Delete--Aranda56 02:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Vote Change Socks placed me from Weak Keep to 100 persent Delete --Aranda56 06:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • RENAME to "Elizabeth Joan Shaw" and disambig. Arguably outside of Kiwi-land, Dr. "Liz" Shaw, a character from Doctor Who is more notable. 132.205.3.20 21:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per previous comment - my first thought was "why are they deleting Dr Who characters?". Allegrorondo 21:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annon: She is notorious amongst the student and youth pop of NZ but Dr Who would have arguably more world-wide relevance. However this does not mean the New Zealand Liz Shaw is not worth a wiki.

  • Keep I've just tidied up portions of the page. I believe the article's worthy of retention, since she is now extremely well-known online in NZ and is becoming so in the wider population as well. samf-nz 14:45, 30 August 2005 (NZT)User has less than 10 edits [2]
  • Delete. I smell socks. Take the above vote, for example. Two edits, both to this page. Naughty sock. I found maybe three relevant Google hits for this individual. I'd say a disambig of the "Liz Shaw" version to the Doctor Who character is a good choice. - Lucky 6.9 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Sniff* Suspicion is character assasination, not proof! :) I would use www.google.co.nz and repeat your search. Disambig, but it should be kept in some form.--inks 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and clothes pegs for everyone who smells socks. --fvw* 03:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • rename I originally posted this article, and wanted it to go under "Liz_Shaw_NZ" to avoid ambiguation wiht the Dr Who Liz Shaw. Due to an error on my part it was posted to "Liz_shaw" instead, and when HappyCamper deleted it, I reposted it to Liz_Shaw_NZ because I thought that it should go to a vote, rather than speedy deletion. I would be happy for the article to be moved to Liz_Joan_Shaw, or left at Liz_Shaw_NZ with the Liz_shaw entry deleted. Also, I would like to mention that I am none of the people refered to in the article. (posted by 203.173.189.162) --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry about that. In retrospect, this one shouldn't have been speedied which is why I've set up this VfD in the same sentiment you stated above. --HappyCamper 03:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While she apparently has some notoriety, it's not nearly notable enough for Wikipedia (IMHO as an NZer, of course). One concern is that the Wikipedia article itself is intended as a springboard. I concur with KJPurscell regarding the supposed significance of this subject :) Ziggurat 03:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lost track of the asterisks, so someone can reformat this if necessary. I've heard of her, despite having read no student mags, hardly any blogs, and very few newspapers in the last 12 months. Eurekster.com search engine has not heard of her (and has only one entry on the fictional one). She's not the best advertisement for New Zealand, but there's enough public knowledge of her to keep the article in WP, preferably with a properly styled page name such as "Liz Shaw, New Zealand". I think she is more encyclopaedic than US college football coach Paul Hines, for example (nothing personal, Paul and friends!). Robin Patterson 05:59:17, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Unless she's suddenly become a town, that should be Liz Shaw (New Zealand), Robin! I'd agree with making Liz Shaw a dab page though. The good doctor's companion (the first one with the Pertwee Doctor, IIRC) is well known here too. Grutness...wha? 04:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all those in NZ who are interested, Liz is appearing on 20/20 in relation to the porn shoot she did. It airs this thursday (Sept 1), 9:30pm, TV2 (posted by 203.173.189.162) --
  • KEEP She is well known in NZ, frequencting virtually every NZ internet forum, and being in numerous media publications.--Nambio 04:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC) User has less than 10 edits. Started editing today. [reply]
  • Keep I have nothing to add to this discussion other than I think the page should stay, for future reference for parents, who always need material to scare their children into behaving. Internet bogeywoman? --Heyzoos
  • Please keep There is nothing defaming or libellious, and this is a topic interesting and relevant to many New Zealanders. Everything quoted in the article was verifiable, sources were cited, and was a fair and neutral representation.
In addition this topic is also relevant to anyone interested in the effects of popular media on young adults. The "Liz Shaw" phenomenon is a (IMO) facinating look at how far some people will go to get noticed - whether through fame or infamy.
I support namming the topic as Liz Shaw NZ or Liz Shaw (New Zealand) as she is not known as Elizabeth Joan Shaw - as well as a dab page from Liz Shaw to the correct pages for both the "Liz Shaws. I suppose that if the topic WAS to be renamed Elizabeth Joan Shaw that could be handled through a Liz Shaw dab page also - would that mean that the current Liz Shaw page is renamed to Liz Shaw (Dr Who) or similar? Maybe. A topic merge of both the Liz shaw and Liz Shaw NZ entries is an excellent idea.
It's funny how despite having done a few Wikipedia entries and updates that it's a deletion that would actually prompt me to create an account... ;-)
--Crocos 12:10:06, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • KEEP She is a well known person in New Zealand, with her appearing in adverts that screen daily, a documentary last week, many discussion forums, and NZ Idol (albeit only in one show). It is important to separate opinions about her and her actions/style/way of life with the fact that she is now an emerging public/well-known figure. Merstiner 12:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 anyways. TheProject 05:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz videos[edit]

Appears to be spam, links only to one external site, is not a history of Jazz videos or anything Gnewf 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pure adspam. - Richardcavell 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Jusjih 00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ads, unencyclopedic. Couldnt this be speedy? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Adambiswanger1 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. Skyraider 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adspam Ted 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. —Khoikhoi 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should be speedied as advert. ---Charles 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam.--Andeh 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I did speedy this article with the reason "spam" but it got removed by Stifle and I got a note saying spam "is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag". So, what's the protocol? Gnewf 04:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card Location[edit]

Description of "magic trick" allegedly invented by the author of the article. It's earned $500. I'd say "not notable". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, OR, nn Adambiswanger1 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. No sources cited; the details of the trick have apparently not been published before. (It's irrelevant to the deletion discussion, but this trick doesn't seem terribly good; I don't know that I've ever seen a card trick in which the magician did not shuffle the cards and then allow a subject to cut them. And in the process of counting down to the specified location, the subject is likely to notice that the order of the card is far from random—even if other features are not noticed, the fact that each group of four cards is in sequential order is pretty noticeable). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. More power to him if he can earn money off it, but it isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Ted 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. How has this chap made money from this trick when the revelation of how it's done is there for all to see for free? This is essentially non-encyclopedic but good luck to him anyway.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. There's nothing wrong with stacked decks, but this isn't an existing one, at least not verifiable from reputable magic sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Delete shouldn't have even got here, should have just been prodded --Xorkl000 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR. Invitatious 14:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research --mtz206 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOR, also sounds too simple to be a notable card trick. JIP | Talk 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i like magic tricks, but this looks like OR. also, magicians never reveal their secrets, so this person is a bad magician =]. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. Snugspout 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research through and through.--Auger Martel 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons.
1) This is true. A mathematical formula, originated in personal research or not, is and stays true. And every card trick is mathematical (or just suggestion). See also WP:RDMisc about it
2) This is fun. My only regret is that ... the article is unreadable! Wikify it and you'll love it. --DLL 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is verifiability, not truth. And there is nothing anywhere that suggests that articles that are "fun" ought to have different standards applied to them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. LotLE×talk 06:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up while sitting in your car one day. Also seems to be vanity. Ace of Sevens 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack page on non-notable person, and probably an elaborate hoax at that. - Richardcavell 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ingvaldson[edit]

appears to be attack page on high school teacher, has not satisfied WP:NN Marysunshine 01:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious delete per above, possibly a speedy A6. --Kinu t/c 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily fails WP:BIO. It's one of those "Just delete it" situations. Adambiswanger1 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per Kinu. ... discospinster talk 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete May meet A6, but I'm more for A7. Tagged. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does indeed meet A6, but I'm only changing the speedy tag to that because there is an assertion of notability. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per Whomp. Ted 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Whomp. —Khoikhoi 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was nominated for speedy deletion on June 14 and the tag was removed. Just a note.--Marysunshine 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, regrettably. DS 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undernet Philosophy Channel[edit]

Non-noteworthy Undernet IRC channel. No assertion of notability, no references or citations, etc. after about 45 days of existing; no evidence that it meets WP:WEB. -Silence 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy IRC channel, nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. —Khoikhoi 02:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 09:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to contribute to this article and help make it noteworthy. I am a newcomer to wikipedia users and do not know how everything works yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersemicolon (talk • contribs)
  • Unfortunately, it is not possible to "make an article noteworthy"; an article's topic has to already be noteworthy, and it's our job to make an article comprehensive, high-quality, and unbiased. If an article's topic isn't noteworthy, there's nothing we can do: we have to delete it. If it becomes noteworthy at any point in the future, we can always recreate it. You can also freely transfer all the information on this page to an off-Wikipedia website so it isn't lost. But if the article's not noteworthy, no amount of improving it will do any good; if the article is a noteworthy subject matter, meeting requirements like WP:WEB, then all you need to do is provide reputable citations/references to verify that the content is valid and significant enough. -Silence 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as utter nonsense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zandi's Bay, North Carolina[edit]

Ok, this is based off tracking a user who was making odd edits to county pages in north carolina. They created this article after altering numerous pages to include this city, especially noting that it is somehow the seat of Forsyth county. Well, its not. [3]. The page is either a copy or a mutation of another small town census-only article on wikipedia. So far I've been unsuccessful at locating where the article is copied from, it may be randomized, as the sum of the common races is greater than 100%. The image used is Image:NCMap-doton-WinstonSalem.PNG (the actual seat of the county). Also apparently the town is 34% water, with 6.4 out of the 8 sq meters of the entire county being water in this fake town, especially looking at the tiger data. [4] Its an obvious hoax, given what I've seen Kevin_b_er 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obvious hoax. ---Charles 02:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and charles AdamBiswanger1 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. I can't verify the information. Why would a bay be in the middle of the province/state? --Starionwolf 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cliff dwellers handbook[edit]

Essay. The page appears to have been created by the author of a nn book with a similar title. The page is not wikified and has a number of spelling and grammatical errors. FreeKresge 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if it is not original research (which is certainly the impression one is given), it is not at all encyclopedic, and even reads as rather ridiculous. ---Charles 02:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn junk AdamBiswanger1 03:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Pak21 09:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom StuartF 11:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable junk. I certainly hope the author of the book didn't really write the article (although his blog suggests otherwise). The book is trash, and the article is worse. Ted 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as junk. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like the back of a bad book. --12.175.19.178 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent bad nonsense --Alphachimp talk 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Optix[edit]

Non-notable semiconductor company. Fails WP:CORP. -- RHaworth 02:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd classify this as nn. AdamBiswanger1 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Changed to Keep and Cleanup/Expand per J.smith--Shizane 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clear and notable passer of WP:CORP. Heres how it passes WP:CROP:
Criteria 1, multiple non-trivial published works: (industry publications: [5] and [6]. San Jose Newspaper: [7])
Criteria 2, ranking indices: Technology Pioneers award, 2006 and rAVe 2005 Radical Product of the Year Award.
Criteria 3, stock market indices: None - Privately owned company.
The article was poorly written, but the company clearly passes WP:CORP on multiple measures... and that was just skimming for 20 min on google. ---J.S (t|c) 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 90k hits on google for an exact-phrase search of "Silicon Optix." ---J.S (t|c) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per J.S. - needs some work. --mtz206 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Cleanup/expand, if not cleaned up/expaned Delete Very poorly written, this one seems to be in the start phase. Needs more meat and verifyable (I can't spell sorry) info to be kept. Aeon 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added the sources I listed above, so WP:V is taken care of. Just need to expand the article at this point. ---J.S (t|c) 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cool, I will revise my vote when the article is expanded Aeon 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JS. Seems notable enough. 199 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems non-notable enough. Tychocat 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is an odd day when a multi-national company that also passes WP:CORP is non-notable. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand a bit. Just because the article is a stub is not reason enough to delete it. BrownHornet21 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and has the potential to be a solid article, but it's a shambling mess at the moment. Needs cleanup pronto.--Auger Martel 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaotik Productions[edit]

Company formed in 2006 with two employees. Notable? Two redirects also to be deleted. -- RHaworth 02:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Their home page is still under construction. Fan1967 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 02:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rhaworth and Fan1937 AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody else --Pak21 09:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. They get 12 Google hits, a third of which are credits on head shots for some up-and-coming models. Ted 12:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP. --mtz206 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Government Simulation[edit]

No sources, not likely to ever be notable. Check all 3 pages of Google results yourself: [8] Ashibaka tock 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SweetIM[edit]

Is nothing more than advertising. It has no encyclopedic value. User:Jmount 02:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Sixth Form[edit]

On behalf of the Luton Sixth College (of which I am currently a student) this page has been requested to be deleted from this site. It was created without the prior consent of any administrative member of staff, by a student who was put up to it as a simple joke. The college (as I understand it) can reserve their right to not be listed on this encyclopedia if they do not wish to be, certainly not in the mal-constructed, under-written form as the article appears now. It could be considered potentially harmful to the college reputation (refer to the history of the page, vandalism has been cleared for the time being as the deletion process is pursued) if this page remains. A formal addressal will be made to contact the Wikipedia H.Q. over the next few days to request removal, but I have still decided to address this through the 'normal' channels. I think it is very clear that this article does NOT have a place on this encyclopedia.

  • Comment There are a number of arguments for the notability of schools and the arguments for keeping or deleting them - Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. If your school is not sufficiently notable, it can go. However, that you don't want to be listed is not a sufficient argument for deletion - see any of the AfD discussions at Daniel Brandt. Contact legal if there are legal problems with inclusion, but I see none. It can be speedied if the creator wants it to go. Jammo (SM247) 02:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The existence of the college is public domain - I don't think the college have any right to request the article's removal. They do of course have the right to edit it! And what's wrong with the article anyway? -- RHaworth 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep seems like a perfectly fine article to me. --Pak21 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is has nothing to do with the request to remove it (which we have no way of knowing is genuine). The school does not appear to be notable enough to justify an article -- and there is no precedent or consensus for "Keep" votes or some mystical "inherent notability" for schools (despite what is claimed by organised pro-School article voters). If the school is planning to make a formal request for removal (with reliable identification), then that's up to them... but on AFD we have to make a decision solely on the article, and mine is 'delete'. - Motor (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, could do with a minor cleanup. The level of notability for schools is low. Vizjim 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally feel that schools are notable as they are such an influence in people's lives. Ben W Bell talk 10:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Luton, or possibly create a Schools and colleges of Luton list or something. Once you remove all the stuff about "world renowned" courses and employing "some of the most prolific names in higher education", there really isn't much left. Additionally, the article doesn't establish the notability of the college. Extraordinary Machine 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't see any problems with the article. David L Rattigan 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For utter non-notability. As mentioned above the reason given in the nom isn;t a very good one. Artw 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Vizjim, &c.: current precedent suggests that most schools are notable. The article, or at least the one I read, does not seem to be an attack page. Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Also, nominator, remember: No legal threats. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Luton Sixth Form College. Just because somebody claims the subject wants it removed is no reason to remove it. It's a perfectly reasonable subject for an article. -- Necrothesp 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see, I want it removed because I think it's not a reasonable subject for the article, not because of what the nominator said. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a college, it's a reasonable subject for an article, in my opinion. -- Necrothesp 22:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a well known High School and these are generally kept. It does need improvement and renaming as suggested just above. --Bduke 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one is entitled to have their article removed. If an organisation doesn't want to have a public profile, the only way to achieve that is not to exist. ReeseM 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an article about a minor educational entity that does no research. It is non-notable. Cedars 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bduke. --mtz206 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreau Bartmann[edit]

Someone else listed this originally, but I'll pick up where he or she left off. This is simply a vanity article on a nn artist. He fetches about 150 results on Google, so it might also be a hoax. AdamBiswanger1 03:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. On the off chance this stays, all of the external e-commerce links need to be removed. --djrobgordon 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. RedRollerskate 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity, and advertising spam. Ted 14:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fail to see how this individual is notable. DrunkenSmurf 17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN, spam, POV. Yikes. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable, nonsense and may not exist. Not sent to BJAODN as I don't find it funny and it just encourages people to create articles (and make other edits) in the hopes they get put there (search through the Reference Desk\miscellaneous). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Honorable Chaseton Stewart Hellfire[edit]

Obvious hoax. Claims to be the bastard child of Mafia Don Paul Castellano and 513th in the line of succession to the British throne. Feel free to read through the rest . . . ScottW 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense/bio, could go in here. Yanksox 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article was previously tagged for db-nonsense, but the creator removed it. I considered restoring the tag, but I don't think it actually qualifies as nonsense under the guidelines. Also, as ridiculous as it may be, there is an assertion of notability, so I don't think it qualifies as A7 either. I suppose this all goes to the question of whether an obvious hoax should be speedily deleted. In any case, this is article is the poster child for obvious hoax. ScottW 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The safest choice is for AfD to run through. Yanksox 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mind you, someone has sure put some work into this. Not speedy delete so creator has a chance to justify. BlueValour 02:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no chance whatsoever of the article's author justifying this joke of a travesty of an article. Pure drivel. ---Charles 03:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'His Mother's 150 year old home resided above a secret passage to the Underground Railroad.' Jammo (SM247) 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if closing admin feels bad about deleting something that required this kind of work, I suggest shifting to BJAODN. - Richardcavell 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete AdamBiswanger1 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged as such. Note that article creator is User:Chaseforprince. NawlinWiki 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilers/Titans Curse[edit]

This is speculation. There are no references provided. It may be a hoax Delete Mirasmus 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete something made up in school one day. --djrobgordon 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as someone from philly, I can relate (Curse of Billy Penn). However, such superstitions as these require citations to prove that they are not OR, and are actual sentiments. AdamBiswanger1 03:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Someone has obviously made up a whole lot of articles to explain away any possible curse, most of which fail both WP:NOR and are also complete nonsense. BoojiBoy 04:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and stick a Voodoo needle in this curse and all the ones listed below. ~ trialsanderrors 05:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged it with {{OriginalResearch}} back on 16 January 2006. [9] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research --Pak21 09:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously someone's made up crap. No references and I've heard no mention of any such thing after watching ESPN for years. Grandmasterka 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and be sure to remove it from List of legends and myths as well. PhilShady
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtbags[edit]

Contested prod. This is a movie with no significant distribution; it's on IMDB but with only 12 votes for ratings and no reviews. I could find no reviews from real press, and the production company is a music video producer. Bill Zebub is not particularly notable either, but due to his magazine I'm not nominating that article right now. Mangojuicetalk 02:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is only one step above a home movie. Mangojuicetalk 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Mirasmus 02:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I may nominate Zebub and his zine as well. --djrobgordon 02:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn AdamBiswanger1 03:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough, hardly any reviews, news or anything about it really.--Auger Martel 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --Zoz (t) 19:26, 17 June 2006
  • Keep Certainly notable. Reviews if you look in the right places. 22:29, 19 June 2006(UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StahlhammerIV (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep.  RasputinAXP  c 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Groove Company[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No allmusic.com entry, no mention on rollingstone.com, no significant press, and their two albums appear to be self-released. Gamaliel 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second vote.
  • Keep. Don't see a problem with the content. David L Rattigan 16:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete both albums They get a lot of Google hits, but only 258 of those hits are unique. The article asserts no notability aside from playing some festivals, but let's be honest- a lot of local bands play big festivals. There's no information on whether or not the band even has a record deal, and AllMusic has nothing on them. -- Kicking222 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and both albums too. Per nom and Kicking222. - Motor (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Kicking222. Conditional Keep. I have looked at the additional sources and undertaken some further research of the band, and I am changing my vote to a conditional keep. It is very close, but I am willing to believe that it is just notable enough and marginally manages to satisfy the conditions listed under WP:MUSIC. The condition is that the two albums Reachin' and The Charmer, are merged into this article. In conjunction with the band, it is sufficient to constitute an article. However, the albums themselves are not notable enough to justify seperate articles. If the author[s] insist on the albums having seperate articles, then my vote goes back to Delete.--Auger Martel 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated, the band has played 10,000 Lakes Festival and Summerfest. They have also toured extensively throughout the U.S. which to me would satisfy "or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." (from WP:MUSIC) which can be verified at their website. They will also have a song on the sampler disc with the June issue of Relix magazine. Dismas|(talk) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • In relation to the following req. of WP:MUSIC, "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." ... They've toured through 28 states and played, at last count, 424 shows as evidenced here: [10]. This information is also available on JamBase [11].
      • And as for being written up and reviewed by the press and web sites, there is their own Press Room page here which has excerpts from Jambands.com, Glide magazine, The Huntsville Times, The Quad City Times, and others.
      • Dismas|(talk) 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Money Blog[edit]

The article provides little more than a link to the Mad Money website, and what information it does provide is already available at the Mad Money article---this is all redundant. Charles 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Individual Blogspot pages (and the like) are not valid subjects for encyclopaedia articles of themselves without some reason for fame or notoriety, in which case it will invariably tied to the creator and not have its own existence. Jammo (SM247) 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the points above. Lord Bodak 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, the blog linked to in the article no longer exists as of this morning (it was there when I looked yesterday afternoon). Lord Bodak 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not proper to comment on it like this, but please keep in mind that the blog linked to by the article did NOT belong to Jim Cramer and was not related to his show. It was someone's blog to talk about Cramer's picks. There is no "Mad Money Blog" that belongs to Cramer. Lord Bodak 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooh. Ignore my vote, then. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, Lord Bodak. Given this new research, this article is even more deserving of deletion, it seems to me. ---Charles 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Park - One Stop[edit]

Pure adspam. Richardcavell 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Metamagician3000 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures[edit]

Is a list of units in a game, does not seem really fit for inclusion so taking it here Tawker 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is one of the reasons why wikipedia is superior to a paper encyclopedia; the latter would never allow this type of thing. - Richardcavell 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A notable game, the information is merged as much as possible, and doesn't infringe upon being an instruction manual. AdamBiswanger1 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Yes, its a notable game which should have its own article, but Wikipedia is NOT A GAME GUIDE and this list doesn't belong in wikipedia. There are a ton of game faq/hints/guides/walkthroughs available elsewhere on the web with this kind of information. Whether including this kind of fancrufty/listcrufty detail in wikipedia makes it "superior" is a matter of major debate, but is moot in this case due to WP:NOT explicitly noting that Wikipedia is not a game guide.Bwithh 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Exactly, wikipedia aint a game guide. Where is the encyclopedic value in this? Jmount 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks - after taking a few thinks about this one its good content, but it just doesn't fit in an WP entry. I think Wikibooks is the best place for this -- Tawker 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - If I remember correctly, Wikibooks has recently deleted all of its video-game-related content, and is currently embroiled in a debate about what direction their project should take. Transwiki may not be an option at this point. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Wikibooks is one of the few Wikis I'm not registered with, why would they object to video game related content? It seems like a legitimate subject for a wide range of books to cover, so while I'm not really even vaguely familiar with their goals, I am interested to know why they would take such a stance against the topic. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Hmm, so I lied, looks like I've been registered since April of this year, but haven't made any contributions. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this please. Scented Guano 06:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if somewhere appropriate exists, otherwise delete: Wikipedia is not a game guide --Pak21 09:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide or howto. If you can find a home for it elsewhere fine... but not here. - Motor (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as textbook game guide. Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go and Do Something Less Boring Instead?. Vizjim 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That show was ace. Not that I remember any of it Bwithh 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a game guide. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Seems fairly simple to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge relevant parts into Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. This is NOT a "game guide" (more to the point, this is not an instruction manual on how to play the game). It is simply a listing of units in the game. Crufty, yes. But not crufty enough for deletion, and more importantly, it is important enough to at least be on the main game article(s). -- Grev 13:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does act like an instruction manual in that it is saying which units should be used in which situations, but the bigger problem is that a lot of it seems to be the author's opinion (e.g. "The missiles inflict massive damage, but are launched slowly and can be shot down easily") as well as original research. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Motor. --Shizane 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Game articles are one thing, but all "structure guides" for strategy based games (or any games for that matter) are not suitible material for Wikipedia articles.--Isotope23 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just going to sum up my vote with: WP is not GameFAQs. And thank god, because they have way too many annoying RPG freaks over there. -- Kicking222 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is interesting that you would point out the RPG game people, because no one seems to put their stuff up on AFD even though it could be considered game manual-ish or game guide-ish. So far the only stuff placed here have been RTS related material. That would seem to suggest a problem with the policy. TomStar81 22:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is assuredly not a game guide. Wickethewok 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Faaaancruft! - Kookykman|(t)e 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a game guide. -- GWO
  • Comment. As policy dictates, information about a certain character(s) is to be moved to a separate article if the main one gets too big. I created the page to take the stress off the Red Alert 2 article, which was getting enormous. Therefore, the page should either be edited to remove information unverified on the official website it links to, or deleted completely: there is no point in bouncing the info back and forth between articles.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyFavatar[edit]

Advertisment for a blog site Zandarx talk 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo Boy[edit]

Vanity article by tall, dark, and handsome Evan Henderson. If the page is deleted, then Emo Boy will just cease to exist. I can live without him. -- RHaworth 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, autobio --djrobgordon 03:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original prod Home-made video series. --Starionwolf 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I do believe we can all live without him. ---Charles 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he says that like it's a bad thing. Danny Lilithborne 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above AdamBiswanger1 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Khoikhoi
  • Keep WTF is emo boy doing to hurt you?-ネコの少年 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable amateur video effort.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't worry, we'll find a way to struggle along without Emo Boy. There's no shortage of poorly written vanity pages and lame jokes that'll keep us going. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Twittenham 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete non notable, attempt at trying to make something an internet meme.--Andeh 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSallyB 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although that last passage deserves a BJAODN. The guy even got the year wrong. Grandmasterka 23:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Roy Williams[edit]

The phrase "Curse of Roy Williams" gets six unique Google hits, four of which are mirrors of this article. No media coverage, and the supposed "curse" has only been around for three years. djrobgordon 03:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Gambit (band)[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of any notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Sometimes I feel like I'm kicking a puppy, but rules is rules. The websites they're featured on aren't notable enough to meet WP:MUSIC. - Richfife 04:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I'm going to have to save that picture. --djrobgordon 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In no way meets WP:MUSIC. DrunkenSmurf 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment according to the article, the band has had reviews in multiple celtic music magazines. im not sure if that qualifies as "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" in WP:MUSIC, though, and it does not verify that claim. --Samael775 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but move image to BJADN. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Weak delete as not really notable. LotLE×talk 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Joustas[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable band with no indie or major label releases. Was their tour of the UK a headline tour? If so, they might just creep in as notable - verification required.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The touring with a known band is a slight claim of notability, but I don't think it's enough. It's also unverified. Otherwise, there's nothing in this article that claims the band is notable. -- Kicking222 17:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Take-Aways[edit]

Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. There's a current band of the same name on MySpace, but none of the members were born when this one existed. No AllMusic entry. Very difficult to do a websearch for, but I can't find any matches anywhere with more info. Richfife 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One song on a thirty-year-old nn compilation doesn't cut it for me. --djrobgordon 05:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable band; could be {{db-band}} candidates as there are no notable features mentioned.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Change of Pace[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per the article, they've toured the US (OK, the western half) and appeared on the Vans Warped Tour. I think they squeak over the notability line based on that - Richfife 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Richfife --djrobgordon 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warped tour is enough notability for me. --Shizane 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs expansion, perhaps links media coverage? But meets notability. Parsssseltongue 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. — 199 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Offer You Can't Refuse[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no claim of notability. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Delete [A Change of Pace]. If the band goes, this article should too. If not, then not. - Richfife 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable album. Even if A Change of Pace survives deletion, not all albums by (marginally) notable bands are notable. Ted 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. If A Change of Pace is kept, this article should be kept. Spacepotato 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. As A Change of Pace has been kept, this article should also be kept. Spacepotato 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge into the A Change of Pace article. The album itself isn't notable enough for its own page. - Frekja 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that we have information on the album, this page is the logical place for it. Album pages are also being debated at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oniket_Prantor. Spacepotato 23:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author provides no evidence of notability. BlueValour 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above.--Aldux 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnimationMentor[edit]

An online animation course that seems to have no notability. Alexa rank of 583,597. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Betadot[edit]

Non-notable website; Alexa rank of 248,080. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Frankchn 11:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending verification of information The notability requirement is not official Wikipedia policy. It is, rather, a suggested, unofficial policy that does not yet have consensus, and therefore not necessarilly by itself a reason for deletion. Moreover, it is unclear as to what the definition of notable would be for this site. It does seem to offer the same services as other sites that are listed in articles in Wikipedia, and unless there is some evidence that it is a bogus site it may very well have enough interest to qualify as "notable".
That being said, parts of the article is not currently independently verifiable. Therefore it will require additional citation to meet the verifiability standard. Once that is corrected, the article would not violate official policy, far as I can tell. Dugwiki 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, without independent references, I'm for the article being deleted. Dugwiki 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Elgin Baylor[edit]

Yet another curse made up on WP. 71 Google hits, again, nearly all mirrors. There is a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article which references this page, yet again proving that the media doesn't know how to deal with this site. Is it possible this nn internet meme could become notable because some uninformed journalist didn't realize it was an nn internet meme? djrobgordon 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Close, at DRV already, pending DRV outcome. You can't have it both ways, if you want to relist now, withdraw the DRV and wait a decent time (a month is typical) before relisting at AfD. If you want a DRV with a result of delete, don't relist here. If you want a DRV with a result of relist at AfD, you have to let the DRV finish first. I'm surprised that User:WCityMike, who has been using process as a strong argument in the DRV to contest the outcome, would flub up this bit of process this way... --++Lar: t/c 05:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey (second nomination)[edit]

(Please see also the current Deletion Review discussion and the previous AFD)

  • Strong delete. Fails to meet notability standards. — Mike • 03:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clerical note. Please note that this article cannot be transwikied to Lostpedia. Also, please either vote firmly either delete or keep — votes for transwiki, merge, or merge or delete were all counted as keep votes in this article's prior nomination. — Mike • 04:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even is individual episodes are generally notable, I can't imagine a clip show is. --djrobgordon 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This just got closed today, and is currently listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Lost: The Journey. As far as I see, there has been no consensus to relist on AfD there, so this should be closed pending the outcome at DRV. BryanG(talk) 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as should have been done after the previous AFD. I made the mistake of saying, "merge anything useful ... otherwise delete" in the first AFD. Unfortunately, this was misunderstood to be an impossible (because of the GDFL) "merge and delete". I had thought that "otherwise" would imply mutual exclusivity, but I guess not. At any rate, so that there is no misunderstanding as to my opinion on the matter, delete per the previous AFD. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This "article" is little more than a laundry list of topics covered in a clip show. I can't see how that is an encyclopedic topic. BigDT 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close for procedural reasons per BryanG. Sandstein 05:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0 for 4 Curse[edit]

131 Google hits, nearly all of which are mirrors or links on other WP pages. No sources. The article doesn't even make clear what the curse is. djrobgordon 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annalena McAfee[edit]

Only claim of notability seems to be her participation as a judge for the Orange Prize for Fiction. 708 Google hits. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her claim to notability is that she's editor of the Guardian's literary supplement, as well as the author of a number of children's books published by a good sized house [13]. The books are mostly out of print, but that doesn't seem relevant. --djrobgordon 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Even the Grauniad doesn't seem to think she's all that notable, but then again maybe they just misspelled her name. ~ trialsanderrors 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Sunday Times article from 2001 refered to her as head of the Guardian's literary section in an article on the Samuel Johnson Award which she was a judge for as well as the Orange Prize for Fiction. The ACT Public Library system has six of her books on the shelves which suggests that have had a reasonable distribution. Her work seems to have been reviewed in publications such as the Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman. She seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:BIO, "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.", and the Orange Prize is part of such a record in the field of literature. Tevildo 10:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being editor of the Guardian Review means she is quite a big deal on the English literary scene, as well as being an established children's author who's worked with good publishers and illustrators. I've expanded the article a bit to show her involvement in lit. prizes and festivals, and her kids' books translated into other languages. --HJMG 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editor of the Guardian Review definitely makes her notable. Ben W Bell talk 10:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup article a bit, use citations, but subject does meet notability. Parsssseltongue 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not to pile-on, but people should really pause and search before they instantly claim a lack of notability. — 199 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I considered changing my vote based on the recent comments, but the only thing I see are further assertions and I only respond to evidence. It is incumbent on the editor (or in extension on those voting for keep) to establish notability rather than assert or assume it, or pass the burden on the nominator. ~ trialsanderrors 22:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article did establish notability by stating that she was an editor of the Guardian, a writer of six books, and a judge for the Orange Prize. Each keep vote has agreed that these are reasonable examples of notability. Indeed, I've crossed out "search" above: it's true that one shouldn't have to search for notability before nominating, but the notability here was right there in the artcile. — 199 15:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per djrobgordon. Mangojuicetalk 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. In any event, a judge for a major literary award is ipso facto notable. Metamagician3000 09:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Marginally notable. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, let his stupid wife stay. Skinnyweed 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of King Clancy[edit]

Another curse that's complete made-up nonsense. BoojiBoy 04:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or, if you must, Merge it into a team or player article - Richfife 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 24 Google hits, almost all mirrors. --djrobgordon 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not verified, else keep. --Snarius 04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sens fans speak up, the curse is real --canadian_bacon 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is canadian_bacon's first edit. --djrobgordon 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another Curse of the Bambino emulation. What is going on today? Nonsense article.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Transcript. It predates the article by 2 yearsReference to a newspaper article from 2004--Zegoma beach 14:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's verifiable, add proof/documentation to the page and withdraw nomination. BoojiBoy 14:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After some thought, changing my vote back. BoojiBoy 02:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. One newspaper article by a bored reporter does not make it notable. Ted 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the Clancy quote is accurate, I don't see why it can't be merged into his article. --djrobgordon 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would prefer that the article about a notable ice hockey legend not be cluttered up with hocus-pocus myself. BoojiBoy 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One newspaper reference or not, it's still non-notable. I can dig up hundreds of newspaper obituaries, but I wouldn't want an article on each of them. -- Kicking222 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete one newspaper article and some chatroom discussion doesn't make it notable --Samael775 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are so many of these showing up today? - Kookykman|(t)e 21:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  RasputinAXP  c 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Allen Breon[edit]

"Student leader" at Bucknell; not notable for our purposes, even if he is "known for his social skills with women." NawlinWiki 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Has a strong vanity scent to it, but a case could be made for inclusion. Class president of a medium sized private university. Might work. - Richfife 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a class president at college is not a sufficient claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90 BillC 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student supposedly "known for his social skills with women." Borderline speedy candidate, and the one Google hit I get for his name is the article itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Starblind. - Motor (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His social skills with women are too much for Wikipedia. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh, the vanity! RedRollerskate 02:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep But lose the `social skills with women', violates NPOV. snug 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and more importantly WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 22:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Closer's notes
This debate was split evenly down the middle numerically. However the main argument for keeping the article was that it was supposedly a revenge nomination for another article that was deleted, whereas the main argument for deleting the article was that it did not meet WP:WEB. When the acrimony has subsided, the result of this debate may be cited as trending towards delete.

In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users were disregarded.

Does not meet WP:WEB, not notable, low Alexa ranking, no recent news, doesn't even get pushes from left-wing commentators, and the site owner himself, Ben Burch, has indicated that he would like the page deleted (though he claims to be neutral about it) Jinxmchue 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My nomination aside, I really don't think this page should be deleted. My only goal here is consistency on Wiki. Every reason given for the deletion of the Protest Warrior page is just as applicable to the White Rose page. If PW stays, WR should stay. If PW is deleted, WR should be deleted. (And vice versa on both of those, too.) That's it. Jinxmchue 02:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Weak delete Stevie convinced me. Weak keep - Mr. 71.125.x.x convinced me to change my vote because this topic is notable enough for him to spend his whole Sunday afternoon and evening on, then it MUST be notable enough for Wikipedia. I'd have left my vote as it was if he hadn't decided to insult anybody who showed up here to say a nice word about my site. I'll vote even though I am connected with the page. BenBurch 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - Would be inappropriate for me to make any vote, though I will say that this site is mentioned on radio shows about 9 times a day, and sends out 6000 GiB of audio data every month. Also, I never said that I wanted this page deleted, that was said about the page about me personally. But I'll happily accept the judgement of others on this. BenBurch 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just make sure you troll for votes over on DU like you did the last time, Ben. Yeah. Real "neutral." Jinxmchue 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you'd never troll over on any of your boards, right? BenBurch 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you two want to have a personal argument, do it on your talk pages, not here. Every petty comment makes this nom look more and more like it was made in bad faith. This nom might have been done just to make a point, if comments in the AfD for Protest Warrior are any indication. --djrobgordon 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain it *was* done to make a point, but I'm happy to let other Wiki editors pass judgement on the worth of this entry on its merits. BenBurch 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "faith" of my nom is no different than the "faith" of Ben's noms. Make of that (and Ben) what you will. Jinxmchue 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jinxmchue, read WP:CIVIL and at least try to follow it.--Isotope23 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. And I will politely ask Ben to do the same. Jinxmchue 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with Protest Warrior this also seems notable and is written in a manner consistent with Wiki style. Interlingua talk 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above dispute notwithstanding, the article doesn't actually tell me what is notable about the website. Some verified information wouldn't go amiss.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible bad faith revenge nomination for Protest Warrior. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in the least. Call it "keeping Wiki consistent." If the entry for PW is going to be challenged for the reasons being given, then WRS will be challenged as well because the same reasons can be equally (if not moreso) applied to it. I guess we'll find out how truly neutral this online community supposedly is. Jinxmchue 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 1160 Google hits for "White Rose Society" Burch -wikipedia, including over 100 unique. But I admit some press coverage would have been nice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith, revenge nomination. Article needs work, but it is marginally notable. Ted 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the nom's motives relevant? Why is it marginally notable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very good point. BenBurch has successfully launched a number of revenge-motivated AfD actions, and his motives are never considered. Why would motive be considered in this case? Crockspot 16:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I can't speak for anyone else. I look at deletions in spurts, and haven't noticed any such nominations. I went by Jinxmchue's admitted reason for seeking to delete this article (see above). Attack entries must be avoided if Wikipedia is to succeed. That includes articles, talk, and Wikipedia space. If you wish to consider that I am biased, then that is your prerogative. Ted 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune this advertisement, as failing WP:WEB. There's no evidence of independent analysis (most, if not all, the ghits are forums or blogs), and the Alexa number is six digits. I shudder to see the flood of socks this AFD will inevitable suffer, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I agree with you on both points. It is no more notable than any other web site mentioned on national broadcast media around nine times every day. And I think a positive flood of Right Wing sock puppets will be here shortly. BenBurch 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Ben. We don't work like you and DU. Jinxmchue 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Analysis. It is mentioned in passing in national broadcast media because it provides a minor service to those media. One sentence in the articles of the media which the site archives should suffice. Unless you can offer some sort of independent non-blog/forum commentary on this site? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't disagreeing with you... BenBurch 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two points: (1) What does the mention consist of? An advertisement? If so, that does not make it notable. There are literally thousands of businesses and services that get mentioned on national broadcasts, yet they don't have or warrant a Wiki entry. And (2) what does the national broadcast consist of? A floundering radio network with extremely low ratings in the majority of the country? Jinxmchue 16:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -999 (Talk) 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Just another disk farm full of avi files. Crockspot 16:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's 10th edit. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct. A disk farm full of MP3 files documenting Liberal and Progressive radio back to 2001. BenBurch 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Displaying more of that neutrality, I see. Crockspot 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't disagreeing with you. What is your major malfunction? BenBurch 16:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have a problem with hypocricy. You constantly make bad faith nominations based upon political revenge, many of them successful, yet you are the first to cry about motivation. Your artful way of "agreeing" with me doesn't fool anyone here. I suspect that the other editors are becoming weary of your antics. The personal attack is a nice touch too, FC. Crockspot 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here after reading the attack piece on Conservative Underground. This is some sort of demented revenge here, not any sort of attempt to improve Wiki. Sad. This is why this resource has such a low reputation. I use it, but I cannot trust it. 194.210.99.192 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no claims on notability in the article and no reliable sources that can be verified. If notability can be provided (e.g. a link to independent coverage in a notable newspaper or similar) then I'll change to Keep. Gwernol 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the nominator pointed out, the reasons for deleting this article are the same as deleting Protest Warrior. Neither deserves deletion. I remain flabbergasted that Conservative Underground was deleted. VoiceOfReason 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither this article nor Protest Warrior should be deleted in the name of some political wrangling that has somehow made its way onto Wikipedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir, your fairmindedness is a credit to Wikipedia. If you have the sway, you may want to look into the deletion of Conservative Underground, under identical circumstances. Crockspot 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • . On further review as prompted by the user Crockspot, I investigated this site a bit and noted that its Alexa rating is a mere 166,000. In comparison to the Conservative Underground AFD (a site which incidentally has a ranking of 44,000), I think that it's a poor sign that that result came up delete while this previously came up keep. I have changed my vote to delete. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. As stated by Gwernol, I will be totally willing to reconsider if someone can advance verifiable, reliable sources that this meets WP:WEB. Right now I just see a lot of indictment of the motives behind the AfD with no attempt to prove this meets or exceeds the criteria for inclusion laid out at WP:WEB. Incidentally, this is the same thing that happened with the Conservative Underground AfD. Not once did anyone opining retention of that article make an attempt to assert how CU met WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ben, as I'm sure you're aware the AfD process is not a vote but a discussion, and if you continually interject to provide facts helpful to a single side of the debate, you're a de facto partisan, no matter how piously you proclaim your neutrality. I reiterate my Keep recommendation. This article is little more than an advertisement for a not-very-popular website, but what of it? Once political partisans begin engineering AfDs for articles they find objectionable, it will never end. It has in fact already begun with the Burch-orchestrated removal of Conservative Underground; let's bring it to a swift and speedy end. Ben, I find your crusade against Wikipedia articles referencing politics you do not share to be in stark conflict with the liberal ideals you purport to espouse, but in compliance with WP:CIVIL I will refrain from accusing you of baldfaced hypocrisy. VoiceOfReason 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not even vote in the removal of CU. Go check the process. BenBurch 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do apologize. I said "I'm sure you're aware" that the AfD process was a discussion and not a vote, but apparently my assumption was hasty and you weren't in fact aware of this. I have done as you suggested and checked the process for the deletion of Conservative Underground, which was initiated by you on January 11... for reasons, I might add, of a "low Alexa page rank", which happened to be three times higher than the rank of the page which is the subject of the article currently under consideration for deletion. Somehow, Your Neutralness has failed to point this out in your comments on this page, but I'm certain it was just an oversight. Again I find myself struggling to conform to WP:CIVIL, which is difficult when confronted with what to all appearances is stark hypocrisy and attempted censorship, and I offer my apologies to any Wikipedians offended by any portions of this comment which cross the line. As any of the pointed questions I'd like to ask you would certainly run far afoul of civility requirements, you are invited to contact me via either my talk page or Neutral Underground to explain how you reconcile your actions with your principles. VoiceOfReason 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading comprehension problems? That AfD failed! The one that DID succeed was one I was totally unaware of. And yes, it is a vote even if the vote isn't counted as such. BenBurch 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not that it is in any way relevant to this discussion, but I initiated the AfD of Conservative Underground that resulted in it's deletion and for the record, I am not a member of any political groups, forums, or parties. I nominated it because there is no evidence it meets the WP:WEB criteria for inclusion. Bottom line, if it meets the guidelines it stays... otherwise it goes.--Isotope23 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • And that includes THIS page, correct? As it should. If it does not meet the criteria, it goes! BenBurch 08:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Becoming war of personal attacks. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect?

You have a febrile, partisan attack dog, i.e. Burcher, who doesn't even make a pretense of intellectual honesty.

72.68.190.24 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ben Burch brought this on himself for alleging that media attention and Alexa traffic reports were needed for a encylopedic article. His pure hypocrisy is the main reason why this article is being subjected to deletion. I can tell that he is trying to act like the 'nice guy' or 'neutral' on this article. Also, I think that it was he that started the deletion process for the CU article, unless I am mistaken, and his website has a dismal traffic report compared to CU. I think that this article could be deleted based on WP:Web. Jdh 24 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burch is an habitual liar.

Exhibit A:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=208875&action=viewTopic&commentID=7355303&topicPage=

Exhibit B:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=197875&action=viewTopic&commentID=6893043&topicPage=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.190.24 (talk • contribs)

In light of "Exhibit B", I now change my vote to Delete. Jdh 24 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, and every one of you deserves a spanking. BoojiBoy 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the freak who's obsessed with S&M and furries.

That comment would be more fairly directed at The Fister, IMHO.

In all seriousness, why haven't there been any consequences for Burch's malicious behavior?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

72.82.111.224 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow me to buck Ben's expectations and vote Keep. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, and probably don't with about 3/4 of the material on his site, but that's irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. I contend that WP:WEB is also a poorly conceived policy, as Alexa rankings, especially on sites that attract tech-savvy (and thus non-Internet Explorer using) users, are inaccurately low since Alexa cannot count hits that come from browsers immune to it's spyware. Rogue 9 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thank you. Honestly, I am not sure the White Rose entry meets WP:WEB or WP:NOT, but you are right about Alexa. Here are the statistics for my root server (it has a 10 Mbps line, there are four other servers with 100Mbps lines not included in this, but this hosts all of the actual html) White Rose Root Server Stats BenBurch 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all irrelevent, Ben. One does not gauge notability by the size of one's, um, "equipment." The "mine's bigger than yours" bit won't help you. And it's odd that you've suddenly decided to change your mind about Alexa when it's your site that's on the line. That says a lot about your motivations. Jinxmchue 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the amount of equipment is irrelevant! I am just clarifying. Alexa does a good job of sites like PW or CU because the users are more likely to install their spyware. When comparing two sites which are similar in their user base, like FR and CU or PW, Alexa is a fiar basis for comparison. WRS's user base, for example, has more Mac users and more Linux users than FR does. I know this as I have posted images to busy threads on FR and watched the logs to see what fetched them. But in any case, go look at the log files and you will observe that 17,000 unique users per week use White Rose. Why don't you ask your people how many use CU in the same interval? And of course none of this makes WRS or CU notable at all. I think neither are notable. Like LU isn't notable, and PW isn't notable and NU isn't notable and DW isn't notable. I would move to delete entries on any of those. And that is why I have not opposed the removal of WRS. BenBurch 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome. By the by, this user uses Firefox. And doesn't appreciate being called a Klansman, crypto- or otherwise. Rogue 9 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, Alexa rankings are not part of the WP:WEB criteria, just an additional checkpoint that some people use to quantify the vague notion of notability.--Isotope23 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and there's too many personal attacks. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bickering between pro/anti-advocates aside... the site has an Alexa rank of 177,000 and no reliable sources for information. There does not appear to be anything notable about it that would justify its inclusion here. - Motor (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope23. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor.--Auger Martel 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught in multiple lies.

Burch is a habitual prevaricator and a blatant hypocrite.

Bottom of the barrel Alexa ranking-using Burch's own hypocritical standards, not mine-no noteworthy mentions of his site outside of the DU hive-and perhaps AAR/leftbot talk show hosts that are consistently rated at the bottom in most objective Arbitron measurements-and an unwillingness to broach anything but the most anemic argument in its defense.

This is an open and shut case for deletion, IMHO.

71.125.253.62 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable site. Examining the statistics posted above is convincing.
  • Strong Keep Notable site, especially among American expats. And this does seem to be a revenge nomination from a person who has some personal vendetta against Mr. Burch. 82.245.188.240 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already stated, my purpose is to keep both Wiki and people like Ben consistent. The reasons given for the deletion of the Wiki pages for CU (which worked) and WP (which is still being considered) can be equally applied to WRS. Jinxmchue 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pull the other one. You are transparent 82.245.188.240 11:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it is you, Mr. Anonymous-Sock-Puppet-with-no-contributions-to-Wiki-other-than-this-discussion, who is transparent. My nomination may have been initiated by Ben's nomination of PW, but my motivation is and always will be consistancy. Either show me how the reasons people are giving for deleting PW's page can't be equally applied to WRS's page or... well, I agreed to stick to WP:CIVIL, so I won't finish that.

Motivated by the fact that this site is not notable in any way, even among hard core leftists, most of whom are unaware of it.

It gets less traffic-in aggregate, and by a large margin-than the sites that Burch has nominated-out of spite-for deletion.

71.125.253.62 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it is a vendetta? And I don't think you KNOW any hardcore leftists! 82.245.188.240 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.

Yes, you hardly ever run into the type in this city.

Please, don't pontificate on things you know nothing about.

This is not a vendetta.

It was simply done in order to illustrate the fact that Burch, despite the misleading name of his unpopular website, is every bit the goose-stepping, book-burning Nazi.

He poses as an advocate of free speech, and yet attempts to crush any point of view that is contrary to his, which is probably why he fits in so well at the DU hive.

71.125.253.62 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to anons, this isn't a message board. If you are not going to render an opinion, support said opinion, or give evidence how this site meets WP:WEB, take your discussion elsewhere.--Isotope23 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion.

Statistics from Alexa supporting that decision:

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352 (29,015)

Speed: Average (60% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 2.1 Seconds (what's this?)

Other sites that link to this site: 148

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F&url=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F

Also, pledge drives that last in excess of half a year, an indication that even its most vociferous supporters do not see a compelling need for its presence on the Internet.

71.125.253.62 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • So is 71.125.253.62 one user posting multiple times here, or a proxy being used by multiple people? In any case, my funding drives have never taken more than about 60 days, so tell some more lies while you are at it? Current drive begun 11 days ago with a $10,000 goal stands at $1830.00 right now, and that does not count the monthly regular donors, streaming fees for private streaming services I sell, or the subscriptions to Thom Hartmann's subscription service, which I get a percentage of. And again, I am not arguing that any of this means that the White Rose entry on Wikipedia ought to be kept or deleted, but I won't tolerate your lies. BenBurch 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Up to $1,887.35 now... BenBurch 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think White Rose is significant because it is an historical archive. There are full-length audio files documenting American political discourse from the left over the last five years in great detail, with some files going back into 2000. I am using it now in my doctoral dissertation on opposition politics in the USA. Assuming this site persists, it is worthy of an encyclopedia entry for just that reason; To guide researchers such as myself to this resource. And if you can judge such a political web site based on the amount of absolute hatred it creates in its opponents, it is not only significant, but actually successful. Just my $0.02 US. 213.27.254.134 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that is very nice of you to say, and you are most welcome to use whatever materials you find on the site in your dissertation. BenBurch 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WRS provides a service, and does so thoroughly. WPWiles 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable site and possible bad faith nomination. Dr Debug (Talk) 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, Ben, its SO INAPPROPRIATE for CU'ers to spread the word about an unnecessary and politically motivated deletion attempt, yet its cool for DU'ers to find a poll on a local newspaper site about Bush and you can send DU over in droves to "DU the poll". Once again, leftist hypocrasy (sp?) at its finest.

Again, with the unsubstantiated, libelous accusations.

So typical of you.

If you want to prove that I am multiple people, then I suggest you do so, Burch.

Either that, or retract your pathetic allegation now.

71.125.247.127 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations? I asked a question about an anonymous dumbfuck who was spamming this discussion... If you don't want to have people doubt if you are one person or many, create a user name like a real human being rather than being an anonymous coward. BenBurch 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is the coward it's you, you corpulent, obsessive freak of nature.

Running to your leftbot hives, stirring up your fellow leftist imbeciles to gin up fake votes against websites that dwarf the traffic-and media recognition-of you and your pathetic site.

I'm not justifying myself to a goose-stepping, dissembling, transparently hypocritical asshole like you.

Sorry Fister, I'm simply not giving you the satisfaction.

BTW, how is that PW purge going?

Heh, heh.

71.125.247.127 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does "dumbfuck" fall under the rubric of "personal attacks?"

I'm curious, will Burch receive the same warnings that I have received, or is a double standard in effect?

Liberal nutbars can slime and slander whoever they feel like, but conservatives can't reply in kind...?

71.125.247.127 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Examining the site statistics provided above I see that this site serves almost twenty thousand unique IPs every week. And I can only assume that most of those are repeats given the nature of an archive site. This makes it notable. 82.142.150.82 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the description of the website, verbatim:

Mmp3 audio archive of talk shows criticizing George W. Bush.

There are hundreds-if not thousands-of websites that host either audio files, or video files, or columns criticizing President Bush. I don't think anyone can seriously assert that Wikipedia should maintain entries on each and every website that has content that criticizes President Bush.

The only noteworthy talk show host listed on the main page of his site is Randi Rhodes, who is heard on a scant 33 terrestrial radio stations, and, according to a 2005 Talkers magazine survey, was not even listed among the top 25 syndicated talk show hosts in the country.

71.125.253.61 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral although I would like to vote. Weak delete I don't care about all the AfD wranglings--irrelevant to me. Also, I don't care about arguments for delete (as this is a clear case of potential acceptability if it's actually notable). What I want to know is: What makes this website notable in an encyclopedic sense? By the way, I don't care about Google or Alexa results--I've long since disregarded that data for consideration of notability. I want to see a list of serious points that suggest notability. One point that has been brought up is that the site is mentioned on-air multiple times a day--if that is a matter of independent mentions that aren't contractual in nature, I will consider that. I want to be fair here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, No contracts involved. I archive shows by permission, and the show hosts mention the archives because they want to. Some do it every show every day. Others, such as Randi Rhodes do it so infrequently that I get emails from my fans telling me that she did it. But I am still myself unsure of the encyclopedic notability of this page. White Rose I have no doubt is notable; I have 15,000 hours of Liberal/Progressive talk radio archived on the site, going back to 2001 for some of the shows, and serve around 17,000 unique people weekly. If I didn't think it was notable and important I wouldn't be doing it. But I am not at all sure if an encyclopedia needs to take note of it. It's not Planck's Constant. It's not Charles Darwin. And you don't have to say that you are going to be fair about this. That is a given BenBurch 02:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "notability" obviously must subtract how we feel about our own work--it deals solely with how the "world" or the community that surrounds the entity thinks about and treats said entity. Crooks and Liars has been around since 2004, it archives audio/video of interest to the left, and it's notable because in the left-wing blogosphere, one trips over all the references to it. However, I don't notice this same kind of tripping over WRS mentions. I think that necessarily, for a website to have notability, it must be deemed important by its most natural constituency, and for WRS, that is the same (or very similar) constituency as that for Crooks and Liars. Also, just because an entity acts as a great voluminous resource doesn't automatically make it notable--notability is whether a lot of people, especially influential (well, notable) people commonly refer to this resource as some kind of "must-see". I guess I'm just going to have to see more evidence of notability... like mentions in mainstream sources--I read above that Randi Rhodes has mentioned it sometimes... if something like this is documented (as in transcript documentation) as a regular occurrence from Rhodes or other notable personalities, I would be inclined to vote at least "weak keep". Links to several transcripts like this would do the trick for me. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there are not textual transcripts prepared for any of these shows, that is a tough call. Listen to the last ten minutes of Mike Malloy's show, or Bob Kincaid's show and you'll hear me and the site mentioned by name. Unlike Crooks & Liars, I don't archive "events". They have clips of exceptional things that happen in the video realm. I have a daily archive of nine different shows, also archives of several weekly shows, and never take anything offline. Want to hear what Randi Rhodes said the day that Bush landed on the carrier? It's there. And people do refer to the site when they need to refer to a particular show in their blogging. Drudge mentioned me once over a skit that Randi Rhodes' people played that seemed to imply somebody shooting the President, and I had about 38,000 visits that one day! Here is an lgf mention of the same event; [14] But honestly I am not going to defend White Rose's page here because I don't really know why White Rose, or DU, or FR, or CU, or PW belong in an encyclopedia. They are all already in google and yahoo and dogpile... Isn't that enough? BenBurch 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Last ten minutes" sounds like an advertisement, Ben. I see no mention of you in the Drudge text quoted on LGF (and that page is conveniently gone from Drudge, so no way to verify if LGF quoted the whole thing, but Charles does quote things entirely). And it's obvious you ARE defending White Rose's entry, Ben. Why else would you be posting all this information? It makes no sense to waste all this time and energy for something you don't even think should be on Wiki. Jinxmchue 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is the clip in question from the most recent Malloy show. As you will hear, it is *credits* not an advert. Malloy Show closing credits 6-16-2006
Alright, I found the Drudge archive of the "mention." It amounts to nothing more than a direct link to the audio file. Absolutely no specific mention of WRS or Ben.[15]
It says "A Randi Rhodes Fan site is offering an mp3 clip of the broadcast." with the link to the site. That is a mention. BenBurch 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGF, i.e. Charles Johson, mentions the event-and the Randi Rhodes Show-he does not mention you or your website.

Although I didn't scroll through the entire thread, so it's quite possible that a random poster might have mentioned you or your show, but I highly doubt it.

72.68.163.158 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... Check reply #149 where the site is mentioned and the fact that Drudge linked to it.... BenBurch 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia/reference while those other things are web search engines. Not everything that is notable has a great presence in search engine results. Also, it might be helpful to think in these terms: Would talking about WRS be suitable for a history book with regards to left-wing broadcasts? Does WRS have a significant degree of indispensability to left-wing broadcasting? At any rate, I am not asking for a argumentative defense... just some links to resources. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, I don't want to be in the position of defending this entry. Go look at the server stats linked above if you want some idea of how important it is to the people who use it. 17000 unique users in the average week, and that does not include streaming users or users of our usenet postings of every show we archive, or people who go directly to the mp3 directories and skip the html pages. Is it indispensable? Many think so, but I have no particular desire to document that, though I am happy to answer your earnest inquiries as best I can. The best indication of that is that people donate money to me for what they can download from me for free, This is the third fundraiser I've run at the $10,000 level since last September, and we succeeded with the first two, and are well on the way to succeeding with this one. But, honestly, I don't care if White Rose has a Wikipedia entry or not. My log files show me about 200 hits from that page, most of them during this AfD and the last one. Ppeople don't come to White Rose though looking for White Rose! They come to it by looking for Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy, or Thom Hartmann. This entry is likely an appropriate jumping off point for the links on their individual Wiki pages, sort of a disabigualtion, but one that could easily be dispensed by having a direct link in all of those individual places. BenBurch 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fer crying out loud! None of this is relevent, Ben. It has no bearing whatsoever on notability, which is not measured by web hits, fundraisers and downloads. There are literally thousands of pages which should have Wiki entries by those standards, but they don't because they are not notable. Also, I've noticed you have added links to WRS on the Wiki pages for Jay Marvin [16], Randi Rhodes[17] and Mike Malloy[18] within the last 24 hours. And the links are to your front page, not their individual archives on WRS. Trying to drum up some notability, are we? Jinxmchue 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on what specifically was added to the subject article, but it is all right to update an article while being considered for Afd, except of course to remove the Afd tag. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood what I was looking at re: updates. But what Ben Burch did with external links is perfectly fine. His site is notable enough for an external link in said articles, as his site naturally extends knowledge about those subjects. Perfectly legit. But for this article, there is a different standard... see my changed vote above. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me, Steve. Changed my vote too. BenBurch 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be nice.


72.68.163.158 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this determination should be based upon this website's notability within the far-left Web community.

Even using that criterion it fails miserably.

Compare the amount of sites that link to the WRS-a little over a hundred-to the number that link to more popular leftist, vehemently anti-Bush websites, e.g. Bartcop, which has over 800 sites that link to it, or Common Dreams, which has over eight thousand sites that link to it.

72.68.163.158 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:WEB and of course, the ever-popular Alexa rating is dismal. --Neverborn 06:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal, and in a tailspin.

By Burch's own parochial standards it does not meet even de minimus qualifications for a Wikipedia entry.

72.68.163.158 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we understand your position. No need to keep restating it over and over and over again. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to elicit a credible response from Burch.

He still hasn't justified the inclusion of his extremely obscure organization in Wikipedia on any grounds, other than self-interest.

It is an advertisement, and per Wikipedia guidelines, should be deleted.

72.68.172.20 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may or may not be true. But it is not Ben Burch's job to defend the subject of a Wikipedia article that he happens to run. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please humor us and learn how to format your comments, Wikipedia-style. It will lend gravitas to your position. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedia regular.

Hence, any formatting irregularities.

Although, I don't see how my lack of familiarity with afd discussions-or even Wikipedia in general-bears directly upon the noteworthiness of this entry, or the substance of my argument.

It should also be noted that if it is not his job to defend this entry then he should cease to defend it.

Otherwise, it simply lends credence to my assertion that this is an advert.

Also, I'd like to point out that Burch's claim that a Conservative Underground user created this entry is a blatant, and quite self-serving, falsehood.

If his purported enemies did create an entry on his organization-a dubious claim on its face-they certainly would not have written one that has a favorable, or even neutral, tone.

My two cents.

72.68.172.20 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take to learn Wikipedia formatting? About two minutes. Please realize this discussion is not just about our positions, but also that they are formatted in a manner that most people can follow. If you cannot present your positions clearly, you cannot expect others to be able to understand the discussion as a whole. Your response here indicates a lack of deference to the Wikipedia and our usual ways of discussing matters. That doesn't help your position. It hurts it.
Further, just because it is not his job to defend the subject of this article doesn't mean he can't. However, I do believe it is a conflict of interest for someone who originally wrote or heavily contributed to the article under Afd to vote on its deletion. And that also goes for someone who owns the entity that is described by the article. I believe administrators discount or ignore such votes. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Burch has not come forward with any evidence to demonstrate that "many" believe his website to be an "indispensable" resource, nor has his claim that LGF, i.e. Charles Johnson, not a user on that website, mentioned him or his website been born out.

72.68.172.20 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that a majority voted in favor of deletion the last go-round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_White_Rose_Society_%28website%29

Much the same as in Burch's transparently partisan attempt to delete Conservative Underground.

The only difference being that in the former the decision of the majority was ignored, and this entry retained for some inexplicable reason.

Tell ANOTHER lie. CU was deleted in a process I did not participate in. You can lie about it all you like of course... BenBurch 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that more than just a majority is required for an article to be deleted. Here's another area where learning about how the Wikipedia works could prove useful for you, Anonymous One. It requires a super-majority of what I would call "non-conflicted" votes, that is, votes that aren't sockpuppets, and votes that have no conflict of interest. Also, I think admins look at whether something has been renominated too soon after its previous nomination--if it is too soon, the result here may be possibly voided. This is all my understanding, of course, as I am not an administrator (at this time, heh). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Delete'

72.68.191.165 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Politically motivated revenge AfDs should not be rewarded. Neither this one nor the PW one ought to go forward. Shame on on jinxmchue. You pretend to have the interests of this encyclopedia in mind, but you are simply playing a cynical game. You are beneath contempt, as is Mr. Burch for having nominated PW. 62.101.75.14 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnabout is fair play.

If Wikipedia wants to address the legitimate issues raised by its detractors it needs to ensure that avowed partisans, such as Mr. Burch, have no role to play-whatsoever and under any circumstances-in the moderation or deletion process.

72.68.187.150 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This page seems to be absolutely harmless to Wikipedia. It brings into the Wiki new information in the form of the actual existance of a number of Liberal/Progressive talk radio shows. Reading the above, it seems to me that the only people arguing otherwise (other that Mr. Burch himself - are you sure that is really him and not a vandal?) are people who are trying to get back at Mr. Burch for another AfD. I simply cannot imagine that this process we see here serves any interest whatsoever. I think the closing administrator ought to declare this a keep for simple vitriol and meatpuppetry. 213.59.99.178 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently did not notice the Wiki admin-I believe that's what they're called here-who voted to delete, upon further reflection.

Or the other (liberal) Wiki users who voted to delete.

And yes, that vituperative, loutish fellow who uses the name Ben Burch is actually Ben Burch in real life.

Perhaps you should consider that, and reflect upon what it says about the administrative controls in place at this website.

Food for thought?

72.68.187.150 02:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anonymous Coward, I saw that StevieTheMan changed his vote; For reasons having to do with whether this page belonged in an encyclopedia. And I also saw that Mr. Burch followed suit. He (Mr. Burch) Seems to be an honorable man. You, however seem to be a cowardly sniper. [Vulgar sentence removed. Even I know there's absolutely no need for that here. Jinxmchue 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)] 213.59.99.178 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO.

I'm sure you don't see the irony in that statement.

That would require a few extra brain cells, oui?

Burch is not honorable in any way, shape, or form.

Even as he disclaims ownership of this entry he is feverishly trolling for votes at the DU hive.

BTW, is this anonymous user-who's laced his inarticulate reply with expletives and personal attacks-going to be given a warning, as I have on repeated occasions for much lighter infractions?

This is why Wikipedia's impartiality is open to question, IMHO.

72.68.187.150 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am this close to protecting this page such that anons cannot further comment, as this has degenerated into mudslinging at Burch, the nominator, liberals, conservatives, and Wikipedia as a whole. Please stop wasting time with accusations about those participating in this discussion and confine your comments to the article in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I hereby withdraw from this debate.

Too acrimonious, too heated, and not what I use the Internet for.

If you wish, you may remove my "delete" vote.

Whether this article is kept or removed is of little importance to me.

72.68.187.150 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my concern is for Wikipedia's intellectual integrity, not whether his website meets notability standards.

I think the same rules should apply across the board, e.g. with respect to CU, PW, and any other organization-be it from the left or the right-which is worthy of an online encyclopedic entry.

72.68.187.150 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. I believe that. Right. BenBurch 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that people had to stop commenting on the users and confine their comments to the article in question, that applied to you, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please understand that being repeatedly lied about has me just a bit cheesed. BenBurch 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have impartial rules. See WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete other users' comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, but what comment did I delete? If I did it was inadvertent. BenBurch 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my comment above twice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Mea Culpa! It was unintentional. I edited the whole article in an external editor because the edit window is so hard to work in, and I should have made sure it had not been touched in between. BenBurch 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Just so y'all don't have to look it up for yourself here is the last seven days statistics on the White Rose on the root server, there being four others that have 10X faster pipes, but much lower CPU horsepower. This one handles the database, html, and actual XML files, the others handle 90% of the mp3 and streaming;
Successful requests: 305,830
Average successful requests per day: 43,685
Successful requests for pages: 29,298
Average successful requests for pages per day: 4,184
Failed requests: 6,556
Redirected requests: 15
Distinct files requested: 485
Distinct hosts served: 18,724
Corrupt logfile lines: 8,942
Unwanted logfile entries: 10,419,481
Data transferred: 130.66 gigabytes
Average data transferred per day: 18.66 gigabytes BenBurch 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted-or moved-my reply.

In all fairness, this is becomeing more of a "talk" page.

71.125.240.18 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the History. An admin did that. Please keep on the specific topic of notability based on facts about the entry or the website was his request. Honor it, please. BenBurch 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, do you want me to break out the numbers on how many people actually listen to those radio hosts who mention your website on a daily basis?

In comparison to very, and even moderately popular talk show hosts?

Aggregate audience, share, etc...?

71.125.240.18 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! I've never been able to find them myself. BenBurch 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, liberals were never known for their wit, although I admire your attempts at sarcasm.

Seriously, do you think Mike Malloy is more notable than Al Franken?

To the best of my knowledge no AAR host has distinguished him or herself in the ratings book, but the hosts you highlight are particularly obscure, at least in terms of generating large audiences of devoted listeners.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, among others, all have large numbers of listeners who disagree with their political point of view, which is a testament to their popularity, if nothing else.

Can you assert with any credibility that there is a single radio host you link to who reaches an audience beyond their own narrow political constituency?

71.125.240.18 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers, please? BenBurch 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient.

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/04/air-america-radio-wlib-randi-rhodes-al.html

One of the more popular hosts on your page.

In the recent ratings period, Air America in Austin didn't record any significant listeners under 25.

It might be a ratings anomaly, or maybe young liberals are simply listening to music, satellite radio, and podcasts.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-03-17/pols_feature.html

71.125.240.18 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread acclaim from the liberal community for world-renowned talk show host Jay Marvin:

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=75270

Widely-acclaimed talk personality Tony Trupiano gets massive media coverage from one of the most widely-cited Marxist, anti-American, radical Kurdish websites on the 'net:

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=18252&s2=29

71.125.240.18 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP - There wouldn't be anything like this much effort expended to CENSOR White Rose if you were not notable, Ben. We here love your archives and my iPod is filled with your podcasts each and every morning. We especially like the commercial-free edits you make to Thom Hartmann's show, and we also really enjoy Lizz Brown's show. BTW, When are you going to have an archive page for Bruce Burch's new show on the Head On Radio Network? I work when he is on the air and have not been able to listen yet! 82.119.205.115 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specious logic.

The only reason any effort was exerted to delete this entry is because Burch is notorious for squelching any speech that he disagrees with, which led him to nominate CU and PW for deletion.

The controversy has nothing to do with the WRS itself, which is too obscure to merit comment, but rather the jihadist tactics of someone who is neither liberal, nor a supporter of free speech, despite claims to the contrary.

My own opinion is that if this entry is retained it should be merged with the wholly unnecessary Ben Burch Wiki, which even its subject has admitted is not noteworthy enough to keep as a stand-alone article.

71.125.240.18 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a die-hard fan of his-and the shows he's archived-which leads me to believe that your "strong keep" recommendation has very little to do with the merit-or lack thereof-of this article, in my humble estimation.

If this article is to be retained it should not be retained on the basis of adulatory fans, who offer no impartial reasons for retention, unless you consider one's fanship reason enough for a permanent "keep."

71.125.240.18 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This site is mention on the air daily on Mike Malloy's show, and he considers it to be his official archive site. Peter Werbe, Guy James, and Bob Kincaid never, ever do a show without mentioning White Rose and Ben Burch by name. 61.70.131.246 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are no-name hosts.

The most famous being Mike Malloy, who was replaced by the Satellite Sisters on AAR's signature network, the retooled-and much worse, IMO-WLIB.

http://gammablog.com/?cat=52

I'm not saying that Malloy's Wiki should be removed, only that the fact that he refers to Burch-no matter how frequently-does not qualify Burch for a Wikipedia entry.

If Burch were a regular on a show hosted by an even moderately well-known celebrity, e.g. Al Franken, I would render a different opinion.

71.125.240.18 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very least that should be done, if this entry is to be retained, is to merge the transparent vanity page, re: Ben Burch, with the larger stub on the White Rose Society.

I don't think even Burch himself would object to that course of action.

71.125.240.18 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNo evidence of notability in the article. BlueValour 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Notable on its face. Major website, amazing collection of historical documents, serving tens of thousands of people. I can't imagine why anybody would find this non-notable. 216.55.177.58 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Ben Burch has not claimed that his website serves "tens of thousands" of people.

Perhaps it has "tens of thousands" of page-views, or has tens of thousands of visitors, however I find it extremely hard to believe that tens of thousands of people are utilizing this resource on a consistent basis.

Outside of Democratic Underground I have not seen it referred to-even in the most oblique way-by an even moderately popular website, let alone, touted by an extremely popular or well-known radio talk show host.

71.125.240.123 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In lieu of removing comments that are viewed as tangential, or wholly irrelevant to this discussion, do you think a better idea might be to create a "talk" page for this entry?
    Simply a suggestion, feel free to disregard it. 71.125.240.123 04:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments to the motivations of the users or nonsense about how this or that commentator is doing poorly has nothing to do with this article, and wouldn't belong even on a talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree.

If his case rests upon his association with these hosts-and from what I've observed, it does-don't you think that their popularity-or in this case, unpopularity-among the general public is pertinent to this discussion?

71.125.240.123 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a reliable source associating him with them in some way other than providing an incidental service, I can't see how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was referring to his claim-which I take at face-value-that his website is mentioned "nine times."

Either weekly, or daily.

I forget which.

He hasn't mentioned-to the best of my knowledge-that he's a correspondent for the Mike Malloy Show-which is alluded to in his Wiki-but I presume that he would cite that as another reason to retain this entry.

As I said before, if no consensus can be reached the simplest course of action would-in my opinion-be to simply merge the two Wikis.

Even Ben Burch has not objected to that, based upon his comments with respect to his own Wikipedia entry.

Granted, the notability of this website is a contested issue, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Ben Burch-as an individual-merits an entire encyclopedic entry, even if it is merely a stub.

71.125.240.123 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Actually, yes, "tens of thousands" is not a stretch, nor would be "Nearly a quarter million";


Analysed requests from Sun-06-Nov-2005 06:26 to Mon-19-Jun-2006 01:19 (224.79 days).

(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 19-Jun-2006 01:18).

Yet another unverifiable dump of raw data removed by A Man In Bl♟ck BenBurch 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to verify it, A Man In Black, I'll send you the entire log file. It is amazingly large, though. BenBurch 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly large is 2,054,289,706 bytes. BenBurch 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing how this data/IPs served info (which isn't sourced to a reliable source, natch) has anything to do with WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it shows that 274,691 distinct IP addresses accessed the site over the 224 days since the log file was started. And that is not fully inclusive as it misses the servers where most of the binaries are, and the icecast streams. Are distinct IP addresses equivalent to distinct users? Most web sites take them as such. So, somehow, a quarter of a million distinct people found and used the site in that interval. The vast majority of them went after the three Air America hosts; Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, and Randi Rhodes. Said content is provided by permission from a well-known and notable entity. Indeed, in the case of Thom Hartmann, I am a contractual publisher of his material and pay a sizable royalty fee for it. But this is not actually Web-Specific content. It is RADIO content, translated into a form that can be hosted on the web. This makes White Rose much more like Live365 than like Drudge Report. Live365 produces no content, but it is notable because it serves so much of the streaming content of others. Likewise, I produce very little content, but WRS is notable because it archives, podcasts, and streams so much of the content of notable entities, and does it for so many people. BenBurch 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:WEB? (It is also a mistake to conflate unique IPs with individual users.) Live365 is notable because finding commentary on it in a reliable source is trivially easy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, but White Rose doesn't exactly fall into the categories it pertains to. As to a Reliable Sources? The only press mention that I know of is here; [19] But the web sites for the shows I archive, which are all acceptable primary sources as they are the web sites of established notable business entities do mention or link to White Rose, here are a few; [20] [21] [22] [23] Also there are any number of mentions on established blogs, including bradblog, atrios, takebackthemedia, bartcop, dubyad40.com. Just explore [24] and [25] for MANY such mentions. If that's not enough, then I guess there is not enough, but I'd wager that is more than some other pages well established on wiki have. BenBurch 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, there are no non-trivial mentions from reliable sources (other than advertising the site), the site hasn't won any awards, and the venue issue doesn't really apply. Correct? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the press mention is nontrivial, and it won the Democratic Media Award in 2005 and 2006; http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html and many of the mentions in the google search are to articles written that refer to specific show or specific stream, some of them by political candidates wishing to call attention to themselves for interviews they did on the various shows. BenBurch 07:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That site mentions White Rose in passing as a "liberal talk show site" (and does not elaborate further, making it a trivial reference) and the Goodwriters link seems to just be a link page. Can you provide me with a citation from a RELIABLE SOURCE (not a blog, not a forum) that mentions WRS more than in passing? (Meaning, not "Download our older shows here" or somebody's link page or whatnot.) Without that, WRS is less like a service like Live365 and more like non-notable site that hosts notable primary works, no more noteworthy than a site that hosts pictures of notable paintings or scripts of notable movies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the standard no site like mine would qualify. I have politicians refer to the site [26] and lots of the blog mentions are similar to this one [27] the on-aie mentions sound like this [28] And Democratic Media Award HAS a web listing, but that is not the award. BenBurch 07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no way to source any non-trivial claim this article might make? As far as I can tell, the only verifiable thing this article can claim is "The White Rose Society hosts show X, Y, and Z." There are no-outside, reliable sources even stating that you run it. This is a problem, and this is why we don't have articles on these sorts of minor sites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Judge Hofheinz[edit]

14 unique hits on Google, 93 total, most of which are from Wikipedia or mirrors. Obviously made-up bollocks. BoojiBoy 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research rapture[edit]

alleged pop culture term, should be transwikied to Wiktionary if kept. Google hits only show the term used casually on blogs, mostly due to one NYT review of Jimmy Carter's novel (review quoted here). Certainly original research at this point, and more of a definition anyway. Marysunshine 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn internet meme. --djrobgordon 04:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:WINAD, not really notable. Sandstein 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources cited for popular usage of the term. Blogs and Usenet posts shouldn't be used as primary or secondary sources for articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 careful consideration of all comments made below. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Steve Balboni[edit]

Six hits on Google, article is obviously made-up rubbish. Interesting rubbish, but still rubbish (and also fails WP:NOR). BoojiBoy 04:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all "curses" one way or another "made-up." They're not supposed to be cases of "hard journalisism." Curses for the most part are centered on theories and speculation (e.g. some supernatural force) for why certain things happen to a specific person or organization. TMC1982 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Update... I get about 663. All depends on how you search. A few sports magazines have written about this.SallyB 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please to not forget the quotes. BoojiBoy 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using quotes restricst your search too much. There's tons of other variations for the name. Retropunk 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one more for the road. --djrobgordon 04:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What you guys said - Richfife 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor KC Royals...delete! - Missvain 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an attempt to emulate the Curse of the Bambino. Is it supposed to be funny or serious?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and also Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ted 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Please. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Keep? This was a curious trend in baseball SallyB 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It definitely is a curious trend, but it's A) not a curse, B) has nothing to do with Steve Balboni, and C) most importantly, the term is not documented. It is original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. BoojiBoy 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A couple things to say but I'll keep it to two. I'd dispute the original research claim and at what does original research become accepted fact. This was an easily verfiable trend. Second, the name is fitting of something so light-hearted. Let's not try to find too much meaning in sport.
  • Keep ESPN link at least gives some legitimacy Retropunk 05:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The ESPN link is the article in which the term was coined, tongue-in-cheek. The article is actually poking fun at the preponderance of new curses. WP is not for things made up on ESPN.com one day. --djrobgordon 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Droll, but made up by blogger Rany Jazayerli. -- GWO
  • Keep. The article clearly is not original research, but the product of an ESPN column.--M@rēino 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the incidents are unsourced - no place in WP for this. BlueValour 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above.--Aldux 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 'CLASS PROJECT ON DESGINING WEWBSITES'. ~~ N (t/c) 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Side Family[edit]

Obviously all original research, no verifiability, no evidence of importance, and scant Google results. I was really on the edge of marking this as speedy but decided to see if I'm just uneducated on this topic. -- Omicronpersei8 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: No results on Google. -- Omicronpersei8 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either a hoax, or the editor's hyperbolic description of himself and his friends. --djrobgordon 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I wouldn't cry seeing this speedied. BoojiBoy 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable gang, practically {{db-group}}.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fast! What can one say about a 'gang' of seven that Was once a powerful and popular gang back in the mid 90's...now they are gone. Eddie.willers 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete All you need see is the author's comments on the talk page, "THIS IS FOR A CLASS PROJECT ON DESGINING WEWBSITES". Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Side_Family" Ted 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm SD'ing this and apologizing for wasting everyone's time. -- Omicronpersei8 15:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gape shot[edit]

This article is merely a dictonary definition with some related slang definitions and a list of "Movies containing this fetish" and a See also link to Goatse.cx. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of loosely related information, nor a mere collection of links, otherwise nearly any word at all could be added as an article that simply had its definition, some synonyms, and a list of where it can be found in a bunch of books and movies. This article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and not because of the pornography of its content. The article was prodded when it did not contain the list of Movies or the See also link, after which it received support from Starionwolf and was then deleted by Pascal666, who added the list and link. I have notified both of these users on their Talk pages. —Centrx→Talk 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user that most recently vandalized this article also vandalized another, which brought them to my attention and caused me to revert their vandalism to this article, reverting the prod at the same time. Both list and link were previously in the article. --Pascal666 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to wikitionary if you must. It is real, but with only 60 unique Google hits, it's beyond niche. And the list doesn't help its case. I don't see why a list of porn films containg fellatio would make that topic more or less fit for the site. --djrobgordon 04:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're searching for the wrong term. As the article says the most popular term is "anal gaping". With 173,000 hits this appears to be quite popular. The articles that actually link inline to this article also use that context. --Pascal666 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From the history it appears to be a long standing article with many editors and as such should probably be kept with the understanding that it is a stub and should continue to be expanded upon. --Pascal666 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only substantial edits to the body since October, 2005 have been adding 'more popularly called "Anal Gaping"' and 'sometimes combined with the internal cumshot' (which are hardly substantial). Most all of the movies were added by a single user whose only edits were this page. Most of the other edits are people adding and deleting external links to pornographic websites, with numerous petty vandalisms thrown in. —Centrx→talk 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Porncruft - delete unless someone can come up with a reliable source for this term. If a reliable source exists for this sort of thing, I'd actually really like to see it. Until then, I'll stick with: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always agreed that as long as you can stick the -cruft suffix on something it should be deleted. Endoplasmic reticulum, pure biologycruft. Theodoric the Great, unabashed historycruft. Let's start deleting! Nscheffey(T/C) 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you're not arguing we should keep this article... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per djrobgordon, but allow passing mention in a porn-related article; Google results indicate this is indeed a (rarely used) porn term. Sandstein 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Term doesn't merit its own page. GassyGuy 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a side order of Ewwwwww. Dictionary definition for nn phrase. Could be placed into another article and redirected, though. Vizjim 10:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously, although have a look through the funny titles first, which include "The Gapes of Wrath", "Planet of the Gapes", "The Gape of Nanking" and of course the beloved epic "What's Eating Gilbert Gape (Staring Gaperham Lincolon)". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ted 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could easily be covered in another porn related terminology article. StuffOfInterest 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably would be useful to link to from porno articles. I bet a reliable source could be found it someone took the time. The list should go. Another solution could be merging it into another article (if there is something like it). Not my "area" of expertise! Royalbroil 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody takes the time to find a reliable source, I'll agree it should be kept, but unless that's forthcoming, we're just keeping unverified stuff around, and if someone comes up with a source later, they can recreate the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so few google hits, and the fact that it's porn even further shows the scarcity of the word. AdamBiswanger1 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at most transwiki. LotLE×talk 07:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is in wide use and notable. At least, it seems to be widely used in porn reviews at Adult DVD Talk and Porn Living, but dictdef is a valid concern. I think it just edges into having enough content to be a bit more, though. Ace of Sevens 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got a reliable source? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly my own memory, but a google search turned up plenty of uses other than this page and its mirrors. Examples here (include porn, of course) http://www.1by-day.com/modeldetails.php?62 http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/read_review.asp?sku=4967&xxx-road-trip-3.htm http://www.raincoatreviews.com/savr0076.shtml Ace of Sevens 17:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I should have linked the words reliable source. The sources you're citing wouldn't make this article different from original research, as far as I can tell. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to be substantial enough to prove the term is in use in the porn world. If we're looking for a history of the term or something, that would be harder. Ace of Sevens 17:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree they prove the term is in use, but I don't think that was really disputed. That doesn't make it not original research, as far as I can tell. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMMFG KEEP, dude, seriously! This is such an important shot in modern porn! Brjatlick 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight panic[edit]

I'm just completing this abandoned nomination. It should be noted that this topic is already covered at Midnight Panic. djrobgordon 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Midnight Panic to the nomination. Sandstein 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEXNHS FLOGA[edit]

Whatever this is, it doesn't appear to be very notable. "TEXNHS FLOGA" gets 2 Google hits, and the Greek name, "Τέχνης Φλόγα", only gets 12. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can figure out what the heck it is and why it's notable... -- Scientizzle 04:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe it's something, but good luck figuring out what. --djrobgordon 04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be some kind of a concert. Yanksox 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Looks like it would be notable enough (assuming it's 100% true) but appears unverifiable, and we'd do better starting from scratch anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Unless someone comes up with more info. Frankly, the name looked like someone hitting the keys at random... but then I'm horribly parochial sometimes. I'll take the nominator's word that it means something. If someone can back up the claims in the article with reliable sources... I'll consider a change. - Motor (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly transliterated (should be "technis"), clearly run through a machine translator by someone with hardly any English. Seems to be some touring artist group but, based on google failure in both languages, clearly nn. Fan1967 13:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Andrew Lenahan -- Samir धर्म 07:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original, el:Τέχνης Φλόγα has survived several days. -- RHaworth 08:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the fact that the listed external link points to a page consisting of a title and "(υπό κατασκευή)" (i.e. "under construction"). Fan1967 15:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - author request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBox[edit]

This is a non-notable fake console. Originally tagged for speedy deletion (A7 only covers people, so I removed it), the author added {{hangon}}, so I assume s/he would oppose PROD too. None of the Googles appear to be related, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: "As of June 14, 2006, it has apperared only in one episode after or before a commercial." Enough said. Sandstein 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable fake/joke.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --blue520 06:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I'm also saddened by the fact that it's not even a funny joke. -- Captain Disdain 15:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the person who made this article. I'll just see about putting it into the X-Play article. --User:ASDFGHJKL
  • Alright, I'm deleting it now. Thank You for telling me why! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASDFGHJKL (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, obviously, but I also deleted it from the X-Play article. Said article has a section of frequently recurring segments (as in, if you watched the show's 12-15 new episodes in a given month, you would probably see half of them). The iBox was just one skit that was used one time; like any one-off segment of a show, it needs neither its own article nor a mention in the show's article. -- Kicking222 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Just delete it already!! --ASDFGHJKL 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Morgan Wick 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual assistant[edit]

Delete awful spam. Deprodded. I disabled all links by removing http:// - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination in light of the rewrite, now it's a normal stub about an occupation. Thank you, Adam. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Probably a copyvio. --djrobgordon 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup and removing of copyvios, sure, but seems to be an actual profession; appears not to spam for anyone in particular. Sandstein 05:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. This article needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it is tremendously difficult to read and get a sense as to the nature of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete unless a major cleanup is done. Article has been a spam magnet since creation. Dlyons493 Talk 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 05:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. (I'd say, keep and cleanup, but there's nothing there that could be used in an encyclopedic article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. OK, I was wrong. there is enough there for an article now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much spam, not enough ham. --Transfinite 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Now that the spam ratio is down, I changed my mind. --Transfinite 04:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Keep but Cleanup per Aero AdamBiswanger1 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominate Adam to clean this up. Oughtta be a rule on WP: if you're dogooder cleanup-voter, it's yours to clean up. Hehe... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has been rewritten (purged of junk). Please cast your "votes" in light of this change. AdamBiswanger1 04:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Adam for cleaning this up, based upon some outside research seems to be perfectly legit term[29][30]. Yanksox (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep now that the nom has been withdrawn. ---J.S (t|c) 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimentum Documentimization[edit]

Neologism (only page that shows up in google is he wikipedia page) or some very weird spelling mistakes Koffieyahoo 04:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreated nn. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.[edit]

Hoax, was already deleted, recreated, deleted and protected at Ryan Etheridge. This formerly redirected to Ryan Etheridge, but now has the exact text that the article had. Delete and protect Varco 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and rewrite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZyXEL[edit]

Seems more like an advertisement then anything else Missvain 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads as copy from the company's Annual Report - no claim to notability present in article, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite They are a well-known company. Dlyons493 Talk 12:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Keep ZyXEL is a fairly large international company. I've seen their products and coverage of them lots of times (I used to own one of their 56k modems actually!). It should be possible to find plenty of media coverage of the company. Should the article survive it, at least, needs a serious rewrite. It is an advert in its current form. Yahoo finance quote on Zyxel from the TAIEX. It seems to justify an article... badly needs a rewrite. - Motor (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Very notable company, but the current article is an advertisement. JIP | Talk 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and blow out the gunk. Company is notable, 'cause I heard of 'em. But I defy you to tell me what "ZyXEL has transformed itself several times in response to changes in the rapidly evolving networking industry" means in English. Smerdis of Tlön 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to be more encyclopedic. — 199 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as advertisement. Tychocat 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of TAIEX index, so notable per WP:CORP Retropunk 07:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Monni 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Toasters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLTBGYD[edit]

An AfD nomination by an anon, who obviously couldn't complete the nom. Is it Wiktionary-worthy? If not, delete. TheProject 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless someone can show that this has any potential to be an article. It strikes me as unverifiable and unexpandable, but I'd be happy to be shown wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Toasters. The acronym seems to be the actual title per Amazon, but no independent album article exists. Seems to be the primary use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Trialsanderrors, but no transwiki, as the acronym has no significance aside from the band. -- Kicking222 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Environmental Technology & Management[edit]

Non-notable group; only one unique Google hit, getm.org itself. No evidence of third-party coverage. Melchoir 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while I realise that this doesn't seem to be listed as a website... the organisation's site doesn't even register on Alexa's rankings. $ Whois getm.org returns what seems to be a home address, with a @yahoo.com contact (I'm not going to post the details here, even though they are in the whois database for anyone to find). None of which is conclusive of course. However, googling for "Global Environmental Technology & Management" gets one hit on a technorati blog. Googling for "Global Environmental Technology and Management" none at all. Finally, googling for "getm" brings plenty of hits, but only one appears to be related to the subject of this article... and it is their own website. So... I can't think of reason for keeping this article as the organsiation does not appear to be notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. It has not supplied any reliable sources to suggest it is, and I can't find any. - Motor (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the delicious research by Motor. Muy bueno. -- Kicking222 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realjuggahos.com[edit]

Website spam, de-prodded Koffieyahoo 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Alexa doesn't even have a rank. Unless this can be shown to pass WP:WEB Ydam 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ew. I don't think most Insane Clown Posse fan sites merit articles, so parodies of Insane Clown Posse fan sites sure don't. -- Captain Disdain 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ugh, delete. --- Missvain 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non notable group. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCW Fantasy Wrestling[edit]

WP:WEB WP:VAIN 5 hits in Google, article apparently posted by operator of web site. John Nagle 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article promotes a "fantasy wrestling league" which isn't even active yet. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, default action is to merge with Scientology versus the Internet, so I'll put up the merge tags. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfunny Truth[edit]

Speedy candidate contested by article creator. The article concerns an obscure YTMND page. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 06:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We deleted the list of YTMDS not so long ago. If this is notable it can be mentioned in the main YTMND article. I'm not sure any YTMND's deserve there own article unless they can assert notabiltiy beyond the YTMND community Ydam 10:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, does not even claim to be. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientomogy made headlines around the world. I can't even find headlines for YTMND, let alone YTMND + Scientology. If no evidence of notability can be found you'll have to count me as saying Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Delete or Merge as per Vary. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scientology controversy Scientology versus the Internet. It's actually a very good and apparently popular presentation, and not really in line with the sillyness YTMND is known for. Worth a mention in the main article, but probably doesn't need its own yet, unless down the line there are some legal repercussions from CoS, which wouldn't surprise me. -- Vary | Talk 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scientology versus the Internet as stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.47.118 (talk • contribs) (first edit)
  • Merge to Scientology versus the Internet. It's notable in that context. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This has been widely spread via message boards and what-not, but doesn't really need its own article. Ace of Sevens 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per above.--Aldux 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --WinHunter (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio and redirect to Minnesota Timberwolves. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch (mascot)[edit]

Mascots don't rate an encyclopedic article; this information can go straight into the franchise article; original author removed the SD tag, so I posted it here for consideration. Yay team. Rklawton 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tank 513[edit]

Article contains apparent vanity and original research in addition to questionable fulfillment of notability criterium Wes! &#149; Tc 07:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is already up for speedy deletion, but another editor insists on having this afd. It probably will be deleted before this is concluded. Thetruthbelow 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the assumption the another editor is me. I do not insist on having this afd, I insist that the AfD notice is not blanked or removed from the page during the AfD discussion. Even if it seems to meet the grounds for speedy deletion.--blue520 08:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Omicronpersei8 08:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Universe Today (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 tending towards keep. --bainer (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science[edit]

Seems like listcruft to me, somewhat barred per WP:NOT (though I could see where this might be useful). Aren't there books on such topics? The summary indicates it was prodded, which the creator didn't understand, so I explained it to him, but he deleted that as "unuseful". Go figure. Chaser T 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is listcruft. All the external links don't exactly help it looking like advertising. If kept they should definatly be changed to internal ones. I don't believe we have lists like these for other subjects Ydam 10:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Ydam Bwithh 12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there are only a small number of cogsci programs and hard to find such a list; useful. -999 (Talk) 16:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ????? Small number? But CogSci is not a minority subject or obscure field! Its pretty mainstream. This is a very incomplete list. Bwithh 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Is it listcruft? A little. But now that it's been thoroughly cleaned up and the links are now intrawiki links, it isn't advertisement-y. It's also a list that is not an indiscriminate list of info, and it's definitely not a list that could be infinite. It also, unlike most lists, actually provides a smidgen of useful information. -- Kicking222 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list has the potential to be very helpful, but as it stands right now it is a complete mess. I suggest someone merge this with a cognitive psychology list. Perhaps breaking it up into degree levels. Irongargoyle 20:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The consensus seems to be evolving to keep it in some form (I don't want to withdraw, as these are helpful comments). Might it be better as a category?--Chaser T 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no. Let's say, for some reason, somebody was searching WP for cognitive science degrees. They wouldn't go to a college's page, scroll to the bottom, and happen to see that a college grants said degree. More likely, somebody would read the cognitive science page and notice the "see also" link. -- Kicking222 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like listcruft--useful listcruft. Imagine a student looking to find a school with his desired major searching for "Cognitive Science", then scrolling down to the "See also" section, and clicking on this article. Very useful. Very keep. AdamBiswanger1 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected to Concierge. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concierge service[edit]

No need to have this - we already have Concierge. I tried to make a (rather unimportant) redirect from it several times, but a user constantly changes the redirect into the article containing an advertisement for his service. So I think that this should be deleted as not useful and misused for spamming purposes. Ioannes Pragensis 08:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Game[edit]

Website that shows no sign of meeting WP:WEB. Deprodded by page creator without comment. Delete --Pak21 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another unnotable online game. Unless someone can show why this is different. Ydam 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Ydam already stated, it's one of the hundreds of online games that get WP articles despite being wholly non-notable. -- Kicking222 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get some Anonymous support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.165.53 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free-to-play[edit]

Can be replaced with freeware, shareware or simply the text "free to play". Only used by 7 articles. See the talk page for details. – Andreas Blixt ☺ 09:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article needs cleanup, but a distinction should be drawn between what it refers to, and "freeware" and "shareware" as described by the nominator. As far as I can see, it is not about freeware or shareware - it's about online games that would normally be pay-to-play but are instead free-to-play for whatever reason. If this distinction can be more clearly stated in the article (because, after all, all non-online games are "free to play", so it needs to be mentioned that they're not its subject), and if there isn't already an article that describes these games, I think it can be kept. Seb Patrick 10:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Seb Patrick. As a broad concept, this seems worth keeping. — TKD::Talk 10:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep refers to a distinctly different concept to freeware and shareware. It needs to be explained somewhere Ydam 10:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Currently the article refers to games that can be played with no limitations and for no cost. That is freeware. It also mentions games that can be played for free, but the player will need to pay a fee in order to receive additional features and/or updates. That is shareware. The last paragraph also makes a reference to what could be interpreted as crippleware.

      If the meaning was simply that the game is free to play, I cannot see how the reader would not understand that simply from reading "This game is free to play". Before you go on and tell me that this is not what the article is supposed to contain, that is what it currently does contain (in my opinion).

      Previous comments say that (This is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) it may refer to the subscription fee of a game, not the initial purchase fee. If this article can be rewritten to include more than just a couple paragraphs about that, then it could certainly be kept. A good comparison could be Guild Wars and World of Warcraft, for example (since they are both pretty similar in function, but different in payment methods).

      – Andreas Blixt ☺ 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reasons as above. Palffy 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ben[edit]

Appears to be a NN local TV sitcom. Can't find anything relevant on Google. No real assertion of notability other than the claim that it's a "hit". Deprodded by author with explaination "it is a local hit, as it airs on a UHF network, and is only known to some(but is still a hit among those who know it)" given in edit summary. Matt Eason 10:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete local TV programmes are not inherantly notable. Ydam 10:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Dweller 10:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yo suckas, ER (Operating room deal) gets a show, but Just Ben doesn't? If wikipedia is a site consisting of human knowledge, I believe that even things most deem to be minor deserve a spot in history. This show was a brainchild of mine, and my best friend's four years ago. Now, it's sucessful. It has been in play form, movie form, and now independant television.JustBenCrew 10:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yo sucka, your name is "JustBenCrew", so why should we take you seriously again? Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia articles must be on subjects that are notable. If you can show that Just Ben is "known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact", then please let us know. I would also urge you to take a look at WP:AUTO, which deals with writing articles on subjects you're personally involved with. Matt Eason 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Google is no help. I had a look at the "fan site", and it's an angelfire page with no content except for a couple of pictures. Actually, this looks and smells like a hoax. However, if the submitter can supply some reliable sources for media coverage of the 'sitcom', then I might change my vote. - Motor (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reminds me of similar recent hoaxes involving the name "Ben", now you mention it. Dweller 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Wikipedia articles shouldn't apply to a narrow field of people, delete your articles on hardcore, punk rock, hip hop, and everything that applies. This isn't similar to another hoax featuring Ben, this isn't even a hoax. We will have an episode uploaded and linked within a couple days. Maybe that will change your opinions.JustBenCrew2 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think seeing an episode will change anyone's opinions. We're not just looking for proof that it exists. We're looking for proof that it exists and is notable, and no-one's been able to provide that yet. Matt Eason 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are looking for verifiable evidence from reliable sources that Just Ben exists and has some level of notability. That is the benchmark that we apply or should apply to every article. As yet, Just Ben does not meet this benchmark so I am suggesting we delete it. Capitalistroadster 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:V & WP:RS can be met for actual media coverage. -- Scientizzle 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete this show, soon it will be relevant. I've heard they're in talks with family channel right now. 70.72.54.155 05:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Henry Thomas[reply]
  • What do you mean you'll "change your vote", Motor? That sign up there says this is NOT a vote. I've seen far more esoteric things kept on this site, and it was stuff no one even cares about. Just Ben is important. Maybe if you keep the wiki up you'll witness just how important it is. I presume this entry alone will generate double the amount of hits, and by logic double the amount of donations. Taking down Just Ben will be like shooting yourself in the face with a PPK; you won't die, but damn will it ever hurt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.72.231 (talk • contribs) .
    • The sign up there says it's not a vote... but actually it is. The admin who closes this AFD will tally up the votes and then close it accordingly... they just won't admit to doing it that way. New editors and those without user names are quite likely to be discounted, unless they make convincing arguments involving things like showing where "Just Ben" has some press coverage in reliable sources. - Motor (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually zero notability. Hardly any reliable references to go by either.--Auger Martel 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niggerchanovsky[edit]

Neologism. Was "prod"'d in the past but is back again. Francs2000 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This sort of thing belongs at the very bottom of the Trivia section of another article, if that. -- Steel 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When your reference is urbandictionary.com you know you should not be creating the article. - Motor (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is valuable supplemental reading on the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.116.115 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Man, that is stupid. That's almost as stupid as the movie The Stupids. -- Kicking222 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as trivia goes, or as indiscriminate information... I suppose I could call a lot of pop-culture stuff the same, except when it's popular or widely accepted/known about? This is a legitmate piece of information that supplements the iTap article - as far as referencing urbandictionary.com, the first part has nothing to do with the online collection of slang terms, I just felt the second half could follow the first - remove that part, fine. But couldn't I call Leeroy Jenkins popular trivia and a waste of Wikipedia's valuable space? Not that I don't understand the impact on society this character has made, or where he's been found, but if he were gone from Wikipedia tommorow...I really don't understand how it would make a difference, either. Maybe I should nominate the article for deletion. [/sarcasm]
And Kicking222, thank you for logically and throughly presenting your opinion without bring any emotional or abrasive feelings; all of your comments were, in general, necessary to the situation and really made this yet another pleasant experience on Wikipedia by providing even more proof of the care and understanding of the many users here (stupid stupid stupid? whoops!). I see you've created an article for Dan Gutman and Splashdown_(band); since I do not see how either one of those articles are important (they both seem more like promotional pieces for small-time things that I'm willing to bet don't affect a majority of lives out there; tsk tsk tsk, Wikipedia is not a soapbox!), I'll nominate those for deletion too. [/sarcasm]
I'm not trying to be militant, but understand where I come from. Sudden curiousity strikes and I'm reading the T9 article - I link over to iTap, and I see my entry in "See also" - except it's not there... A little research later, and I feel like it's important enough to include; I guess if I can create an entire world in my head and sell it to people either in the form of religion (s'up Scientology?) or fictional novels (s'up The Lord of the Rings), and get more than a hundred people store it in their memory banks (not to mention take up ALL THAT WIKIPEDIA SPACE - have you seen some of the fictional tangents these LOTR worlds have taken? Heck, just look at the Halo storyline...) then it stands as legitimate Wiki material...
I just added like 4kb? of relevant, true fact (at least the first half), and all the people I've shown it to have appreciated it. *shrug* Am I really taxing the servers with this info? I mean, it's SUCH A HUGE ENTRY, and it just doesn't stop getting traffic hits (I better stop typing in all-caps, that adds to the size of a wiki article too, doesn't it?)... If so, point me to that paypal thing again and I'll throw $5 towards the server fees. Sorry I'm new to the scene and can't do all the fancy-pants link redirecting or image-inclusion, or understand the "status-quo" of Wikipedia, but more and more this project feels like another elite forum... you guys spend so much time on here, make your self fancy little icons, a nice user page, this and that about counter-vandalism, multiple languages, and cowbells...and suddenly you guys are the newest cyber-frat. And little guys like me might get our articles shat on...
Ha, I wrote about 10x's more defending the damn article than I did about the article itself.
P.S. Please defend the existence of these articles (List of high school dropouts, Government cheese) --- MeNext 16:36 ET, 15 June 2006
Thanks for the reply! I'll try and explain why it's up for deletion: it doesn't have any sources with reliability. That is, anyone can add entries to Urban Dictionary, and that's the closest this article has to a source that someone else can go back and check up on. That means there's no way that we can test if this is a hoax or not without getting a phone with iTap ourselves, and no source for any of the speculation that comes after it about why it's there. That's just not acceptable for an encyclopedia. This is not to say that it doesn't have a place, but it's a big Internet, and it is already on Urban Dictionary (which deals with these kind of things). As for comparing it to other articles, I agree, I don't think the enormous effort that goes into some pop culture stuff is useful at all, but it's sourced and easily verifiable from written sources, which is important under Wikipedia policy (the three big ones at WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). It may seem arbitrary, but it's running on that fundamental principle that any additions need to be credibly sourced. Ziggurat 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a repost. If N/A, regular delete as a meme that did't really have an impact. youngamerican (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a better source than the Urban Dictionary can be found. Ziggurat 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly any reliable sources for it to be utilized in a constructive manner.--Auger Martel 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that this information is of any real use to anyone. As far as I can see it's an article about a random word, or rather the fact that you a phone can suggest it to you (even if it does contain a word that is considered offensive). How is that helpful information? Retodon8


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

It feels weird to be AFDing such an old article, but this is a pure dictdef, and I don't see how it could be expanded into a proper article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Steel 11:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete had more than ample opportunity to be more than a dicdef. WP:NOT a dictionary and I don't see how this could be expanded beyond a dicdef Ydam 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I don't see the potential for expansion. PJM 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I spent a good five minutes trying to think real hard of something to actually say about the subject beyond the dictionary definition, and, well, uh. No can do. The concept is just too simple and shallow for that. If someone can expand the article, that'll be a happy surprise, but I don't really expect all that many happy surprises in life... -- Captain Disdain 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah I too tried to figure out what could be done to meaningfully expand this beyond a definition... can't think of anything. Might put the {{wi}} template there after deletion to discourage recreation and point people to the proper place. --W.marsh 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and use the {{wi}} template. Hey, I AfDed an article from 2002 back in February... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic conflict in India. Grandmasterka 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy TV[edit]

Non-notable television show online. Google results of about 360. Was prodded and someone had added a prod2, but it was removed b an anon IP. Metros232 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obviously non notable unless shown otherwise Ydam 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and its prime reason for existence is to promote the subject. - Richardcavell 08:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XboxHardcore[edit]

non notable website, as per WP:WEB Xorkl000 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - non-notable website for a non-notable console Dangerkitten 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - vanity website for a non-notable website. seems that the owner of the site posts more on forums then he does anything else. Missvain 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Missvain.--Andeh 22:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A vanity website which is barely notable. --Auger Martel 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations[edit]

Not noteworthy. A small handful of people want to make an issue of a nonissue. [32] [33] George 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless I'm missing something. Can you elaborate on the problem with the article? The JW-UN thing seems to be notable and seems to be long enough that you wouldn't want to stick it into the main JW article. Am I missing something? BigDT 13:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand this one either. The article doesn't appear to be original research or a hoax. The references listed on the article indicate that the issue has received some media attention, the animosity is fairly well-known, and in any case, it involves two fairly prominent organizations. I'm sure the article could be improved, but you seem to feel that the subject matter itself is not noteworthy, George. I dont' really understand why. -- Captain Disdain 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Witnesses are certainly a notable group, as is the UN. The article makes a convincing case that this isn't just some passing animosity on the part of a few Witnesses but an important part of their teaching the past 4 decades. It also does a good job of using NPOV and references. I happen to strongly disagree with the Witnesses on this (no surprise), but that's no reaon for me to want to delete it. Interlingua talk 15:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks fine to me. David L Rattigan 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all above. Dlyons493 Talk

OK then George 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into regular Jehovah's witnesses article. I see no reason this needs it's own article. Tychocat 20:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, valid subject, written in a constructive manner. Seems acceptable to me.--Auger Martel 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make this clear. The only source for this "controversial issue" listed in the article is the Guardian newspaper. Everything else is research. there are no references to who is claiming this is a controversy except the guardian, which has a history of villifying JW's. There are websites which exaggerate this issue (see my link 1 above) but they mostly mirror each other and all source the Guardian.George 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you implying that the animosity between Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Nations does not exist? Because seriously, it takes about fifteen seconds on Google to find resources that make it blatantly clear that it does exist. When I do a Google search for "Jehovah's Witnesses" "United Nations", I get over 96 000 hits, and the ones that I come across first are all about this issue on one level or another. The 1963 Watchtover Resolution against joining the United Nations is all over the web. Pointing out that the animosity exists is not original research. That said, if you have issues with the article itself, if you feel that it suffers from POV problems or some other problems, feel free to improve it. But to say that this issue is not noteworthy is just plaing wrong. If what the web sez is correct (and I see no reason to assume that it's not), the resolution was adopted at all 24 assemblies, by a grand total of 454,977 conventioners. That's almost half a million people from a single religion taking an official stand that the UN sucks. How is that not noteworthy?
Also, the recent edits on this article kind of worry me. To be honest, I have some trouble following the changes, because as far as clearly written articles go, this one isn't... but I'm a little concerned that pretty passionate people are involved with the article, which is often a signal for POV problems to begin.
(Oh, and hey, guys, I also reorganized the votes here just a little bit to make this discussion a little easier to follow -- I hope nobody minds.) -- Captain Disdain 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means clean up the article. My problem is with the fact that the article is about some supposed "controversy" over JW's registering for library access at the UN, not the way they view the UN. IF it was about how JW's view the UN then I would have no problem with it. Also, animosity is not the right word. If JW's held animosity toward the UN they would not state that it goals were admirable though futile. I don't want to get into doctrine on this page. I did succeed in getting some much needed attention on this article so that whatever may happen to it is a consensus action and not that of one or two JW editors (myself included). So feel free to get involved.George 03:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Fair enough. Well, if you feel the article is wrong, by all means fix it. As far as I can tell, the topic is significant enough for inclusion; if it doesn't give the subject matter proper treatment, that's certainly a problem, but in any case, it's not a valid reason for deleting the article. -- Captain Disdain 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I/we will change up the article but I am going to wait to see if anyone else has something to say.George 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer's winning streak on grass[edit]

Not sure quite what to call this article, but it looks like a delete to me. —Mets501 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I understand what is being attempted. But, every game in Joe DiMaggio's hit streak isn't listed. And for a good reason. This is interesting but not really not that notable, the article covers it up nicely. Yanksox (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Covered adequately in the main article. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Yanksox and Stumason. The streak is certainly notable, but not so notable that we need a complete breakdown of it. In addition, the subject is covered in Federer's article to the extent that this sort of expansion is wholly unnecessary. -- Kicking222 17:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sportscruft. JIP | Talk 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Yanksox. I too was uncertain as to what this was when it was first created, but thought I'd leave it be for a few days and give it a chance. Now that it's nominated I concur that it doesn't belong. Agent 86 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While a nice break from the eight curse nominations above, it is in the same mode -- link this fact with that sequence with this person -- does not an article make. Shenme 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But only if Rafael Nadal's winning streak on clay andChris Evert's 125-match winning streak on clay between 1973 and 1979 are both deleted as well. OSmeone 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just nominated those two pages and several others for deletion. -Big Smooth 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI all three pages were created by the same user on June 6th and 7th. Yanksox (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greco-Turkish conflicts with Turkish casualties[edit]

I declined to speedy delete this, but nonetheless I feel it should be deleted. It serves no useful purpose other than propaganda. Delete. kingboyk 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, it was created by an editor specialized in creating attack pages.--Aldux 13:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, probably a pov fork.--Eupator 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article had listend conflicts that simply resulted in casualties (and not just for "both side" Turkish and Greek but for "all sides"), and had given at least brief info on each, I'd have voted for keep. But as is, it is very POV. Interlingua talk 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted on WP:RFD by User:Freakofnurture - see [34] - BigDT 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"TCC"[edit]

This is an acronym for The Casual Courier. I've added TCC to the TCC page but this doesn't deserve it's own page just to direct the reader to The Casual Courier page, it is mainly a list of links, plus it does not conform to any of our naming conventions. Ben W Bell talk 13:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom or, if there is a strong need, it can always be redirected to the main TCC disambig page, but that's probably extraneous. BigDT 13:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed redirect. I'll make the change now. thanks for the comments. very useful. thanks. --Jjacobs 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if it is going to be a redirect, it really should be a redirect to TCC, which is a disambiguation page for all articles/companies with those initials. I seriously doubt that The Casual Courier is the most common TCC. Does anyone actually refer to them as "TCC" (with quotes)? Normally, there isn't much use for quoted page names. Would someone looking for The Casual Courier (or any other TCC) be likely to put "TCC" (with quotes) into the search box? I don't see much reason for the redirect, but if there is a redirect, it should be to the main TCC page, not to this company. BigDT 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close - as it has been changed to a redirect by the only contributor, should we discuss this on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? BigDT 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong redirect to TCC, not The Casual Courier. I agree with BigDT on one front: This should go to the main disambig page. But I disagree on two fronts: One, as the acronym (in quotes) redirects to this one article, as opposed to the disambig page, we shouldn't close the debate. Two, when the article was listed for deletion, it was an actual article as opposed to a redirect, so a move to RfD is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to the second point, normally, I would agree, but since the only contributor to the article is the one who changed it, it's really just cutting a step out of the process. As the only contributor, he could have it speedied as db-author, then create a new "TCC" as a redirect. So moving to RFD is just cutting a step out of the process. BigDT 17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but do not close) -- now listed on WP:RfD, but he could change it back if the RfD fails. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Gender Gap[edit]

Insufficient context; arbitrary list of 'facts' not suitable for encylopedia article Barrylb 13:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an editorial and Wikipedia's not the place for that. RedRollerskate 14:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It certainly isn't in Wiki-worthy style but some of the facts being presented seem true (60% of college degrees going to women). The topic is notable: there have been a number of books published on ways boys aren't served well in public schools, etc, and of course there has been a lively debate about this. However, that just means the topic of gender gaps is notable, not tis particular article. In order to forestall a delete, the article needs to to be written as NPOV and in real sentences, not just a collection of unsupported factoids. Interlingua talk 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable parts with gender differences and redirect. Angela. 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research and US-centric. Cedars 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Klowns (Band)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 13:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 . ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo series[edit]

Prod tag removed so I'm bringing here. Title of article is unrelated to the content. No encyclopedic value. Delete. Hammer Raccoon 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not a great fan of lists in general, and this one seems completely useless. It's just a collection of links now (and could possibly be speedied as such, actually -- I wouldn't object), and I can't even tell where the article should be expanded. -- Captain Disdain 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The creator of this article has been generally reckless with organization. This article is useless and redundant, considering that a "Nintendo franchises" category already exists. Dancter 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links. Batmanand | Talk 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely pointless. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XOL[edit]

I don't claim to know what XOL is, but this is written in first person which is always a bad sign. Delete unless XOL shown to be something notable, and page rewritten. ::Supergolden:: 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Extensible Out-of-band Language" gets four Google hits, two of which are Wikipedia and answers.com, a Wikipedia mirror. Google is a bad indicator of significance for some topics, but when it comes to programming language, it's awesome. Four hits? That's, uh, not exactly notable. The article is also entirely unsourced and possibly even unverifiable, considering the lack of Google hits. Original research? Well, being written in first person would kind of hint at that. None of this makes me want to keep this article. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Disdain. -- Kicking222 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to complete absense of references. Gerry Ashton 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clanwars[edit]

Closer's notes
In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users, and very new users (RyanKatora and Klaskey) were disregarded.

Online gaming network. No notability claimed. Conscious 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  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 pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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


Ive added a bit more content tflst5 10:05---, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not claimed. Delete per WP:WEB. Kershner 14:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement and no notability. -- Kicking222 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am a member on Clanwars and was hoping you could elaborate on your reasons for deleting this article? I have read many articles discussing strategies of games or games in general; I suppose I'm wondering what is wrong with a link to a gaming league as there are other articles on wiki for online gaming clans and leagues. Please reconsider your request. RyanKatora
    • Comment Being a member does not make a topic notable. For an article to remain on Wikipedia that is about a website it must satisfy the requirements in WP:WEB. In particular, this article does assert the importance of the topic and does not establish it's notability to the degree required. Kershner 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please don't take the nomination as an insult, as it's certainly not meant to be. If you feel that this nomination is unjust because there are other gaming forums that are the same size as Clanwars or smaller, yet have Wikipedia articles, please point them out (say on my talk page). BillC 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Clanwars is no different than CAL or Teamwarfare (whom both have Wikipedia entries). Clanwars has become just as popular as either league. Electronic Arts, a billion dollar company, recently included Clanwars integration in its recent release "Battle for Middle Earth II". Results are currently automatically sent to the Clanwars league system after an online match is played in BFME2. I would imagine integration into a game by one of the leaders of the video game industry is significant as will any future interaction between these two entities will also be significant. Recently Clanwars has been receiving numerous sponsorships by companies such as Nvidia, Zboard, BigHugeGames (a partner of Microsoft), and others. The league has continued to grow since its inception and will only continue to get larger. Clanwars is more than a “cookie cutter” style league such as Teamwarfare and has garnered much more attention from video game companies than any other online league. --Klaskey 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was in fact added by 136.142.210.221 (talk · contribs). Conscious 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is that IP's only contribution, and unsigned comments carry little, if any, weight in AfD. This unsigned comment by Ais523 was deleted by Klaskey (talk · contribs). Conscious 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising and seems hardly notable.--Auger Martel 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Auger Martel Deleuze 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still debate the "no notability" charge. Surely if the head honchos at Electronic Arts along with Gamespy were able to notice and integrate the clanwars ladder system into their game, than wikipedia would have a place for the ladder system that is quickly finding its way onto the map for many of game design companies. Certainly these sponsorships and relationships with giants of the video game industry match if not outweigh the accomplishments of other ladder sites such as teamwarfare and CAL, both of which have wikipedia entires (as I've mentioned before). So far, I havent read one good rebuttal to those facts from any of the posters here. If you don't feel its notable, please do explain how teamwarfare or CAL is notable. I understand some of you may not have heard about Clanwars, but then again, perhaps this kind of stuff isnt your niche. Of course, as long as wikipedia covers Homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck, I guess there will be something of interest for everyone. --Klaskey 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User has supported twice and only has three contributions, all to this deletion page.--Auger Martel 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, I must not quite understand the phrase "please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion". As far as contributions go, I'll make sure that I'll run to wikipedia so that I can be the first to note the actors who participate in the next new beer commercial, or maybe I'll be sure to find another instance of homosexual necrophilia in a new breed of butterfly. Again, I only want to point out that nobody here is really arguing the points that I'm making, which means this really isn’t much of a discussion at all, just a bunch of people pointing fingers. I changed my "vote", hope that makes everyone happy.--Klaskey 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Forums[edit]

Fairly unremarkable article. Really, it's just throwing out words for the reader like 'aspiring writers' and it is like saying "Sports Forums" or "Dating Forums". There are not articles for these. This is an article basically saying that there are forums for people wishing to be writers. It is not worthy enough to be a freestanding article, and I have the feeling that the external links at the bottom are self-promotion. Now, i May be wrong, but that is my gut feeling. Paaerduag 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't really see any point for this. I think the concept of people who share an interest and band together on the net to discuss it is kinda notable in itself, but I really see no point in having an individual article for every interest group. The merge already being suggested in the article itself seems fine, I suppose, except I'm not at all sure that there's anything to merge. -- Captain Disdain 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. You both make good points about the problems of having an unending series of articles on niche forums, but I still think this article did a good job (for a stub) of outlining a topic and suggesting lines of future development. I can see this easily growing into a full article with sections devoted to different aspects of writing, publishing, reviewing, etc. I think there is notable material out there and would like to give this article more time to bring it into Wikipedia. Interlingua talk 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I'm not quite sure if I understand what you mean. We already have articles about various forms of writing, publishing and whatnot. Do you really think that having articles on talking about the the aforementioned topics would be worthwhile? I dunno, maybe you're right, but even so, wouldn't that be something to tackle under Internet forum rather than a separate article (or series of articles about, say, sports forums, science fiction forums, film forums, comic book forums, dating forums and so forth)? I write for a living myself, so I certainly agree that there's a lot of solid information about the topic out there... I'm just not sure that it's at all significant information. Actually, now that I think of it, perhaps the creation of a new article about writers' workshops or something along those lines would be helpful, because that's a very real (and, in my opinion, a far more notable) phenomenon. That could also very well encompass writing forums, which are, after all, a kind of a subset of writers' workshops... I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, because the subject matter is of interest to me, I just don't see this particular article making the grade. -- Captain Disdain 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think we should have an article on every potential type of forum, as there are forums for just about anything imaginable. The important parts can be merged into a more general article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I like Captain Disdain's idea about finding a more general home for something like this, something about the intersection of the Internet and information on writing. On this more general page, there could be things like this article on writers' forums, but also on message boards, workshops, collaborative publishing, etc. Interlingua talk 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to fWiki Matt 23:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does 'transwiki' mean?--Paaerduag 08:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes no sense to have a separate article for this. --Musicpvm 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. bainer (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvein Magazine[edit]

No notability established Barrylb 13:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sort of Keep apparently a real magazine, though admittedly shady. I've been watching it over the months, but never brought myself to propose it for deletion. I am guessing that real magazines with real circulations are presumptive, if not automatic, keeps. I would appreciate more info and may change my vote later. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, despite a low 838 google hits. Most of which seem to be other literary magazines and online writer's forums. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. About 3 dozen sites link to this, according to Google. It's had 27 issues. I think there's room on an encyclopedia with 1,000,000+ articles for this one. Interlingua talk 16:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It seems to me that a magazine published regularly for 24 years must have some interesting history behind it, even if the current article doesn't reflect that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Only about 500 google hits minus the magazine's own hosts, its t-shirt sites etc. - couldn't see anything sufficiently notable about the remaining hits. Unconvinced by longevity of publication - how does this lead one to suppose that it "must have some interesting history behind it even if the current article doesn't reflect that". 27 issues in 24 years nothing special at all for a zine Bwithh 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination withdrawn. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

This is a niche product. Absolutely useless on wikipedia and I'll tell you why. No one knows about this game. It is too insignificant to be on wikipedia. I mean, the Adventure Company is barely afloat. This is better served on a company website not wikipedia. it is too insignificant and warrants deletion. Also the prose is so sloppy that it reads horribly. Shaanxiquake 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nominator has admitted here [35] that he only nominated another article by Paaerduag due to an ongoing conflict with him, saying "the act of nominating it was purely so that Paaerduag's work would be deleted". The same rationale seems to apply here. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP who is to say whether a game is niche or popular? this is a game, just like every other game article on wikipedia. why not target them? the 'prose is so sloppy' maybe it's not perfect but it conveys a point. honestly, don't tell me you're a sock puppet of Kiran90, seriously whoever you are, after vandalising my talk page you resort to using 'niche product' as a reason to delete a legit page? i don't know how to deal with some people on wikipedia, i honestly don't. --Paaerduag 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly notable, PC game that is available for purchase, and there are several articles on PC games on Wikipedia. Lots of effort gone into the article as well. If you think any of the prose is sloppy, then Wikipedia would be better served by you editing it than trying to get this whole article deleted. D-Angle 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad nom - significance isn't a criteria to be on Wikipedia, notability (as defined objectively be the guideline) is. Bad prose is also not a reason for deletion. Trebor 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly sufficiently notable. Published by a notable company, based on a notable license, and most importantly, reviewed by plenty of reliable gaming web sites. -- Kicking222 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article asserts notability. Significant. Navou talk 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak sources to support notability, and promotes a commercial product. Edison 04:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes all policies I can think of. Nominator didn't even give a valid reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe a bit of clean-up but I see nothing here to be deleted. Clever editor as well - his first edit was to do an AFD.... --Charlesknight 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Adventure company is not an insignificant company; Khepos Studio does not appear to be insignificant either. About 19,000 ghits for the game, covering several languages. SkierRMH,08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep to reduce clutter on AFD, this subject is clearly notable. Silensor 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination per my note above. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAWL because this was done in bad faith and I don't want it to go any further. --Shaanxiquake 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Kingboyk

Luke and George Points[edit]

This may be a speedy candidate, but I decided to play it safe and prod it instead. One of the editors of the article removed the tag, so I am forced to bring it here. This is possibly a hoax, but even if it is not, it is just something that a couple of kids made up in school one day. Indrian 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag because it is unfounded, and rather offensive after spending time creating the article. --Herman238 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hogwartsforums.com[edit]

Harry Potter forum, created March 2006, claiming 1000 members and 10,000 posts. Is that notable? NawlinWiki 14:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no it isint Ydam 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not notable. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable forum, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stupefy...I mean delete per nom. Extraordinary Machine 15:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move link to Exernal Links on Harry Potter page. Interlingua talk 16:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have any Alexa rank, so I take the 1000-member claim with a grain of salt (the site itself says 480 members) and even if true 1000 members wouldn't be enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no it's not notable. Not according to WP:WEB. Wikipdia is not a web directory. - Motor (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One small delete of a Harry Potter article is one giant step for mankind! BlueValour 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

491 members already now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.161.102 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 June 2006.

There were 491 members yesterday, and when I checked today there were 505. 14 per day... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.77.161.102 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 June 2006.

Comment: check Wikipedia:Notability (web) --Zoz (t) 14:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile-danciu[edit]

First of all, the article is in German, which I can't really read without resorting to heavy-duty dictionary use, so it's possible that all it needs is some minor translation work. I can make out that it's about a classical guitarist, but the details get hazy. However, the real problem is that the creator's username is also Vasile-danciu, and he also added (a non-working) link to the article under the "Promising guitarists" section in Guitarist. I'm not getting any relevant Google hits here, either. All this kind of points towards a vanity situation covered under CSD:A7, and the only reason I didn't tag the article as such is that I can't quite figure out what it says and I'm going to assume good faith and give all y'all a chance to point out that I'm wrong, since it's possible that I am -- maybe the creator isn't the subject of the article, but just a well-meaning fan. I don't think so, but guess it don't hurt none to be sure. Captain Disdain 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination, unless I'm talking out of my ass here, in which case I'll obviously happily withdraw the nomination. -- Captain Disdain 14:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per german to english translation it appears to be a non-notable musician who clearly does not mean notability requirements. "Vasile Danciu was born in Maramures (seven castles - Rumania). It studied classic guitar at the art secondary school in women stream in prof. Marin Petreus and at the music academy Gheorghe Dima in Klaus castle in prof. Constantin Andrei. It has lived since 2002 in Vienna and studies Vienna at the conservatory – privately university. In the year 2000, it recovered the Rotarystipendium to the production of young artists and in the year 2001 the honor, per Musica. " DrunkenSmurf 15:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only notability is getting a Rotary scholarship, and even for an Inclusionist like me, that's still not enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe in 2010 when we all have articles about us on here. Interlingua talk 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...honestly, that thought kinda horrifies me. =) -- Captain Disdain 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Progressive tax. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graduated income tax[edit]

This page covers virtually the same subject as Progressive tax. Paul 14:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirSitter[edit]

One of several spam articles related to The Casual Courier. It has no meaningful content. If the author would like, the term could be defined in The Casual Courier itself, assuming that article doesn't find itself on the wrong end of an AFD.

For other related articles, please see The Casual Courier, casual courier (afd), "TCC" (afd) (included only for reference, these are NOT a part of this AFD) - BigDT 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In the (stated) expectation that it would be cleaned up, I voted keep but cleanup on the casual courier article. Damn my assumption of good faith ... apparently, the cleanup-but-keep consensus on casual courier has inspired its creator to wikispam every single term related to this corporation. Here's four reasons to delete, in a single sentence : this article, as a (1.) dicdef of an admittedly (2.) copyrighted trademarked term, is (3.) advertisement and (4.)nonencyclopedic. -- Docether 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of information - it is a trademarked term, not a copyrighted term. You can trademark anything you want - it just means what it sounds like - it is a mark that you use in your trade. It's a bar on other people using that term to leech off of your success - it's not a bar on other people mentioning the word in ordinary conversation, writing about the word, or using it in such a way that it was nothing to do with what you trademarked. BigDT 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment -- Thanks, I stand corrected. It appears that this trademarked term is not in common usage other than as a mark of the particular corporation, which leads me to believe that this is part of an advertising / promotional usage of Wikipedia (considering the other factors). -- Docether 15:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Because of the trademark issue, a redirect would be problematic, even if material was merged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access Energy Transformation[edit]

Stumbled across this while doing disambig link repair. I don't believe it is notable, or contains any content worth merging. At the end of the article it states that the practice is limited to under 1000 adherants, and consists of a guy flying around doing presentations. Non-notable. Aguerriero (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam/Heaven[edit]

Speedy delete Article is hard to understand and has no connection to Vietnam at all, i assume its on about a band and a cd and also looks non notable. Article makes no refernce to who Heaven is and also looks like its just been copied. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 15:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed my vote as a user has: wikified and renamed. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: no assertion of notability --Pak21 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: notability clearly established by Aguerriero's rewrite --Pak21 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This article is about the Eugene Chadbourne album Vietnam/Heaven. You can see from his article that he is quite notable. Albums are distributed on national labels and professionally reviewed. The article is crap, but it just needs to be correctly written, not deleted. Should have been marked for cleanup and wikify. Will re-write today or tomorrow. Suggest speedy keep due to unresearched nomination. Aguerriero (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is a legitimate article, then (1) it needs badly to be cleaned up and wikified as pointed out above, and (2) the name should be changed as it violates "Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles" from Wikipedia:Naming conventions. BigDT 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya, good point. When I rewrite it, I will also move to a new name. Good catch. Aguerriero (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you wikify it, contact me. I'll change my vote. (EDIT: Contacted. Keep now.) - Kookykman|(t)e 20:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed all the copyvio, wrote new material, wikified. Please revisit your votes. Thanks - Aguerriero (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I moved the article to Vietnam and Heaven since the official title violates WP:NAME. Aguerriero (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Lazzaro[edit]

Independent candidate for local office, nonnotable unless he wins, other activities aren't significant enough NawlinWiki 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete The article reads like a resume. Nothing links to the article except for the page on the 2006 MA general elections, and the person currently holding the seat for which Lazzaro is running doesn't even have his own WP article. The article's writer has zero unrelated edits. The person in question has no notability aside for running for a state senate seat as an independent candidate. Need I go on? -- Kicking222 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. -- Scientizzle 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article on race in question per Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. -- Mwalcoff 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vs. The Earth[edit]

nn band, unsigned; author attempts to demonstrate notability, but the section looks really weak. Rklawton 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete They seem more known around their hometown of Baltimore, after googling it, then anywhere else. I also don't find any news about their Budweiser win, or whatever. They also copy their bio straight from various websites, and seem to play a stable amount of covers in their sets. --- Missvain 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Missvain. There are certainly claims of notability, but there's simply not enough notability to be claimed. -- Kicking222 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, citations, etc., but meets notability requirements. Parsssseltongue 19:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Meets notability requirements"? Really? - Kookykman|(t)e 20:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I live in Baltimore, and outside of playing local bars, this band is NOT notable, hell I've never heard of them. Wildthing61476 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Starleigh is proud to announce that Vs. The Earth is now (also) a Nationally Sponsored Budweiser True Music band"[36] --Zoz (t) 20:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felix klaemont[edit]

Vanity page of a nn musician. Speedy del. contested, so AfD Ioannes Pragensis 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity, nn. Google shows not much beyond the usual myspace. As usual, Geogre's law holds true. Fan1967 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, agreed. I lived in Bellingham for quite some time and never even heard of him once in the music scene. --- Missvain 16:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable artist, looks like a vanity page per nom. DrunkenSmurf 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Vanity. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete Pure vanity article.--Auger Martel 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks sufficiently notable to me, but formatting and encyclopedic writing was omitted entirely. A re-write with references would cause me to change my vote. snug 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WEBpackaging[edit]

WP:CORP; SPAM; Original (noob) author removed the SD tag, so we'll just try it this way. Rklawton 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Removal of speedy deletion tags is against policy. If it is contested, {{hangon}} should be used. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company does not come close to meeting WP:CORP, no notability asserted or sourced in article.DrunkenSmurf 16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged; no assertion of notability in article (created by User:[email protected]). NawlinWiki 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge with formation skydiving. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

16-way[edit]

Definition. If it's important enough to be kept, I'd think it could go into the formation skydiving article that's currently rather empty itself. fuzzy510 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 16:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Mr. Lefty, as there isn't nearly enough notability (nor information) for this article to stand on its own. Until somebody writes an article about orgies with sixteen people, I think a redirect is the safe choice. -- Kicking222 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Lefty. -- Scientizzle 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Lefty. Matt 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fedynsky[edit]

Non-notable person, either redirect to Cleveland Ukrainian Museum or delete. Chipka 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly non-notable. Jefffire 16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and barely anything worthy through google. --- Missvain 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and not google. Snugspout 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Um... isn't the "Wikipedia is not google argument" usually a pro-deletion argument? Bwithh 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since we have an article on the museum Fedynsky relates to, he has liability to have an article. Lorty 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability sufficient to justify his own article. Don't redirect to the Museum (who knows when the position may change hands? - just including his name in the museum article should be more than enough and easier to change later on). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it is generally considered to be an attempt at an encyclopedia.... Wikipedia is not google Bwithh 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Only notable for museum. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not significantly notable. Dipics 18:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn and likely qualify for {{db-bio}} --WinHunter (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Angus Turbayne[edit]

Claim to fame is that he "won a bronze medal for bookbinding design at the 1900 Paris exposition." NN in my opinion. NawlinWiki 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • On reflection, I am persuaded by the Keep votes below and withdraw the nomination. NawlinWiki 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, and also copyvio from this site. Google indicates no particular notability, other than a 1968 book from an author with the same name (possibly someone else, possibly a reprint). It's about "One thousand two hundred two and three letter monograms." Fascinating, I'm sure, but short of WP:BIO's "published authors ... who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Sandstein 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didn't realize that bookbinding was a competitive sport. All kidding aside, I think there is merit in keeping this article, although it should be quickly re-written to avoid the copyright concern. Assuming this person's career was late C19 and early C20, I doubt you'll find a lot on the internet about this. Bear in mind the limitations of googletesting and its bias towards more modern subjects. While bookbinding today is probably a lost art, I suspect at the time it was an important craft (important enough that prizes were awarded for it). This article should be given some time for an editor who appreciates lost arts to develop it into something more. Agent 86 18:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh great, another "third place contestant in a spelling bee" type article, only this time set 100+ years ago. If it was proved that bookbinding was indeed important as an artistic craft at that time, and the Paris Exhibition of 1900's contest was a really significant one, I might consider a keep for the first place winner. But this guy won the third place medal. For those curious, Emanuel Sadokierski of Lodz, Poland was the gold medal winner (scroll all the way down the page down to the "Other" section) and the silver medal winner was Minnie Prat of Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Bwithh 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Given that the Paris Exposition was a World's Fair, I wouldn't discount events at that fair to be insignificant. As for bookbinding, I'd find it hard to believe that it wasn't an important craft[37]. It appears that it still is. It isn't going to get the kids away from their Sidekicks or their skateboards, but it hasn't been relegated to the dustbin of history, either. Agent 86 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The book 'Monograms and Ciphers' is indeed by this Albert Angus Turbayne, and seems to have been regularly reprinted since 1905, indicating at least some degree of notability in his field.
  • Strong delete. Copyvio.
  • Delete- just doesn't seem important. Reyk YO! 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. According to WBIS Online, there is an entry for him in the Who Was Who 1929-1940 (London: Black, 1941). According to the British Library catalogue, he published two books, Alphabets and numerals (1904) and the already mentioned Monograms and Ciphers (1905), and the latter has been reprinted a few times (the Library of Congress has a reprint from as late as 1968). My guess is that a cricket player with a similar degree of notability would have been kept. up+land 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He wrote a book which was put back into print more than 60 years after it was written? If that isn't "notable", then I have no idea what is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Exposition Universelle (1900) seems like an important event, if he won a bronze medal there then it is notable unless someone can prove it otherwise. Though the article should be expanded --16:22, 21 June 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 speedy delete and protect — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape: N0valyfe[edit]

Non-notable RuneScape player. Speedy deleted several times; I'm trying to AGF and assume there is a slim possibility this person could be notable. Fang Aili talk 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect: get this nonsense out of here. --Hetar 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking through google it does appear this player is one of the top RuneScape players, but I fail to see how that makes someone notable. DrunkenSmurf 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect: When you see the same NN bio page on multiple days, I think it should be protected. Irongargoyle 17:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faqqly[edit]

Deprodded w/o explanation. Original tag was non-notable (about 300 G-hits) and with no real assertions of notability. Curiously, now has 1500 G-hits, but still nothing to establish notability. Chaser T 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete At the moment it fails WP:CORP although it does have one CNET review that I found and many of the hits on google are duplicates of this review. Right now IMO it does not merit an article all though I could be swayed with some better sources. DrunkenSmurf 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No pretence at notability. BlueValour 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete website might be notable, but currently it dosn't include any WP:RS for WP:V. If you add some verification of notability, let me know so I can change my "vote" (or not...) ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Advertisement, really. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete I'm with J.S. here--this looks like spam, but a POV cleanup and some sourced claim of notability might change my mind. -- Scientizzle 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YUVA foundations[edit]

NN organization. Marked as a speedy, but I don't really think it is - there's at least a shade of a claim to notability. ~~ N (t/c) 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is a lack of original research, the content is taken straight from the association's website and gives no context, details or information regarding it's topic as described by the title (erroneously - the title should be 'Yuva foundation'). It appears to be aimed simply at promoting the organisation, rather than describing it objectively.

Sure it could be built up, however it would have to be renamed, and all the content removed. May as well delete it. Sfacets 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to the article, this is "an organization started by ten bitsians" -- I believe that "bitsians" refers to graduates of the Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Seems a worthy cause, but it's hard to tell what they've actually done. I don't think they've achieved notability. BuckRose 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect to terrorist terrorism (double redirect). Redirects are cheap. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrist[edit]

The overwhelming majority of g-hits are a misspelling (intentional or unintentional) of "terrorist". According to the talk page, in 2004, there was a consensus to delete (although the deletion log has nothing for this article unless I'm missing something). The article is half about an environmental neologism (terra + ist) and half about the misspelling of terrorism (how can a misspelling be notable?) It even includes a nice George W Bush joke for good measure. BigDT 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only source is an obscure wiki. --djrobgordon 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the rather humorous nom. -- Kicking222 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleet it per nom. ---J.S (t|c) 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete and redirect to terrorist so this can't happen again. Alba 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. Retropunk 05:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV. Notable neologism. Sarge Baldy 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sarge Baldy: tidy up and add references. I've added a link [38] about the Fox/graffiti incident, and another link [39] showing an example of the use of the variant spelt "Terra1st". -- JimR 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math (state)[edit]

Complete Hoax. Contains links to user space which imply this is vanity. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwan dynasty[edit]

Probable hoax material. A google search gives a lot of references but none relevant to the written article. A complete rewrite or relevant referencing may save it. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Bailando[edit]

A strongly POV article about a rather marginal dancer who does not seem to fulfill WP:BIO - Google has about 10 hits for "Francisco Bailando" but most of them probably not related to the dancer. The article is constantly reverted by its creator, who is seemingly a member of the Bailando's "cult", and there is probably nobody here who would be able to make a good article from it, because of lack of independent sources about Bailando. So I think that deletion is the best solution. Ioannes Pragensis 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. "Married 17 times"? Adopted two orphans placed on his doorstep? Yeah, right. NawlinWiki 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if his works are "cited as the inspiration of most modern dance pieces today", you'd think there would be some citations. NawlinWiki 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My Spanish is pretty weak, but doesn't the name just mean "Dancing Francisco"? Fan1967 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax or not, it's completely unsourced. --djrobgordon 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no suitable evidence of notability for this individual. Without sources this would not seem to meet WP:BIO. DrunkenSmurf 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • delete and his last name just happens to be spanish for dancing.67.107.106.110 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Themeing and Themers[edit]

Seems like a non-notable hobby. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was predictably difficult to Google, but I couldn't find much, and the onus is on the author to provide some sources. Even less notable is Themers. Perhaps we should also have separate articles for walk and walking. --djrobgordon 17:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom & djrobgordon. I have also linked Themers to this AFD. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I missed Themers. Thanks for catching that. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether its notable or not, it is real, so i don't see any reason it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.213.175 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 June 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilken Diagnostic[edit]

Appears to be original work of Rev. Todd Wilken, who hosts the local radio show Issues etc., (article on AFD as nonnotable). This is nn and WP:OR. NawlinWiki 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Citation is the journal of his radio show; likely adapted from a broadcast. Cited by a grand total of four blogs makes this one pretty non-notable. Fan1967 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also appears to be advertisement. Tychocat 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Rapper Alive[edit]

I don't see this article ever becoming sufficiently encyclopedic. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a silly rant. --djrobgordon 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful in any way. DrunkenSmurf 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per violation of WP:V and lack of WP:RS. Also, seems like it would be a POV problem forever. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of ways to go...WP:V and WP:NOR come to mind first. PJM 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Not to mention NPOV. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because its so hard to keep track of which ones have been recently capped. -- GWO
  • Delete. That wasn't exactly called for... Anyway, rappers are known for having giant (and I mean GIANT) egos, but I don't think it deserves its own article, especially not this mess. Grandmasterka 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Necessarily. I think that this article could be clean'd up and merged with an article about rappers.--71.56.143.145 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty Strong Delete - I suppose a very brief mention could be made in rapper, but I'm not convinced it would add anything to the article. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Union County, South Dakota[edit]

non-encyclopaedic BlueValour 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because, 1. wha? and 2. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Sandstein 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context, and per Sandstein. Tychocat 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Right now it is a collection of information, but what, if anything, could the author/editors do to merit a "keep"? Would a short 2-3 paragraph introduction do the job? Something about: 1) characteristics peculiar to to high plains cemeteries or 2) references to some books or articles on the history of cemeteries in South Dakota? Or would the answer be to convert this from an article into something like "Category: Cemeteries of South Dakota"? Interlingua talk 03:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The paragraphs you suggest should be added to the Union County article not as a reason for keeping the list - c.f. Budapest - cemeteries. BlueValour 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. nice start to the list- would be nice if we had more articles on the cemeteries. --JJay 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where a list is useful is when substantial extra information is added; that is not the case here. I note that the author has already created a suitable category making this list redundant. For the list to be kept there needs to be a substantive reason but, as yet, none has been put forward. TerriersFan 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge with Carriacou and Petite Martinique. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carriacou and Petit Martinique[edit]

There's a much more in-depth article already at Carriacou and Petite Martinique. OzLawyer 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to proper spelling. Fan1967 17:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Merge any non-overlapping info and redirect as a useful misspelling rd. Not sure that this even needed to be brought here. ---J.S (t|c) 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Merge some non-overlapping info.--BlueValour 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per user:J.smith. — Instantnood 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Lincoln County, South Dakota[edit]

non-encylopaedic BlueValour 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you the nominator here, or are you a participant in the discussion? Please explain these diffs [40], [41] and your relationship with BlueValour. As a very new user, but active participant in AfD debates, you should be aware that ballot stuffing or other forms of collusion are seriously frowned upon. I would encourage you (and BlueValour) to see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --JJay 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash[edit]

Completely POV article that doesn't have capability to ever adhere to NPOV standards BhaiSaab talk 17:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The problem is not the POV, per se. The problem is that all content is one or more of (1) original research, (2) taken from unreliable sources such as forum or Usenet posts, (3) cut-n-paste copyvio from precisely those unreliable sources (e.g. from this site) and of course (4) a redundant POV fork of Al-Ahbash. Not worth sorting out this mess. Sandstein 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Sandstien. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If Ahmadis can be kept and NOT deleted then this should be kept too. McKhan
Comment: That analogy doesn't make sense to me. If Ahmadi, an article on a sect of Islam that is deemed to be infidels by most Muslims, can be kept, then the analogy fits so that Al-Ahbash can stay - not Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash. BhaiSaab talk 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Valuable infromation for a researcher. It needs more work to have better sources, but that does not mean to delete it. I may suggest to rename to Sunni Muslims Vs. Ahbash --Islamic 01:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page is very critical as it highlights and compare the Al-Ahbash doctrines with Sunni Muslims', concisely. I second Islamic's suggestion in renaming the page to Sunni Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash. - AmandaParker
Comment: Why can't we do that on the Al-Ahbash page? BhaiSaab talk 17:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above comment: I agree. Merging could be a better idea. --Islamic 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with merging. This article is original research. BhaiSaab talk 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is going to be deleted then it should be merged. In other words, it should be kept as it highlights in a nutshell the difference between mainstream Muslims and the Al-Ahbash. And there are plenty of verifiable facts over the internet. All one needs is a little bit of research. McKhan
Then you should cite them. BhaiSaab talk 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources which were used to complie that list (I didn't compile that list) are already LISTED under the reference section. Indeed, in your point-of-view, they are GENERIC and NON-VERIFIABLE coz you are determined to Sanitize and Islamacize the Al-Ahbash. McKhan
Actually, a lot of it is just copied and pasted. Compare this website. That's copyright violation. BhaiSaab talk 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and start imporving it. Aint' you the "editor" of Wikipeida? Don't you know how to work as a team? The table has been compiled through using lots of sources. McKhan
I will not "improve" an article that's sole purpose is to disparage its subject. BhaiSaab talk 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I will make sure that the content of this article get re-posted again. You are determined to Sanitize and Islamacize the Al-Ahbash by using the Wikipedia Guidelines. I have seen your tactics so far. McKhan
I'll ask politely for you to please stop making personal comments. BhaiSaab talk 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you ganged-up on me. You are after most of my edits. You are archiving and editing as you please like my edits are your own blog. You don't even discuss them. You simply go ahead and edit them as per your own discretion. This is blatant harrassment. McKhan
Please feel free to lodge a complaint against me or begin proceedings for an RfC [42]. BhaiSaab talk 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't work. People have learned to get away with almost everything on Wikipedia. McKhan
Of course they work. If you can convince them of your allegations, I'll probably get banned. Feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page. BhaiSaab talk 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"What goes around, comes around." McKhan
  • Strong Delete POV and original research. --Musicpvm 05:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runaways (comics) (story arcs)[edit]

The page is too detailed to be encyclopedic or fair use. If it were significantly trimmed to be fair use it could be merged with Runaways (comics) -- Newt ΨΦ 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unbelievably detailed. It honestly felt like reading the entire series again, and that's not fair use. --Chris Griswold 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're an encyclopedia, not a fansite.--Toffile 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Far shorter summaries would make this a very nice article, and be more productive than deleting it outright. --InShaneee 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Charlesknight 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup, belongs back in the Runaways (comics) article but with 1-2 sentence summaries. Comics articles normally have a plot summary (which is fine), this is just overboard. Markeer 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. - Xtreme680 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Keep and cleanup. Hueysheridan 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup. WesleyDodds 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a major problem, people just slapping an AFD on a page for some reason when it can just be fixed. And for the record, have 1-2 sentence summaries isn't going to work if it's put on the parent page. See Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) as to why. JQF 12:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My apologies for "slapping an AFD" on the page. As an extension of Runaways (comics), the information provided in this article is too detailed and should be included in a small plot summary (focusing on major plot developments like origin, major changes, and effect in the Marvel Universe) on the Runaways page. Not every arc is important enough to be encyclopedic. If taken on its own, as perhaps a literary look at the Runaways comic book (which I do not believe is the intent), it contains too little (read: no) information about reception, themes, and style. For the record, I don't believe Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) is viable either for the same reasons. I accept, however, that I may be mistaken. --Newt ΨΦ 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I re-integrated my condensed plot summary, keeping the art information other editors seemed to want to keep. I would like to point out, though, that we can easily remove the arc with Topher in it. These don't need to be all the arcs, just the important ones. --Chris Griswold 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP--Brown Shoes22 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and cleanup. GentlemanGhost 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. - CNichols 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Although most editors proposed a delete, I am going to change it to a re-direct to Big Brother (UK series 7), per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Precedents. TigerShark 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Adams-Short[edit]

Non notable Big Brother housemate, fancruft. I'd speedy it but I thought it would be better to bring it here just in case. — FireFox 18:02, 15 June '06

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cleaned up the article tremendously and she meets WP:BIO, with this[43] and this[44]. From WP:BIO, "Name recognition," and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Yanksox (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is in Big Brother, so of course she is going to be in the news and all over the internet (on mostly Big Brother fan sites). This doesn't make her notable. — FireFox 18:13, 15 June '06
The news sources are not obliged to print a story about someone, they do so with their own free will. Yanksox (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not make the article meet WP:BIO. Even after your cleanup, the only notability the article claims is being a 20-year old dance teacher that's been on TV – not notable. — FireFox 18:24, 15 June '06
And she is not the primary subject of many of these external articles - Big Brother is. PJM 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikiproject Big Brother she is notable, read this. Yanksox (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." – how is this applicable to Grace? — FireFox 18:24, 15 June '06
Did you click any one of the links that I supplied? Yanksox (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I am saying just because someone is in the news it doesn't make them notable. Big Brother is highly promoted on news sites and other fan sites, so her name is going to crop up here and there, but by no means does this mean she is notable. — FireFox 18:26, 15 June '06
We've been through this quite a few times. Grace is most definitely not notable enough for her own page, she's a gameshow contestant! Budgiekiller 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is really an iffy thing. I am supplying the sources and supplying my rationale for why it should be kept. To be honest, I don't watch TV or really care about celebrity status (except for me :P). I have looked over the policy and in my mind it appears that she fits the profile. You can call this and I'll understand. Yanksox (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict x2. Gah.) Well of course your opinion is all yours, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything. We'll see what everyone else has to say about it anyway :) — FireFox 18:32, 15 June '06
  • Delete - I was under the impression that there was agreement that BB contenstants only became noteable if they achieved something outside of the show. As she's still in there, this cannot apply. Ac@osr 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, try this... Budgiekiller 18:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe wikipedia allows Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers, does it not? Cheekyweemunky 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No evidence of sufficient notability. Regarding the news articles and fan/gossip websites offered above as supporting evidence for keeping the article, I would emphasize that "non-trivial" is a key word of the criteria. National newspapers typically carry much trivial content. Bwithh 18:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since she hasn't done anything outside of the show, she's not notable. RedRollerskate 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible merge per RedRollerskate. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete. As RedRollerskate said, she's not notable outside of the show. Extraordinary Machine 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly doesn't need her own article. -- Necrothesp 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evict from wikipedia. AfD:Who goes? You decide. -- GWO
Well done. ;) PJM 12:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Premium rate AfD phone numbers, anyone? -- 9cds(talk) 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing encyclopedic left in article. del per nom. --Strothra 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beyond the appearance on Big Brother, she is not notable at all. Perhaps a merge, but even that doesn't seem to be required.--Auger Martel 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't like her. And, the article looks about as useful as this comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.74.134 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete current content (initial unsourced version, and now substub) for failing WP:AFD, but keep if fixed by the end of AFD (or admin is asked to relist). I think its probably possible to write a new article to satisify WP:BIO, but nothing here (or the equally troubled gossipy/attackish content here) would help with that. Unfortunately, most BB bios created while the season is on-air, aren't worth keeping, because they are not encyclopedic (amounting to a personal recap, not an article based on sources). But most have potential for a valid encyclopedic articles. --Rob 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her 15 minutes of fame will soon be over and she will be forgotten.Stephenjh 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime character birthdays[edit]

I recognize that this article has an inprocess tag. I maintain that the underlying concept of this article is what merits it as WP:LC.. additional reasons follow:

  • The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
  • The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  • The underly

ing concept is non-notable

  • The list is unmaintainable, despite having the inprocess tag.
  • The list has no content beyond links to other articles, and it would NOT be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
  • The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.

I am a frequent editor of anime articles. I generally like to keep things. This, however, is not worth keeping. --Kunzite 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sorry if I broke any rules. I saw this title in the 'articles to be created' section and thought "well, this I can do". I suppose some of Kunzite's points are valid, though. (Although - and I'm not trying to validate myself or anything - I have seen a LOT of content on Wikipedia that would never be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia; like the entire anime section, for instance) Amedyr 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'ok. I usually try to keep an eye on that list, but I hadn't seen this entry. (We often get requests for articles that already exist. Or article requests for a character that's on a character's list page.) I sometimes like to go get a copy of a manga listed on the requests page (usually from unorthodox souces) and then write the article from that. There's also the seiyu request page. (Though you have to check those for notability too. Someone dumped some video game seiyu with only one role in there--I think I marked most of the suspicious ones.) --Kunzite 01:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(After my script-driven vote missed the above comment by Amedyr:) Don't worry, Amedyr, there's absolutely no problem with being bold. It's probably useful, though, to examine WP:AfC requests carefully - I estimate some 75% of requests there are not fit for Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Sandstein 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My obvious vote is a listcrufty delete, but I'm completely with Sandstein. Amedyr, you did absolutely nothing wrong- in fact, you did only the right thing, which was to try to expand WP and make some user(s) happy. Unfortunately, like the majority of requested articles, the article itself isn't encyclopedic. -- Kicking222 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft, as mentioned above. PJM 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Delete. Per above. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete. Good grief! -- Necrothesp 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and cosign on all the sentiment towards Amedyr. :) Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regretfully. Or possibly copy the contents to the author's page? Hopefully the creator has a copy. --Starionwolf 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't have a copy, but I do have the link of a site that quite possibly has all the information that would be added here (it's the first of the 'Reference' links). And thank you everybody for the kind words! I'll keep on being bold (and hopefully not causing this much polemic next time) ;) Amedyr 11:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CPAScott 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Jgamekeeper 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love collecting trivia like anime character birthdates or blood types, but it's fancruft and not appropriate to Wikipedia. Props to Amedyr though for being bold and contributing. - CNichols 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tate Gallery after all useful content (one fact) has been merged. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Online[edit]

The Tate's website is no more notable than that of any other museum. None of the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (web) are met. HAM 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless any of the info can be used on The Tate's page (I haven't checked, because I'm lazy), in which case, merge. -- Kicking222 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrific image database, but other major museums have similar online collections, though perhaps not as well done as this Bwithh 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tate Gallery, now that I have merged the one interesting fact - that it "holds digital versions of many of the holdings as well as detailed information on exhibitions". Sandstein 18:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sandstein.--Andeh 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge per Sandstien. - Kookykman|(t)e


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiruppugazh[edit]

{{{text}}} V. Joe 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Sandstein 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC): I think the deletion rationale that V. Joe meant to add, now at the top of the article, was:[reply]
Its a prayer, and so without context as to be inherently semi-coherent. I think its a hindu prayer, but other than that, nadda.>
  • Delete, all shades of WP:NOT. Sandstein 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...without prejudice to recreation or unless rewritten, per Lambiam below. Sandstein 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep after cleanup by Arvind. Sandstein 04:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up and expand. It is not a prayer. The article is about the quite notable collection of songs, known as the Thiruppugazh, of Arunagirinathar, a 15th century Tamil saint. The search term "Thiruppugazh OR Tiruppugazh" gets about 19,600 Google hits, while variations like "Thiruppukazh", "Tirupugaz", etcetera, give a few hundred more hits. The article is obviously not written according to WP:MOS; for example it uses a long paragraph to sketch the socio-religious context before the topic is introduced (in an unclear manner), and it also has to be cleaned up for neutrality. But both are weak grounds for deletion. There is much more to be said about the songs then there is in the present article. --LambiamTalk 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the good research - I see now that the subject is notable. But the text is rambling, unsourced, NPOV, adulatory etc., in short, useless unless for a complete rewrite or stubification. Sandstein 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Completely Rewrite Notable subject but needs total rewrite Bwithh 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a very well-known text in the Tamil language. Of course, the article needs comprehensive rewriting, and I have already contacted the correct person and sought his intervention. ImpuMozhi 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a notable literary work. I've done some copyediting and provided certain links and references. (Thanks for the notice, Impumozhi.) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is an important work of Tamil poetry. Its religious nature is just incidental. Does require rewrite.- Parthi 11:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. It is an extremely significant work of mediaeval Tamil literature. I'd also add that something being a prayer or religious work isn't a ground for deletion, unless we're going to start deleting Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Ein Keloheinu, Vishnu sahasranama and so on. -- Arvind 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NQcontent Enterprise[edit]

Adcruft about a non-notable product RedRollerskate 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells of copyvio. - Kookykman|(t)e

Comment It is a copyvio, see http://www.nqcontent.com/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=346 Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a copyvio, how do we get it speedied? RedRollerskate 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a copyright permission on the talk page. Fan1967 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! RedRollerskate 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relisting this so it can get more votes. RedRollerskate 13:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't be speedily deleted as a copy vio, but should be deleted as one. Yanksox (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Few Google hits for this term. Redirect to NQcontent. Not a big fan of copy/paste jobs - they are rarely if ever encyclopedic. Wickethewok 13:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement Avalon 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery Klassen[edit]

Non-notable. Heck, we don't even have a page for his supposed "genre". Kookykman|(t)e 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article is unsourced and its subject doesn't seem notable: [45]. PJM 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete per above. Ardenn 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: nn-bio -- getcrunkjuice 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deet 04:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin The Magician[edit]

Quite a number of google references for "Marvin the Magician", but only a blog seems to refer to these films. Seems NN and bordering on original research Irongargoyle 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Levițchi[edit]

Non-notable, less than 1,000 Google results. Kookykman|(t)e 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A dead Romanian linguist. The number of Google hits is not a relevant argument for his non-notability. He is author of a Romanian-English dictionary which has been republished several times. It seems that this is the standard dictionary between the languages; even Swedish libraries hold several copies of several different editions of this dictionary. In addition to this, translating classics such as the works of Shakespeare is a major accomplishment in itself, and if there is any reason to doubt the article's claim that he is "best remembered" for this translation, tagging it with a request for references is better. up+land 22:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. I'm a huge fan of using Google to determine notability, but it's a tool that requires a somewhat discriminating user. Looking for information about sexual acts or computer games or TV shows or computer stuff? Awesome tool. Works like a goddamn charm. Just thinking about it makes me all tingly. But if you're looking for information about dead Romanian linguists? Yeah, no. Just doesn't do the trick real well. I wish more editors were a little more aware of Google's limitations on this front. (Absolutely no offense to Kookykman intended, obviously -- it's an understandable mistake to make, and I've made it myself.) -- Captain Disdain 02:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uppland, the Google test is flawed in many instances, such as this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn and Speedy close. --Gurubrahma 05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtapradhan[edit]

Extremely non-notable, less than 200 Google results, most are WP mirrors. Withdraw nomination, speedy close. Kookykman|(t)e 19:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect with/to the article Peshwa, which is the name of the "prime minister" of this body (see for example the treatment in the entry in the French Wikipedia: [46]). --LambiamTalk 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be kept or transwikify to dictionary entry. The one article linked to it appears to be authoritative. However I know little of Indian History. It should certainly not be deleted too rapidly. Peterkingiron 21:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as highly notable. While Ashtapradhan generates 267 google hits, with the first few hits coming from WP and its mirrors, the string "Ashta Pradhan" generates 411 google hits, the first of these coming from EB. Also, funnily enough, this string was listed as one of entries in the wikiproject on the missing entries of the 1911 EB. Having a council of ministers is no big deal today, but it is definitely big deal for a kingdom in India some 300-odd years before. The article in its current form may read badly, but deletion is definitely not the solution. --Gurubrahma 12:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gurubrahma. Notability is obvious. Please don't use Google hits as a deletion argument. up+land 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't overuse the google test to death :) Not everything notable is on the internet, and this is especially true with terms transliterated from a different script, and with things to do with developing countries where internet hasn't reached everyone yet. The topic has a good scope of expansion beyond just the explanation of the term, so merging or shifting to wictionary is not a good solution. deeptrivia (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Massively expanded it, removed the stub cat as well. Also an apology as it was a missing article from EB, not EB1911, as seen here. I also suggest that this be moved to Ashta Pradhan. --Gurubrahma 14:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After the expansion it is a worthy article. As for me, notability was never in question. --LambiamTalk 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep Following its expansion, this is a substantial article. It is not my subject, so that I am not qualified to comment on its accuracy, nor can I comment on the suggested move. The article may require further expansion and wikifying. Peterkingiron 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Gurubrahma. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia citing the current edition of EB as its only reference for an article. Please try to verify the content in other sources as soon as possible. up+land 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo-Oxford District Secondary School[edit]

Non-notable schoolcruft, less than 250 Google results. Kookykman|(t)e 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Real high school. -- Mwalcoff 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High school ReeseM 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can be "expanded" about this? Why is this school notable, or at all different from other high schools? Does it follow that every single blade of grass in my front lawn should get an article too? - Kookykman|(t)e 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed many times before, but I think there is something unique about every high school. I'm sure that someone halfway famous graduated from there or that they have a unique program of some sort. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And someone halfway famous graduating from there suddenly makes it notable? Schoolcruft is garbage. We have a very apathetic community if we let you people just keep these worthless articles. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per general precedent that high schools are notable. BryanG(talk) 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is important and we do not erase high school articles Yuckfoo 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only cruft here are the repetitive and time-wasting requests to have high school pages deleted. The arguments have all been made both ways ad nauseum. There's never been a consensus to delete them and there are thousands of them here now.--Gary Will 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Zajicek[edit]

Unremarkable personage on her own; she's the assistant to someone notable. Also, this reads like self-promotion or a press release, including italicized quotes with no citation, and personal reminscences of her first day on the job! -- Tenebrae 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Merge the whole article is a copyvio of Bravo.com. Anything useful should be added to the show's article, and this page should be unceremoniously disposed of. --djrobgordon 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 06:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It's also a copyvio. - Motor (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on copyvio grounds only; no prejudice against a non-copyvio article. Vadder 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyvio.--Auger Martel 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hormonology[edit]

Not an article, but an argument for making one. The creator has twice removed a {{prod}} tag without improving it. See talk:Hormonology. Delete gadfium 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google seems to return a small handful of hits from real scientists and a huge amount of absolute garbage ("your hormone horoscope"???). Unless a clear definition can be produced to distinguish this term from Endocrinology, this should go. Fan1967 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context, POV. There's other ways to place an article, as I recall. This can be deleted until someone comes up with one. Tychocat 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Endocrinology does include the study of the effects that hormones have upon the body, and it is anti-science to suggest otherwise. - Richardcavell 04:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I believe Hormonology will become a viable study" -- I believe more research by author will find ... more research by a whole lot of people called scientists. I think the article is just based on mistaken understanding and lack of understanding. Shenme 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Kenya[edit]

A long list of mostly red links. Categories serve far better for this purpose. Just in case someone gets the wrong idea, this nomination has nothing to do with the debate over school notability and only has to do with whether lists or categories are better for this kind of thing. Indrian 19:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extreme Delete Inspires schoolcruft. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete I don't oppose schoolcruft, but I do agree with the sentiment about categories. --djrobgordon 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Red-link farm, would be better as a category. Where can you see schooools? Only in Kenya! Come to Kenya, we've got schools. Forget Norway! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. BlueValour 02:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A category called "Schools in Kenya" already exists. --Starionwolf 05:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It also has the added evil of encouraging schoolcruft. - Motor (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please school articles are not evil try to be civil Yuckfoo 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While your point about civility is well taken, the fact is that this is not a debate about schools (despite the comments of some users that may indicate otherwise), but rather a debate about list vs. category. Do you believe that this list accomplishes something the category does not, or did you just see school in the title and blindly vote keep? Indrian 04:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • lists do things categories cant and loaded questions are not appreciated either really Yuckfoo 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- good start and good way of getting people to work on Kenya school articles. The category is fine too. --JJay 00:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Cat. with 3 sub-Cat. would serve the same purpose. --WinHunter (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasm sauce[edit]

Possible hoax, no references on google. Somewhat amusing, but definitely NN Irongargoyle 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I know chef lingo, and this isn't part of it. - Kookykman|(t)e

Absence of a reference on Google is not proof of something's non-existence, nor is it likely that "chef lingo" would overlap with that of student cooking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 June 2006

Even if it's real, it belongs on urban dictionary, not here. --djrobgordon 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely aware of the fact that Google's not always the best way to prove that something exists, but I find it a little hard to believe that widely used chef lingo would not surface on any public site on the net and get spotted by Google. As it is, I have no proof that "enthusiasm sauce" is being used anywhere, at all. -- Captain Disdain 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, neologism. Check of several recipe sites show no references, despite article's claim the stuff is a "staple". Note that despite the overt questioning of where this comes from, writer has not been forthcoming with any sources or references. Tychocat 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very dumb hoax. Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A somewhat worthy BJAODN candidate. TheProject 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above. -- Scientizzle 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And someone appears to think that the way to refute arguments against the article's deletion is to delete the arguments. Nice idea of "rational debate" there.

To recap and hope that it won't get deleted this time: it's not likely to appear on any recipe sites, since the recipe is "chuck a load of stuff in a saucepan and cook it", nor is it "widely used chef lingo". I'm aware that I haven't given any references - that's because I doubt there are many, since it is primarily a colloquialism and not likely to occur very frequently in published material. In case any of you were wondering, I did not invent the term myself, nor is it particularly new: I initially came across it in the early 1990s, in a book which was probably published some years before that. Unfortunately I no longer have the book in question, and am thus unable to cite it as a reference. I'm intrigued by its categorisation as "very dumb hoax" and "BJAODN", apparently solely on the grounds that those making the comments haven't heard of it. It may well not meet standards of verification, in which case it is likely to be deleted, but if it's a hoax then you must all be hallucinating, since you've read an entry written by someone who's been living for the past year on stuff that apparently doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chile Nose Jam (talk • contribs)

WP:V is extreemly important. ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. ---J.S (t|c) 16:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computinglaptops[edit]

1. The author of the article is a new user who uses the same name as the article he created, making it look suspiciously like a Biography article. 2. The text of the article is really poorly done, just copied and pasted, really. 3. The website itself doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB 4. The article itself may be writen from a signifigant POV, or using Original Research. And since I don't really understand WP:NOT, it may or may not fall within that area. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • PS: I wasn't logged in when I added that AFD template to the page.
      • PPS: Just a note that the company itself is only commercial on Ebay, which may indicate a lack of nobility.
        • New comment: I changed temporarily to a PROD after the user removed the AFD warning... Then he used his IP addres to remove the PROD. *sigh* Logical2u (Wikibreak) 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Speedy Delete per Kookykman --Vengeful Cynic 19:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Ditto above.--Alabamaboy 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. advertisement as well. Tychocat 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Starionwolf 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"six pack speak"[edit]

Non-notable, prod removed TigerShark 19:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry is relevant. Although the content is decidedly local in nature, I have no doubt the page itself will pick up numerous hits as there are almost 15,000 registered users on the three major Mississippi State University message boards combined. These message boards (as well as many of the college message boards) have taken on a life of their own as many of them have their own histories and lexicons. As a result, I plan to address this history and expand the page over time. I think this is an burgeoning area for Wikipedia and an opportunity to add some local flavor to the site. Although I am a poster, I am not one of the message board founders. The board has become increasingly important to me. Rest assured this is not an advertising ploy. I am just trying to place some Mississippi State icons on Wikipedia. You'll notice in my history that I added an entry for our University's President yesterday. I had hoped to add entries for our coaches, our sports histories, our message boards, and other traditions. Croomdawg 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Croomdawg[reply]

Also, I took out the reference to the mullet as an inside joke well known to fans of Mississippi State, but would likely miss their mark when viewed by others.Croomdawg 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Croomdawg[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summerlin Las Vegas Real Estate[edit]

POV, maybe belongs in Wikinews, includes material generally presented in other articles with less POV, includes areas outside of the topic area, is no different then any other area of Las Vegas, not an encylopedic topic. Tried as a prod, but creator pulled after anon added reason as news worthy, which it is. Promo for real estate company. Vegaswikian 19:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Author Response - This is a historical event pertaining to the development of real estate in Summerlin. Similar real estate developments, such as any trump tower development, are certainly an encycolpedic topic. Why is the development of these towers in Summerlin any differnt? Also, It is my hope to document the creation and development of these landmarks in summerlin real estate.
  • Delete. POV, ad, probable copyvio. - Kookykman|(t)e
  • Delete spam, no independent sources, no claim of notability. --djrobgordon 20:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think this article should be kept, then I've got some real estate in Summerlin I'd like to sell ya... Completely non-notable, advertisement, unsourced, POV, etc. -- Kicking222 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement, nn, POV. As Kicking222 says, "etc." Good luck on the sales. WP is not a free web host. Tychocat 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discounting comment by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Bergen County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Cruft. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is one of a series of article created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles are being created for notable cemeteries, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for this is the Bergen County Yellow Pages, under "Cemeteries". --Calton | Talk 07:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep - I hardly find this listcruft. If a list like List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop can be in wikipedia, then this certainly can. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except, you know, that list has content and the ability to be completed. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so does this. There is a finite number of cemeteries in each county. information can be added into the list, and like the other list, it can be completed as well. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the lists are new and have yet to be really looked at by other wikipedians. therefore, your destroying the potential for the content to be added by putting it up for deletion now. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but would be good if we had articles on all the cemeteries. --JJay 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:29, 21 June 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, after discounting comment from invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Essex County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Cruft. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of a series of articles deliberately created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an organized effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles have already been created for notable cemeteries, and more are being created, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for this is the Essex County Yellow Pages, under "Cemeteries". --Calton | Talk 08:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Keep. Regional historical info is never "idiotic". --JJay 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:30, 21 June 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, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Hudson County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Cruft. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commenthow would you guys feel about expanding it to cemeteries in the state of new jersey?67.107.106.110 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is already a category for that, which is a far better way to handle things than a list. Indrian 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah i just saw it now when trying to find this page again.delete67.107.106.110 20:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of a series of articles deliberately created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an organized effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles have already been created for notable cemeteries, and more are being created, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The proper place for this is the Hudson County Yellow Pages, under "Cemeteries". --Calton | Talk 08:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Keep. Unlike certain comments, there is nothing "idiotic" about lists with regional, historical and genealogical significance. --JJay 12:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:30, 21 June 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, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Middlesex County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you don't find it useful ignore it, don't delete what you don't like. Its factual and almanacical like all the other geography lists being used by the State Portal projects. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, if I were deleting everything that I don't like, I would have to start by expunging every page on the New York Yankees. I am not letting my personal feelings get in the way of providing encyclopedic information; you should not either. Indrian 03:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Cruft. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of a series of article created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles are being created for notable cemeteries, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for this is the Middlesex County Yellow Pages, under "Cemeteries" --Calton | Talk 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Calton. - Motor (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep - I hardly find this listcruft. If a list like List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop can be in wikipedia, then this certainly can. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zewrestler. Good job on these articles. --JJay 12:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Calton. Nandesuka 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:30, 21 June 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, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Ocean County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of a series of articles deliberately created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an organized effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles have already been created for notable cemeteries, and more are being created, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, in the category. There is nothing wrong with categories, but these lists have no encyclopedic value (I am not saying they have no value, but this is an encyclopedia). Indrian 03:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment surely they will be long dead by now? :-) Seriously, I don't think you have any basis for this - they will know where the cemeteries are already - do you know anyone who has had to rely on the WP list? BlueValour 03:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for this is the Ocean County Yellow Pages, under "Bingo Parlors". Whoops! I meant "Cemeteries! --Calton | Talk 08:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Calton. - Motor (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Keep. Nothing "idiotic" about lists with regional, historical or genealogical significance. --JJay 12:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:30, 21 June 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, after discounting comments by invalid voter. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Indrian 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of a series of article created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to fill in the holes and expand details of all things New Jersey-related. Subsidiary articles are being created for notable cemeteries, as listed in Category:Cemeteries in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. There may be a project but it is still just a list. An article for a notable cemetery might be fine but it doesn't mean that this list is needed. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These lists are very useful to geneologists and historians of the Revolutionary War. I don't see a problem keeping them. Crockspot 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has 26 edits nearly all on Afd. Indrian 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper place for this...aw, c'mon, guess. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikiprojects shouldn't be compiling idiotic lists like this. -- GWO
  • Strong Keep - I hardly find this listcruft. If a list like List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop can be in wikipedia, then this certainly can. --ZeWrestler Talk 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- historical interest, particularly with the coverage of notable burials. --JJay 12:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:30, 21 June 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in the United States[edit]

A list that can only become too large and unmaintainable if allowed to remain. This is much better handled through categories. Indrian 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can expalin what this list does that a category can't. --djrobgordon 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Categories are all well and good, but lists give more context and explanation. -- Necrothesp 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While a list could give context and explanation, this one doesn't bother to do so in the intro. Nor has it established any criteria to limit inclusion other than being physically located in the U.S. A small family cemetary that is lost in the woods merits inclusion (yes, doing genealogy research I've gone tramping through the woods looking for such). I've also seen small private cemetaries on the roadside with 5-10 tombstones. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is exactly what this list is designed to be. At even 5 cemetaries per town or city, we would end up with over 25,000 cemetaries on this list. As the nominator said, categories is the way to approach this.GRBerry 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it couldn't do with inclusion criteria, but most of the cemeteries on the list at the moment do actually have their own article. The fact an article is not fully developed yet has never been a reason to delete it from Wikipedia. Otherwise almost all stubs would disappear, something I know some people would like, but the majority almost certainly wouldn't. And I completely disagree with your claim that this list is designed to be an indiscrimate collection of information - with an adequate introduction and criteria for inclusion it could be a very useful article. Are you saying that instead of editing articles we don't think are adequate we should just delete them? Seems to fly in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. -- Necrothesp 12:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. BlueValour 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. --JJay 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete List of cemeteries is rather unencyclopedic unless it is a list of some special cemeteries --16:31, 21 June 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. W.marsh 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rocholl[edit]

This is pretty clearly a vanity page. The only thing keeping me from proding it is the (unsourced) claim that Rocholl was named MVP of the Columbia football team. In my opinion, being named MVP of a Division I-AA football team doesn't make a person notable. djrobgordon 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO tells us that an athelete to be notable has be in a upper echelon league. As a resident near Boston and spectator of Ivy League games, it isn't. Fails WP:BIO. Yanksox (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Yanksox. --mtz206 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...his charm, good looks, intellect, sense of humor, and God-given abilities are constantly propelling him to new heights"... of arrogance and vanity. Strong delete. BoojiBoy 23:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because he's an Ivy League starter, but for God's sake, completely rewrite. -- Mwalcoff 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per BoojiBoy. Far too much of a vanity piece.--Auger Martel 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete sub-pro football player - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica di Milano[edit]

Hoax page, created by anonymous IP (its only contribs) in Oct. 2005; nothing on Google or IMDB for either her or the film "Ambassador" she is supposedly making NawlinWiki 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without any sources this individual is not notable. I can find no mention of her anywhere. DrunkenSmurf 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable at best. No relevant Google hits. --Metropolitan90 02:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Campaigns[edit]

The organization in question meets neither WP:CORP nor WP:WEB, and the article itself is just a promotional piece full of wanky corporate buzzwords. Reyk YO! 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rape against United States presidents[edit]

At least two of the four entries are ludicrous and a third (Jefferson) is POV and speculation which should be covered within the main article --JohnFlaherty 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Has been through AFD before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents.
  • Keep. Perhaps the charges are ludicrous, almost certainly the most recent is (as the article makes fairly clear). They are also notable and well-known. The article does not endorse or promote the validity of any of these charges. It does provide a neutral and well-sourced exposition of them. The issue of Jefferson and his slave is certainly speculation by its very nature, but this article does not speculate. It reports notable speculations and research of others; that's exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Derex 01:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last AfD. I just stumbled across the article and found it very interesting. I'd imagine it would qualify as notable, some of the most powerful men in history being involved. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article, seemed well-sourced. That they are unproven is not a problem, since the subject of the article is specifically allegations. David L Rattigan 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this kind of thing should go into the articles on the presidents. Separating them out like this seems like an attempt to paint U.S. presidents as alleged rapists (I doubt that was the creator's intention, though), especially since there are only four presidents listed. -- Kjkolb 23:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure we want to devote a section of the various presidential articles to these allegations. While they are themselves notable, they are not central to the notability of those figures. Those articles should probably each contain one sentence with a pointer to this one which can present more detail without hijacking the presidential articles. One could separate these into four separate ones, but a unified article makes a more interesting read and provides context. Part of that context is, as you note, that most recent presidents have had allegations of this sort made, which likely speaks more about the current culture than about their characters. Derex 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send content to individual articles per Kjkolb --BillC 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I started this AfD, just thought I should vote officialy.--JohnFlaherty 01:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The articles on the president already include this material if it is worthy of being there. The Thomas Jefferson already has a subsection and two sub-articles about the Heming stuff. The Bill Clinton article already addresses the Broaddrick allegation with a sentence or two. If the other two are truly worthy of mention, they'll be covered sooner or later. The extremely short intro to this article indicates that there is nothing in common about these various accusations to merit an article on such accusations. This is a home for POV attacks, and has no hope of being more. GRBerry 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging any salvageable content into articles on individuals. Look, you wouldn't defend an article on "Accusations of rape against Bus Drivers" would you? And if there were individual cases that were notable enough there would be articles on those people, you know, just like we have articles on the individual presidents. Shenme 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add more illustrations. --Chris Griswold 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete List of allegations... give me strength. If these allegations are notable, then what is the problem with mentioning them on the article of the respective president? The only reason I would consider something like this worthy of its own article is if there was some kind of reason to believe that U.S. presidents are particularly prone to raping. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to list allegations, or for someone who has had his contributions thrown off presidential bioggraphies and decides to start his own article instead. - Motor (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Exactly. Also, it creates more work for those trying to maintain NPOV, as they have to try to come to a consensus on multiple articles instead of just one. Finally, editors should be aware that a truly comprehensive biography on a person is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia (whether the biography consists of one article or multiple articles). For United States presidents, such a biography would consume a short book at the least since we know so much about them, relatively speaking. If the event (or situation, action or whatever) did not have a significant impact on the person or on the industry, nation, culture or society, there is a good possibility that it should not be included. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Motor. -- GWO
  • Delete Agree with Motor. ---DrLeebot 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete gimme a break.... anything with "accusations" in the title automatically disqualifies itself from inclusion in an encyclopaedia where verifiable facts are the norm. Accuasations furthermore are ludicrous. Reagan and Bush as rapists? I won't even touch on the fact that these people (certainly in this day and age) are always going to be accused of something as do virtually all celebrities, athletes, politicians etc. which means that without solid reasons there should be extra care taken with this sort of thing or we might as well devote half of the encyclopaedia to accusations made against well-known people.--Kalsermar 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that Wikipedia never mention that Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, or that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of harassment, or any other well-known allegations? Wikipedia does not report what is. We report what people say is. That's the very cornerstone of the NPOV policy. The fundamental questions are whether the allegations are notable, yes as evidenced by media coverage, and verifiable, yes the accusation is verifiable. The article never suggests the alleged act did or was likely to have occured. So, removing the material has no basis in policy, nor does it serve the reader. There have also been lots of people worried that this article exists to promote POV or that it creates problems monitoring that. I ask, where is the evidence for that? This has been a remarkably quiet article, and I think is scrupulously neutral. If people are looking for a POV brawl, stick this back into the main articles and see what happens. That's exactly how this article got started, because the Selene Walters and Juanita Broadrick articles were hotspots. I see a lot of opining about how this article causes more trouble than a merge by people whose names I don't recognize as being active contributors to those Presidential articles. The evidence points to the contrary. Jimbo is right about this: AFD is broken, long live AFD. Derex 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am suggesting that the first word of the article disqualifies it right then and there. Furthermore, Broaddrick (I am nor familiar with this particular case) may, and I say that carefully, be worthy of inclusion considering Clinton's record. Hill's accusation played a large part in Thomas's character assasination hearings, making it notable. The rest of this article is again, filled with ludicrous accusations. Wikipedia should imho not report everything people say. Also, the term undue weight springs to mind.--Kalsermar 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any notable allegations can be covered in the article about the relevant president. Ace of Sevens 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per comments by Derex. --Jayzel 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. - CNichols 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please per the others Yuckfoo 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Open the Head[edit]

Daniel Pinchbeck already has a personal page in which this tiny stub could be included. I'm not sure why it's grouped in the categories it's in, as it's not an academic book nor is it a religious text. Speedy deletion? Billycuts 17:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep books that are not from vanity presses. Stubs are a-okay, no need to merge it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not Amazon nor Books in Print. Library catalogs can be found elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How ridiculous. If this were strictly raw data about the book, you might have a point, but it isn't-- if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles, then I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia.--SB | T 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, was there an honest argument buried in that sputtering? But to address one of your strawman statements ("...if you honestly think that books published by mainstream publishers shouldn't have articles..."), try arguing against something I actually said. Hint 1: leaving out adjectives in order to warp someone else's actual meaning? Not nice. Hint 2: what's missing from the noun "books"?
  • I'm afraid that you have some seriously warped ideas about what belongs in an encyclopedia. I'd say the same -- with actual justification -- for anyone who confuses an encyclopedia with Everything2. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try being civil, Calton. As for reading your rationale, it seems you have none for deletion, simply that we're "not Amazon" or a library catalog. Great, but that doesn't address the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What nonsense. This is hardly a "tiny stub", it's a nice informative paragraph about a clearly real book. There's no reason to merge, delete, redirect, or do anything of the sort to this article. Is it perfect? Nope, hardly. But that is absolutely not a reason to delete this article. --SB | T 07:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, or my MUJI compact electric desk fan in front of me are all clearly real, but they're not getting articles, are they? --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Info on the book can be merged into the author article. Then leave a redirect from Breaking Open the Head to Daniel Pinchbeck. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not in a million years be deleted, let alone (choke!) speedied. There's an argument for merging to Daniel Pinchbeck, and I think that would be a good result. Regardless, AfD is not required for keeping, merging, or redirecting. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Charger[edit]

Is not notable enough. Plasma Twa 2 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Tychocat 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not notable --Starionwolf 05:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he was on the independent circuit of an entertainment industry? - Richardcavell 08:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Beel[edit]

Not notable enough. Plasma Twa 2 01:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability sucks. Article seems okay to me, but could do with some sources. David L Rattigan 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pro wrestling champion in 1930s, notable. NawlinWiki 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In his fifties? ;-) A quick search turned up a match in 1906, so perhaps started a little bit earlier. -- Kjkolb 22:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best belongs in a sports list. This has been here for over a year and has one line plus a formulaic table. Yes, notability sucks when applied so unevenly. Shenme 04:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian world[edit]

Doesn't meet the WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Either delete or expand. Plasma Twa 2 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no encyclopedic content ({{db-empty}}). Sandstein 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty useless and false. Palffy 02:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even good enough as a dicdef. Shenme 04:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdog journalism[edit]

  • Delete as redundant. The article watchdog journalism has been in need of attention for quite some time, nobody has really taken ownership of it. If it were improved to Wikipedia standards, I think it would duplicate virtually all the content in muckraking and alternative media. The Crow 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: from a quick search, it appears to be an ill-defined term. I get the impression that it means being skeptical and protecting the public from those trying to deceive them. It does not appear to be equivalent to investigative journalism, which focuses more on investigative techniques, in-depth coverage on a particular topic and uncovering the scam or conspiracy whereas watchdog journalism is a concept or attitude. -- Kjkolb 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a fairly common term in the journalism community. Google shows 28,000 hits for the term (minus Wikipedia mentions). --Jayzel 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important approach to journalism which should be included from an encyclopediac stand-point. - CNichols 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Eluchil404 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Calder[edit]

Vanity - contradicts Wikipedia's Vanity policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London23 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep I find clear evidence of this individuals notability by doing a quick google search. He has written several books and has featured articles on the bbc website. The article itself needs to be sourced and cleaned up but IMO he meets WP:BIO and this article could be greatly expanded. DrunkenSmurf 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is self proclaiming and merely features a non-sourced quote from a motoring journalist and some family information. This is a violation of WP:VAIN and whilst he may have appeared on Television a few times, this isn't notable. He is not famous and a few google hits is not sufficent evidence to warrant inclusion. This entry should be moved to a user page. London23 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is very well-known here in the UK, the information seems fine and verifiable, and I don't see any evidence that it has been added by the guy himself as a vanity article. David L Rattigan 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He co-wrote Travellers' Survival Kit: Cuba and also an In-Focus guide to the same country. It's not necessary to be famous to be included in Wikipedia: the vast majority of pages even for published articles are not about people who could be considered famous. But he is notable, the article's a well-written stub, and he seems productive enough that there will likely be growth in this article over time. Interlingua talk 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He's a well-known individual. BillC 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable - a highly-regarded travel journalist. Rhion 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dordy[edit]

Article lacks sources to support claims. Only source is given. I'm not even sure whether this was just made up. Rob 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google search for "john dordy" produces no hits. Unless someone can turn something up, I vote to speedy delete as an attack page. --EngineerScotty 20:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're write, I probably should have just tagged it initially as a speedy (bypassing the AFD). It seems what happened is somebody tried adding this person to a list of people with AIDS (see [47]), and when I challenged it, saying they needed an article, and a source, and we had special rules for living people; suddenly a blog posting appears as a source, a new article is made, and the person (who was alive yesterday) is now dead. --Rob 20:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no evidence that this person ever existed that I can find. DrunkenSmurf 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page, so tagged NawlinWiki 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tynan[edit]

Not notable bio. -- Wikipedical 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, {{db-bio}} tagged.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, ample room for this, threshold should be very low when Petabytes are available. Snugspout 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. NN. Wikipedia is not a collection of people's bios. It is an encylcopedia. Non-encyclopedic content does not belong. Kershner 14:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO. Even if you want to observe a low threshold for inclusion, this article essentially says "John Doe went to school, got a job, got a promotion, and died." If that is the cut-off, I'm 3 for 4 on my way to my own Wikipedia article!--Isotope23 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan consumer market[edit]

Created by User:Cwaldie, who has been creating a few seemingly unencyclopedic articles. Slac speak up! 07:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students need this information!!!!

There are hudreds of students that need this specific information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sick of having people come to me because they could not find this information.....firstly I see no reason why the information provided can't be seperated into the desirable categories. I put the information in here when I know student will be using it for ther finals. If I have time I will break it up and exapand on current articles as the inforamtion found in these articles are not specific enough. I thought that wikipedia is where student can find information that may be hard to come by. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you want to dum down our society. Perhaps rather thatn bitching you could contribute and take what wikipedia does not have out of my article and merge it with other articles.

pissed off cwaldie

futher more If you want to delete all of this you are an idiot or perhaps out of touch. This is CURRENT INFORMATION.

'few seemingly unencyclopedic articles' get real I have only put up one article. This article was also only put up a few hours ag. This better have nothing to do with me saying no to translating the bible into zulu.

I look forward to seeing you replace this article with something better containing more information of this nature and putting it up for review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwaldie (talk • contribs)

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 20:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete indiscriminate collection of information; not an article. Might be room for an article on this topic, if rewritten. — brighterorange (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete appears to be mostly copied from [48] website. So copyvio.--Andeh 22:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the author, the problem isn't the idea behind the article. Taiwan is an important consumers' market but you need to do several things. First, most of this information is already in the article about Taiwan and therefore isn't new. The information that isn't there should be placed there. Could you do that? Second, the new information isn't presented as an article, just as facts. You need to write it as an article. This isn't a place to store info for students who are taking finals. And as already pointed out, almost all these numbers are already available in the Taiwan article. Third, getting angry on an AfD page doesn't help get this article in wikipedia form. Could you go ahead and merge this information into the main Taiwan article?Interlingua talk 23:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interlingua, summed it up well.--Auger Martel 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Dark Crusaders[edit]

Delete Is it REALLY noteworthy? --Mrdie 06:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I concurr; not appropriate for wikipedia at all. Jhamez84 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability -- Where is Where? 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, conspiracy theory. Throw in the Kennedy assasination and the moon landings too. Wikipedia is most definitely not a web directory or a gossip column. - Motor (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides many of the details being patently ridiculous, the theory doesn't seem to exist outside the linked site. I'm betting this article and the site were made by the same person. Ace of Sevens 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film series)[edit]

at the bottom of every films page there is a table of other chainsaw mas films this article is uneeded--Childzy 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, in case something fuller like Halloween (film series) shows up one day. This list is just too bare. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless as long as the template exists. David L Rattigan 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By no means. Keep. Nav templates are often augmented by link lists that provide the same info in a different format, sometimes with additional information that doesn't fit into the infobox. See the Nobel Laureate boxes for instance. ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- At the bottom of every page of the films that feature in this article there is a table of other chainsaw massacre films, this article is uneeded and is a waste of space on wikipedia. (thanks for completing the listing, I was a n00b at the time i listed it)--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is technically a disambiguation page and should be used as such. I dabbed the original movie with it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as dab page can always be expanded later is someone wants. Eluchil404 21:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this as a disambiguation please it can be expanded later Yuckfoo 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already redirected. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate Committee investigating 1996 campaign finance scandal[edit]

There is no such committee. The relevant info has been moved to the appropriate committe's page. —Markles 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Anime[edit]

Since this offers little more than a list, lets use this instead: Category:Anime Influenced Animation Dakart 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was KEEP. syphonbyte 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotem[edit]

Accusation
Article is repeatedly recreated with nonsense contents. Gotem is a very small hamlet in Limburg, not a city with 30K + inhabitants. Gotem has no encyclopedic value as it is in reality, and the article contains no info on the hamlet to show otherwise. Previous versions of the article were even worse. See also Polfbroekstraat for similar useless articles by same authors Fram 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Absolutely not, for your information syphonbyte is a colleague of mine. Although Gotem is one of his other (infrequently used) usernames, which it mentions on his user page.--The Raven 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not Raven. I can verify this if you wish, we are both colleagues working together. You may send me an email if you wish at syphonbyteATgmailDOTcom, or visit http://www.villageoffools.com to verify the existence of syphonbyte. You can visit http://plaza.ufl.edu/dmitrid to see that Raven is a totally different person. Or you could have looked at our edit histories to see that we have edited totally different articles with the exception of these Belgian ones. Furthermore, claiming that other "nonsense edits" have been made by me is insulting and slanderous. All of my edits are legitimate, and you can see this in my edit history. I created and did a lot of work on TOC2_protocol (in collaboration with Raven) and I am the author of MailSlot. I have made many other edits (however I am not going to turn this into a list of work that I have done at Wiki), and claiming that my work is "nonsense" is a personal attack. syphonbyte 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a friend and colleague to both The_Raven and syphonbyte in the real world, I can attest to the fact that they are indeed two very different individuals. I could provide their names and contact numbers for verification, but that would be unreasonable due to privacy reasons. --Charlesxavier 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never saw the article to know if it was nonsense or not, but it appears that Eiland is also a real place [49]. ScottW 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Naturally it is a rural farming village, thus outlying farms must be considered in the census for the entire population. Judging from references this number is at least 20K inhabitants. If you disagree, cite relevant sources. Then, by all means, change the page.--The Raven 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article has been recreated once after somebody came along and deleted it after 2 years of edit history, which are now lost. The article is obviously not finished. Gotem also does have many inhabitants, as outlined by The Raven. The article is far from "useless," and if you wish to label it as such, then articles such as Pieter_Boogaart, which doesn't even have a single reference to verify its existence, are most certainly "useless." Anyhow, thus article exists at Dutch Wikipedia, certainly it ought to exist at English Wikipedia where there are people interested. (Like me.) syphonbyte 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Furthermore, if this article is a candidate for deletion, then all small cities of Belgium should be deleted as well. And if this were to happen, it should follow that all small cities in the world should be deleted as well, in order to preserve uniformity. Of course, this would be ridiculous, thus this article should be kept. If Ada, Oklahoma in the USA (where I used to live) with a population of around 15K according to the 2000 US census can have a page, then so should other obscure but existent cities all around the world. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like this article actually refers to Kottem [51], not Gotem [52]. Both are real places though. ScottW 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kottem and Gotem are both names for the same Hamlet, on Dutch Wiki it's Gotem, so the article is named in this way. syphonbyte 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed. It says this under the 'Alternate Names' heading in the cited source. --The Raven 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone mind if I curse? Close your ears. Holy shit!! Why is a small town on CSD and AfD!? If somebody vandalized it and inserted nonsense - remove it. Sheesh! KEEP - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, real place. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, this was a legitimate page. Second, there are in fact two cities under the name of Gotem in Belgium. Third, all the information that is on the page right now was in earlier editions of the page, including information on BOTH cities. Now that it has been deleted and recreated, it will require more work to return all the information back to the page. Tachyon² 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that there are two such places. The other place is called Gottem, and is part of Deinze. The place these guys have created out of the blue is Cotthem. It is a street and a green field in Sint-Lievens-Houtem. Both Sint-Lievens-Houtem and Deinze are in East-Flanders, which is not the same as the province of Limburg. I know, because I live between these two places...User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why it's small population precludes it from having a small article. Plenty of other cities of similar size have full length pages. Gotem (Gothem) is known for its small-town mystique to visitors (I myself have seen it), and, as such towns are often tourist destinations, a tourist passing through the city may wish further information on it. There is no reason for a comprehensive encyclopedia to lack a record of a city of this importance. PhoenixPinion 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Gotem is smaller than 1 square km, it has fewer than 1,000 inhabitants. Anything interesting there should be mentioned under Borgloon. And the nonsense edits to prove its existence and importance (creating a parallel universe in the province of East Flanders, which is not even Gotem's province) must be deleted ASAP as vandalism. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have modified the page to include information only on the city of Gotem. Kottem is indeed a seperate city and will need its own article. syphonbyte 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've created the Kottem article to differentiate between Gotem and Kottem (which is also known as Gotem).
  • Comment: The recreation of Eiland by user syphonbyte only shows again that these guys (and I don't care if it one person or a bunch of friends) are only out to disrupt Wikipedia. Pleae, ask some senior editor from Flanders around here to look at the articles. Eiland does not exist, and there is no city of eiland. There is no city of Polfbroekstraat. There is a hamlet called Gotem, but it is tiny, and the population number given is not for "surrounding farms", it is because of the real cities lying around (like Borgloon, the municipality it is located in).
  • Comment The recreation of Eiland is due to the fact that it was deleted with absolutely no discussion at all because somebody thought it was not real and went on a deleting spree. I've done a lot of work here and I feel insulted again that you claim that we're only out to disrupt Wikipedia. syphonbyte 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everyone in Belgium would know that there is no large city called Eiland (or any of the others): the fault lies in the fallingrain website, which gives population numbers out of the blue: see e.g. this list for all "cities" in East Flanders, Belgium (the province has in reality a total population of almost 1.4 million: you'll notice on the Wikipedia link that neither Eiland nor Polfbroekstraat are mentioned as municipalities, let alone cities). Similarly, Gotem has a fanciful number of inhabitants (hey look, Gothem even has 84,000 inhabitants!). In short, these users try to create fanciful articles by using a tiny bit of reality, some very bizarre data on (legitimate) websites, and a lot of imagination, and seem to achieve this because at a glance, it looks legitimate. CrzRussian, I could by the same means start creating articles about the Russian cities of Anino and Annenskoye, both with 714,696 inhabitants, or perhaps Belyayeva or Belyayevo, with 749,719 inhabitants. Or let's take the USA: it seems wehave forgotten to create articles about Glenwood Heights, Florida, population 426,386, or the Coach Royal Trailer Park subdivision in California, population 443,982. Fram 08:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with your use of places like Glenwood Heights and Coach Royal Trail Park argument, Flam, is that these places exist within densely populated areas (as can be seen by the solid yellow coloring on the Fallinrain pages). Thus, the population (which is determined by a 7km radius from the point), captures an extraordinary number of people. Glenwood Heights is in the county of Miami-Dade which is world reknown for its beaches, nightlife and tropical setting. It is also dense in population since it is a large city. Yes, Fallingrain may be questionable but only under certain circumstances. In this case, it is not. Since Gotem is rural, it does not exist in a city or other area of dense population, thus it is not unreasonable to count everyone in a 7km radius. 7km (approximately 4.3 miles) actually a very small radius to count a population anywhere and is easily walking/biking distance in a rural setting. --Charlesxavier 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example Hacking is a questionable activity, agreed? Well in certain cases it is a valid avenue of action, for instance in cases of national security. In the same way, Fallingrain is a double-edged sword. In some cases its data is questionable. In others, it makes logical sense. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments: The authors have also created the article Kottem, for which the same arguments as for Gotem, Polfbroekstraat and Eiland count. They have also started a Wikiproject, where the first action was uncivility towards an editor. The goal of the project is: "Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better document the history and geography of Belgium, especially less-widely known municipalities which play an important role in the history of Belgium". None of the articles in question document a mnunicipality, and none of the streets or hamlets they are talking about play "an important role in the history of Belgium". Again, this convinces me that the editors in questions have no honest intentions towards these articles and are just trying to pull our leg. Fram 08:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your nomination, you state that Gotem is a "very small hamlet in Limburg." I can find multiple references to this place. I don't think there is any dispute over whether this is a real place. In general we keep such articles. I would agree that the fallingrain site gives somewhat misleading population counts, and perhaps these numbers should not be used in the article, but that's reason to fix the article, not to delete it. If you feel you can show a bad faith effort on the part of other editors to add nonsense articles, then there are other ways to do it. But so far as this article goes, I don't think there's sufficient reason for deleting it. ScottW 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, Eiland does appear to be somewhat less verifiable, but that's relevant to a different discussion. ScottW 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotem is, as has been said, an existing place, though very small and non (or hardly) notable. The fact that it exists is already noted in the Borgloon article. As I don't see how it can ever become more than a stub, and as none of the info currently in the article is worth merging, I suggested deletion. I could have put merge instead, but what is there to merge? Current article: population is wrong, reference is wrong (in its data), picture is not relevant, Polfbroekstraat reference is wrong... So we are left with: Gotem is part of the municipality of Borgloon, in Limburg. All that info is included in the Borgloon article. No one has presented anything else that could be said about Gotem that would make it worthy of a separate place in this encyclopedia. Delete or redirect... Eiland is indeed, somewhat less verifiable, as in not at all. No city of that name exists in Flanders (there may be a cluster of three houses somewhere that is called Eiland, I don't know and care: it is unverifiable, unencyclopedic, and the current contents of the article are wrong. But I'll take it elsewhere, it was just to show the methods used by the editors involved, and the reasons to assume in this case bad faith instead of the usual good faith. Fram 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How can you assume that the editors are ill-intentioned? By the way, you are currently the only Wikipedian favoring deletion, whereas two major Wikipedia (and other Wiki-network) contributors in addition to 5+ others say otherwise. Why do you persist in accusing our efforts (and accusing members of sockpuppeting) and trying to delete the project page instead of helping us to correct it in a less drastic manner? Is your personal attack on our collective credibilities an attempt to discredit us in light of insufficient evidence for your argument? Yes it is. As I have stated previously, your arguments concerning the population count are weak since Gotem exists in a rural location rather than a metropolis for example. If you would like, I can fish out examples from all over the world. Case closed. --Charlesxavier 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you think the editors of this article are ill-intentioned, consider this: the largest PC vendors on the market today started out at shady warehouse operations. In America we celebrate something called the sense of entrepreneurship. People can risk credibility but they always have the opportunity to develop something great. If you really hate Gotem so much, why don't you go to the Dutch Wikipedia and delete that article? Better yet, why don't you help us translate its text and help us construct this article instead of tearing it down? --Charlesxavier 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.716552/Gotem/ :
  • "Gotem is a populated place in Limburg, which is a region of Belgium."


  • Comment:
  • Can you explain how a village that is part of a municipality with some 10,000 inhabitants can have 21,000 inhabitants?
  • It is Wikipedia policy to only include things because they are notable, not because they may become notable. Hence, your comparison to PC vendors is baseless.
  • I feel that the two Wikipedia editors that voted/vote keep have been fooled. The other users seem to be one "group", as has been shown for some of them. They are not objective.
  • Why should I help on a project that has as its target to write pages about four hamlets because they are claimed to be important in the history of Belgium, when that isn't true? A project that starts out with such false objectives isn't worth defending or collaborating on, no matter how neutral a name it has
  • This is the version of Gotem with the "2 year editing history which are lost":
Gotem is a small city in the Flemish Barbant province of Belgium. It has postal code 3840.
Some facts about GOTEM are as follows: It has Lattitude 50.9167 degrees, Longtitude 3.8500 degrees, and an altitude of 59 meters. Its population is estimated at 39070, although it may increase to 39071 within the week. Alternate names for the city include Kottem and Cotthem. The city of Polfbroekstraat is .6 nm away from it.
Typically when one enters the city the name is said in salutation. Thus the phrase "GOTEM". Although this may be a bit of an urban legend.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotem" Categories: Belgium geography stubs
  • What is the info that was deleted? Let's see: the wrong province, teh wrong inhabitants, a ridiculous sentence about an increase in inhabitants, wrong alternate names, wrong info on Polfbroekstraat, and a ridiculous ending about the salutation. If you try to defend this, why would I take you or your intentions seriously?
  • This is the cached entry for Eiland, again referencing Gotem in a nonsensical way (the rest of the article isn't any better.
  • As for the people saying that the articles are (potentially) worthwhile because the placenames exist: yes, but they are streets, nothing more. Gotem is the only small village among them, the others are so unimportant that e.g. Polfbroekstraat has one (1) link on a Belgian page on Google. Now, if someone can give me a good text link for the medium-sized city of Eiland, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, it may be time to start believing that there is no medium-sized city with name, just like there is no village called Gotem with 20,000 inhabitants, etcetera. Fram 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The data in the article could be incorrect; Wikipedia is not a primary source anyhow.
  • That comment was not saying that Gotem is an entrepreneurship, but that we as editors are in a way.
  • Nobody is objective in a debate, otherwise there would be no debate. We are the article creators, so of course we are not objective. You obviously are not objective, either.
  • You could help with the project if you felt a need to work on the articles about Belgium. Considering that you are Belgian (or at least I'm guessing this, since you claim to have been there, speak Dutch and like Belgian comics), this would help the project quite a bit. Also, the project is entirely neutral. The overall objective is to improve the articles on Belgium, and this is what we are trying to do.
  • That article was deleted because Gurch said that it was "not a real place," which it obviously is, and not for the reasons you said. I am defending this because it was deleted wrongly, even if it was somewhat ridiculous. The new article is obviously not, and a lot of work has been done to it in the last 24 hours alone.
  • All of the Eiland article makes perfect sense, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
  • Yes, that is the cache for that article which was also deleted without any discussion.
  • I don't believe these articles are streets, except Polfbroekstraat, since straat is Dutch for street if I'm correct. At any rate, there are many articles on streets in Wiki, and according to Falling Rain, those are cities or towns, hence the phrase on the page "nearby cities and towns."

syphonbyte 22:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative medium through which we can better understand our world. This means improvement upon legitimate articles, not outright deletion. I acknowledge that the previous articles were poorly written and perhaps not very factual. However, I have taken steps to rebuild the credibility of Gotem and remain dedicated to improving its article page. In no way do I or my colleagues condone vandalism or creation of articles based on false subjects. As for the population count, if you can provide evidence that it is lower (around 10K as you suggest) then by all means change the details, but don't use it as your motivation to delete an article simply because you think the number is too large. I further challenge you to visit the coordinates 50° 47' 60" N, 5° 17' 60" E and see for yourself that there indeed is a bustling population there, so much so that there is a local airport and plenty of hotels. I have never heard of hotels or airports in insignificant villages. There is obviously some commerce going on in the region and thus Gotem has, in addition to historical and cultural value, commercial value.

--Charlesxavier 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - are the original posters translating from french? - my missus is telling me over my shoulder in an worked up manner that because of "administration components" (the best english word we can find) - a reletively small area can be called a town or city? Therefore part of the problem might be the difference in meaning and terminology between them. She has also read the article and finds nothing wrong with most of the detail but cannot confirm the population - looking further into this. --Charlesknight 22:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you mean Arrondissements? If so, an equivalent in the American local government system would be the County, which is not insignificant (See Miami_dade). Also, I will conduct a search to find the best possible compromise on Gotem's population using data not from Fallingrain.--Charlesxavier 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm english so the american system is lost on me :) No she doesn't mean that but I'm em.. having a few translation issues and will get back to you. She is however ranting about how Durbuy is an example of what she mean. Get back to you in a bit. --Charlesknight 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you want a different look at the places involved: check out a routeplanner like Viamichelin: Gotem exists and is tiny (located only 3 kilometres from teh centre of Borgloon, so the pouplatoin of the rural surroundings argument is quite wrong): Eiland does not exists, neither does Polfbroekstraat, or Oordegemsestraat. If the Viamichelin routeplanner doesn't know a medium-sized city, then we have a serious problem... Fram 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does your search correspond to 50° 47' 60" N, 5° 17' 60" E ???--Charlesxavier 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's going on here? - Polfbroekstraat (Polbroekstraat) is in Oost-Vlaanderen province, as does Oordegemsestraat - both exist! --Charlesknight 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think that this behaviour, changing text from another user (from 'Comment' to 'Attack') is unacceptable. If you consider it an attack, say so in your response: don't edit what I wrote. Fram 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I changed it back to Comment. syphonbyte 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • stupid edit conflicts have prevented me from posting for 10 minutes... I saw Fram's comment and changed it back to Comment...--Charlesxavier 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Granted the previous version of the articles seemed to be nonsense, however the proper solution for solving 'nonsense' when there is a 2 year history is reverting, not deleting without warning. Although I feel that, thanks to this deletion and subsequent battle over Gotem, the page has actually become much better than it ever was. So, in a sense, I have you to thank for this. *Also how can you claim Gotem is not notable? In my opinion Charlesxavier has established this without a doubt (see castle, and origin of family name). What you say about the size of the cities themselves may be true, but the (current) information (such as on Polfbroekstraat) on the pages is not inaccurate, it is noted that the 'population' figure is taken from an x km radius.--The Raven 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please End This[edit]

No matter who is right about what, the fact remains that User:Fram is trying do delete this article simply because he thinks Gotem is insignificant. Well, this article meets the Verifiability guidelines of Wikipedia and thus should be kept. I do not want to argue or see more arguments for or against the factuality of the Gotem article, since we have already established that it is a true and meaningful location. --Charlesxavier

This AfD has only been up for about 24 hours, I'm not sure if it should be ended so quickly. --Syphonbyte

Downsize Me[edit]

  • According to Borgloon and similar Googled sites, the population density of Borgloon is 196.49 inhabitants per km². Judging by the shape of Gotem which is denoted by the dashed line at the Viamichelin site (click on map to zoom in and get a better view), the area of Gotem is approximately 6 km². Thus 196.49 x 6 = 1178.94 which is approximately 1179. This figure should satisfy Fram and others who doubt the current given population. However, this is not the final figure by any means, and I am searching for further evidence to find a more accurate number. --Charlesxavier 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this nonsense![edit]

I happen to live in Belgium, lees than 15 km from Cotthem, Polbroek and Eiland. These are simply streets in the still largely rural town of Sint-Lievens-Houtem. One of my sources for this is Stratenatlas van Vlaanderen - Guide des Rues de Flandre. Standaard Uitgeverij, ISBN 90-0-20614-3. If anyone wants pictures of these streets, I will provide them next week (I have to correct a lot of exam papers now)- I like to cycle in that area. It is time to stop this nonsense. Fram is perfectly right. All these articles must be deleted ASAP. They constitute vandalism. As for Gotem, it does exist, but is far smaller than claimed by its supporters here (according to the same source as quoted above, less than 1 square kilometre). The place in East-Flanders is called Gottem (with two t's - and that influences the pronuciation) and is now part of Deinze. By the way, the fact that these guys do note even realize that the province of East Flanders is not the same as the province of Limburg and is in fact to the WEST of it (Belgians are particular at geography, you see) proves that they have invented all this. Stop creating a parallel universe and start writing real articles. Or leave Wikipedia, which you are just rubbishing with these edits. .User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my current position[edit]

While I would like the AfD to continue for now as a place of discussion, I don't think that the current article on Gotem, which finally is about a real, though small, village (hamlet, whatever) should any longer be deleted. After the users involved have had two years of editing and only could produce wrong facts about the village, this AfD has achieved that they have researched finally the village they wanted to have an article. Why they cretade an article about a place they knew nothing about escapes me, but the current article, minus a few serious errors, can be kept (it would be better merged with Borgloon, but that is a minor point). As for the other articles, and the project: delete them all. The three articles (including Oordegemsestraat) can never become worthwhile, as there is (as opposed to Gotem) no village to describe. It's just a poin ton a map. The article Eiland is the most ridiculous of them all. The project, while having a nuetral title, is as it is presented (defending those three articles), equally worthless. If the authords want to change it in a worthwhile project, they are free to do so. I feel no need for it. As for contributing to articles about Belgium: I have done so, quite a lot in fact, as can be seen on my contributions page. I don't feel the need to create articles about smaller entities than the municipalities except in certain important cases (like the Antwerp districts, or Doel), but people that are willing to make a serious article about such villages (deelgemeentes) are of course welcome. I would never SD or AfD those. Finally, I will probably in the next few days start AfD's on Eiland and Polfbroekstraat, so the discussion of those can be held separately. I will ask some long-retm editors from Belgium to have a look at the articles and give their impression, so that we got some impartial and informed opinions on them (as most of the opinions here lacked one or both). If no new arguments or questions are raised here, I'll probably take my criticisms of the current Gotem page to the discussion page of the article, and stay out of here. I stand behind my earlier statements here, and behind the AfD, because the article at the time of the AfD wasn't worth anything and did not refer to a real village. Now it does, and now it contains some correct info, and so for me it can stay. Fram 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the project; the current goal was to defend these articles because they are relevant to the project and quite pressing. The overall goal is similar to other projects about countries, and this will remain the overall goal of the project. syphonbyte 20:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are these articles relevant to the project? How are Eiland or Polfbroekstraat important to the history of Belgium? What prior knowledge did you have of these places before creating the articles and the project to let you make such a statement? You didn't know where Gotem was, how big it was, or anything else about it, but still you decided that it had to have an article and a project for it and the likes? Fram 20:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The project is for Belgium, and was created long after those articles existed. Since they are related to Belgium and are the work of the only current members of the Belgian WikiProject, it made sense for them to be part of the project. At any rate, the Belgian WikiProject didn't even exist until I made it, and I phrased the goals generally enough to allow work on a lot of other Belgian pages to be coordinated through the Project, which was my intention. syphonbyte 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End[edit]

This AfD no longer has any use, I believe. The clear consensus is Keep, for Gotem at least. All discussion should be moved to the relevant talk page. I'll preserve this page. If any admins or anybody like that think this page should be opened back up for edits for some reason, then go ahead and do that, but I think the article's talk page is much more appropriate.


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a clearly notable program. Nomination is spurious. FCYTravis 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Angle (TV series)[edit]

  • Delete - Does not meet WP standards: trivial; original research Gpscholar 17:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)gpscholar[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Legitimate television program on PBS network. Calwatch 04:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important to have a record of this
  • Real, nationally broadcast television series hosted by Bill Moyers. Don't be ridiculous, there is no reasonable rationale for deletion here.--SB | T 07:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, and then move things around per Kjkolb. Petros471 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border Guard (disambiguation)[edit]

This dab page is not really a dab, it's just a duplication of the Border Guard (also an "umbrella" article). Now I'm extracting the list of national agencies from there in a separate article, which gonna function as a dab also.AlexPU 15:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy and speedy delete under A7. The JPStalk to me 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Status[edit]

Moved here from speedy. Davodd 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Plus it was written BY the same person as the article is about. Lsjzl 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've userfied it and added a speedy tag.--Andeh 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drummer jokes[edit]

Funny stuff, but Wikipedia is not a jokebook, and there is no real history or psychology behind drummer jokes (at least not that can be anything but original research) worth an encyclopaedia article. Note that Wikibooks' Jokebook has been deleted, so transwiki is not an option. See WP:NOT. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Drummer. There's used to be a small section on the jokes, and giving a few examples (such as the ones in the article) wouldn't hurt the quality of the article. -Evan Seeds (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; default to keep. Petros471 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hammer (porn actor)[edit]

Not sure if this guy fits the notability criteria for pornstars on WP... Any porn buffs wanna help out? Dakart 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team[edit]

Relisting (someone tell me if I'm doing it wrong) for the following reason:

This was originally a list as published on thebaseballpage.com. The link to that source no longer works. When I checked it, I saw that thebaseballpage.com has modified their choices and added new players -- see [53]. Why should WP be a mirror site for one webpage's opinion of the best Twins players of all time? NawlinWiki 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The normal AfD procedure for renominating is here. Ziggurat 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context, no sources, no shoes, no article. Ziggurat 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I completely agree with NawlinWiki. It's just some web site's view of who the best players on a certain team were. Even if this was the Twins' or the MLB's official view, it still probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article. A league-wide all-decade team would be acceptable; one would imagine that a team's best players would be summarized in that team's article. -- Kicking222 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'nuff said. BlueValour 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What, no Johan Santana? Err, I mean one site's POV does not a Wikipedia article make. BryanG(talk) 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list itself is not encylopedic. At most put a link to the live page on the Minnesota Twins article. ScottW 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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


Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team[edit]

Is this an "official" all-time team list or just someone's opinion? I assume the latter, so delete. But if this is from a notable, credible source, attribute and merge with Minnesota Twins. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No idea what this is about. Groeck 22:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge It's "about" what the title says. Has a source... All right then, fine. Delete it, jerks. Bojanglesmn 23:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks as it has some sort of source from the baseballpage which seems to have lists for other teams see [54]. Would be better in own space linked on Minnesota Twins page. I don't know whether thay have released their own list but we have other list of notable persons or things according to reputable sources and this appears to me to meet this category.Keep Capitalistroadster 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no reason that wikipedia should host "fantasy league" lists compiled by fansites (other All-Time Team lists were created by governing bodies of sports leagues or respected panels of sports writers). Move the citation link over to Minnesota Twins. Anetode 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with link to The Baseball Page in Minnesota Twins. Any team with Kirby Puckett on it has my respect, but it just isn't an article on its own. Lord Bob 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster and WP:NPOV. Kappa 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, so how about if it was just moved to the very bottom of the Minnesota Twins page, and this one is deleted? Better idea? Bojanglesmn 03:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I do like the idea, if memory serves me right merge and delete (which this amounts to) is not a valid vote because the history is lost. Although we could merge the team list with Minnesota Twins and have the all-time team redirect there. I would still rather see it deleted since I don't think this inherently POV all-time team should be kept on an encyclopaedia, but a merge-n-redirect wouldn't make me unhappy. Lord Bob 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in this case. The "article" is simply a list of names. Simple lists are not copyrightable under U.S. law. Quale 07:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and follow Lord Bob's suggestion. Andrew Levine 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and redirect re Lord Bob ··gracefool |☺ 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female single combat club[edit]

mv from speedy Davodd 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Not-notable, additionally this is a vanity page to the user's club. Several other associated pages were Speedy Deleted. Kershner 22:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. BlueValour 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TVFansOnline[edit]

mv from speedy Davodd 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no Alexa ranking. Google search only turns up a few hundred results. Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Extraordinary Machine. - Motor (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Radio Station[edit]

Delete Non-Notable Philip Gronowski Contribs 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plus an advert. Lsjzl 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Choir of South Florida[edit]

The article itself fails to denote any level of notability for this subject. Google search brings up this article as the first hit, the website of the choir, and a mere one other hit [55]. With only two editors working on it, I smell vanity. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the entry, trying to mirror the entries of other pages in the category, and I tried to maintain the NPOV standard. Google was unable to index the site due to issues with site configuration that have since been resolved. What else am I missing? Epeterso2

You must illustrate notability. The fact that this only garners four Google hits (two of which are Wikipedia) doesn't exactly help. IrishGuy talk 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While standards for notability are contested among editors, the fact that the choir was founded in 2005 (not to mention the lack of google hits), lends one to believe the choir is not yet worthy of an encyclopedic listing. WP:Vanity may also be a good source to consult. -- MarkBuckles 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 but I hope this will be expanded beyond a collection of links... see WP:NOT. W.marsh 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of VJ Software[edit]

This page is a list made up entirely of external links, most added from anonymous IP addresse, and as pointed out, no page should consist entirely of external links Lewispb 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no encylopedic content.--Andeh 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful resource, though. Could it possibly be be integrated into this page? Would it be valid if there were reviews and explanations for each piece of software?Magnakai 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion that page has way too many external links too, please refer to WP:NOT, WP:EL and the Spam WikiProject. Lewispb 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very usefull list. The world of vj-software is grounded in the internet, heaps of external links are what people are looking for when they come here; I know i was.--Droon 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am generally against lists but I am happy to accept that this one is a useful resource; also it is being updated. Mind you I haven't a clue as to what they are all about! BlueValour 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all 3. W.marsh 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headache Center[edit]

We're not a random collection of information. Every self-respecting hostpital has a "headache clinic", and this page is an oxymoron. Same user also creating Danish Headache Center and Diamond Headache Clinic. None have independent notability. Delete all. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. -AED 04:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Headache Center - listcruft.
  • Delete Danish Headache Center - not-notable
  • Keep Diamond Headache Clinic - asserts notability.

BlueValour 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion that Diamond Headache Clinic is "one of the world’s leading headache and migraine health care centers in the world" is not really verifiable. (What are the standards for such a claim?) I'm sure the headache clinics within various university neurology departments would dispute the claim. -AED 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 really doubt relisting would change things. Article can be rewritten with WP:CORP and WP:NPOV in mind, but since whoever did that would have to scrap the current version anyway, no point in keeping. W.marsh 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime Advisors Group[edit]

Is only advertisement Travelbird 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for deletion, two different merge options suggested, if either one of those editors actually cares about merging, they can start the process. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WATM World Agricultural Trade Matrix[edit]

nn organization spam, needs to be reverted back to redirect to WATM-TV Adolphus79 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I moved the article to a less ambiguous name. "WATM" now points to WATM-TV. --Rob 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
someone just left a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CountrySTAT that sounds good... I vote for merge with FAO unless wikify'd and substantially expanded in the next couple days... - Adolphus79 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like World Agricultural Trade Flow and CountrySTAT, this article is not about an organization, but about a statistical tool used by the FAO. Since this information will be uninteresting to most readers of FAO, I suggest that these three articles should be merged to a FAO statistical tools article rather than to FAO. 132.239.90.209 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't have a problem with this. It looks notable enough and useful. Keep pending a new article as suggested. BlueValour 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategyn[edit]

reads like an advert for a NN corp Adolphus79 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Travelbird 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since been pared down. I do not see how it violates Wikipedia's guidelines in its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyseo (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. By "NN" the nominator meant that the company is non-notable; see Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Melchoir 01:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the contentious nature of the "NN" designation, are there any suggestions for proving relevancy? I did not find anything in the help section covering that. Certainly Strategyn survives the search engine test, with several listings available besides the ones for their own site. Should these be posted here then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyseo (talk • contribs)
well, if you had read the WP:CORP page posted by Melchoir, you would know the standards... you must think on a global scale, we can't just let anyone with any company write an article... also, your article gives very little information about the company, it reads like an advertisement... as far as how to become notable, the only recommendation I can make is to continue doing business, and continue growing... maybe one day in the future the company will be notable enough to be included, and someone will write an article that doesn't read like an advert... if you can cite sources that would prove one of the criteria on WP:CORP, then feel free to do so... it might just save the article from deletion... also, please remember to sign your talk page entries with 4 tildes (~~~~), so we know who you are... - Adolphus79 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does not assert any notability. BlueValour 00:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio no prejudice against recreating with free text. W.marsh 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marching cobras[edit]

I placed a notability tag on this article the day it was created, hoping that the author would make some improvements to the article, and indicate how this particular high school marching band is more notable than any other high school marching band. I am afraid to report that there has been no such undertaking. Hence, this AfD. This band is simply not notable. Charles 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to this link they played for four US Presidents[56]. Also, here are the google test result[57]. But the article needs massive cleanup Yanksox 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Nertz 00:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Billlion 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copy and paste straight off their website with no attempt at wiki-formatting, needs a clean up but I don't feel it's very encylopedic.--Andeh 22:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Forum Decline[edit]

Delete Original research. Przepla 22:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WitchesBrewPress[edit]

Non-notable press, fails WP:CORP. mtz206 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Only four Google hits, and one of those is MySpace and another is LiveJournal. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Melchoir 01:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe.--Auger Martel 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --Zoz (t) 20:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/groups). TigerShark 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Urine[edit]

It's a stub for a non-notable and defunct band. Article is also very poorly written. relaxathon 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... - Adolphus79 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 copyvio. W.marsh 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitar chords[edit]

Listcruft, and somewhat unmaintainable. Deprodded by anon with no explanation given. TheProject 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio. Melchoir 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on a minute -- how can that be a copyvio? A list of chords has no creative expression. I must be somewhat confused about copyright law. TheProject 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ordinarily I'd admit that lists are a kind of gray area, and reasonable people disagree over what's creative or not. But this one is long and highly structured, and comparing [58] and [59] it's clear that someone had fun with copy-paste. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem right. Melchoir 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has obviously been cut and pasted from another, unspecified source. It may be a copyvio depending from where it came. Unsourced, it must go. BlueValour 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Colgan[edit]

Non-notable TigerShark 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For a second there I thought somebody was trying to delete Eoin Colfer. Anyway, article subject has just one game credit on his MobyGames profile, and that's as an artist (not a "senior artist") for a Battlestar Galactica game I've never heard of. We don't have any guidelines about this sort of thing like we do WP:WEB and WP:MUSIC, but if we did I don't think this would pass. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, advertisement. Melchoir 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (Oh, and Andrew? There's a reason you never heard of the game. If you run across it in a bargain bin or something, just walk away. Trust me.) -- Captain Disdain 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual transmission driving technique[edit]

After transwikiing this, I suggested a merge with manual transmission, which was reverted by someone unaware that I had already transwikied this to Wikibooks. No recommendation yet, but instruction manuals do not belong on Wikipedia. TheProject 23:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If transwikied there is no reason to keep. Vegaswikian 02:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into manual transmission and delete - already transwikied. --james(lets talk) 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the manual transmission article is about the technical side while this is about the use. It is being regularily edited by a range of editors and contains encyclopaedic material. Yes it requires cleanup, as tagged, and heavy editing down but should be kept while this is being done. BlueValour 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Melchoir 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A[edit]

This is a nomination to delete:

These pages have information on the main pages of the world cup and are linked to the main pages. Therefore these pages are useless and a copycat of the match reports at fifaworldcup.com. Kingjeff 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been meaning to list this myself for some time. Delete. Dare I say, "World Cupcruft"? Having results is somewhat acceptable, in my opinion; having complete match reports is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TheProject 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the precedent that's been put forward already, I'm going to change to neutral on this. However, I believe we need a policy on this. I'm quite sure extensive boxscores for every game in the World Cup of Hockey, or for the World Baseball Classic, etc. would most likely be unwanted. (The fact that we already have detailed boxscores for World Series matches bothers me somewhat.) It's my opinion that a summary of one sporting event should not take longer than three lines (much akin to the *short-style* boxscores in baseball), and the fact that this is the FIFA World Cup, rather than the World Cup of Hockey, or the World Baseball Classic, etc. should not have any bearing on this. Wikipedia should not become a sports statistics database, which we are coming dangerously close to at the moment, IMO. TheProject 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key word being indiscriminate - for which I don't think this qualifies. Jooler 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, verifiable information about the biggest quadrennial sporting event. Probably needs some more match descriptions (which can be verified from BBC match reports, CNN match reports, whatnot), but as they stand it's a good starting point. Sam Vimes 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Yes, these pages contain some information from the main article, 2006 FIFA World Cup, which is currently 52k large. They also contain a great deal of additional information vital to understanding the matches: lineups, cards and substitutions. As evidenced by the versions of these articles in seven other Wikipedia languages, there is still more information to be added, such as statistics and formation diagrams. Just look at es:Copa Mundial de Fútbol de 2006/Grupo A, for example. The articles also contain links to Wikipedia biographies of the players and WikiNews articles on the games, things one is not going to find on fifaworldcup.com. And finally, if anyone is worrying about precedent, I don't see any attempt to merge Category:2004 European Football Championship into a single article. Melchoir 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article will grow as the group stages continue. The information at the FIFA site is only a reference and needs to be cited as such. The match reports at FIFA can turn into dead links. This information should become stable. If these articles disappear, we will simply have people continuously padding out the main article which is already sizeable. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative and useful database for anybody wishing to find information about the World Cup in the future, also as per above --Jackyd101 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Informative, useful, etc. Batman2005 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information provided by the group articles is very useful. And the match reports at fifaworldcup.com are just external links. They cannot take the place of Wikipedia's own articles. --Neo-Jay 00:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. - Mike МиГ 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the question about this AfD is, is every detail about each match in the World Cup significant? TheProject 00:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would guess you don't know much about football, or don't do many pub quizzes. Jooler 10:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm a football fan -- not a nutty football fan, mind you, but still a fan nonetheless. That last comment almost makes the articles under consideration seem like trivia, which would be a good reason to delete. However, given the precedent for almost ridiculous detail for major sporting events, I'll concede that. TheProject 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These articles apperantly do not include every detail. They just provide the major information about each match. --Neo-Jay 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These articles do not cite any references. This is a big problem. I do think they should be kept, but references need to be added, all of the information in these articles needs to be able to be verified.PaulC/T+ 01:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't... just adding an external link to the main fifa site does not cite the information in the article, that is just borderline link farming and advertising. The actual websites where the information was taken from is needed for every game on each page... I added a few of them to groups A and B, the rest still need them. PaulC/T+ 02:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep can have far more detailed info than the parent page alone. Xtra 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep all Obviously useful and encyclopaedic. It overlaps with a FIFA site? - sure - most WP articles overlap with some other site; it is called verification! BlueValour 01:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —DDima (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Tags can be used to discourage, editing, and deleting or damaging these articles is patently against consensus. ReeseM 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further enhance encyclopedia, giving users something they might not be able to locate on FIFA X years from now. Palffy 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not for reporting news as per Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 03:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be current sporting event but it's still news. I beleive Wikipedia policy says this is npt a news site. Kingjeff 03:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At the moment it is news - when the World Cup is over it will be history and notable history at that. BlueValour 03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How can you distinguish these two concepts? 2006 FIFA World Cup is also a news. Do we need to delete it also? --Neo-Jay 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it's a current event. The main article serves it's purpose unlike the group articles. Kingjeff 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main article and the group articles serve different purposes. They provide different information. --Neo-Jay 03:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The main articles with the scores provide information. The group articles is simply news. Kingjeff 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, so funny. Just let me know how do you distinguish current events and simply news? --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there should be just the number of goals, small details, that's it, all of this information can be found at the fifaworldcup.com so this much detail is really not needed--mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Really? All the information in Wikipedia can be found on the Internet or in libraries, so the whole Wikipedia is really not needed. --Neo-Jay 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the stupidest Afd nomination I've seen in a long time. Jooler 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these articles get deleted perhaps we should split into USA and RestOfWorld WP (this comment is probably a joke born out of frustration with minor baseball players getting articles whilst the biggest sporting event in the world might get deleted).)? BlueValour 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, let's not get all nationalistic here. I'm not from the States either. As for that box score ... yuck. (We need a policy for this.) TheProject 04:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I apologize. --Neo-Jay 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I check these pages all the time and they're layed out very well, with information not found anywhere else on wikipedia. I really see no reason why these should be deleted. zipmon 05:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The information is very useful for lineups and substitutes and can be used to store more information about the games instead of clogging up the main 2006 world cup page. --Lummie 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No match reports there when I looked, just lineups, officials, etc. Unless you count the goal times and scorers. Rich Farmbrough 08:12 16 June 2006 (GMT).
  • Keep Good information that cannot be on main page due to size constraints. Cvene64 08:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information, and if they're a duplicate of the main FIFA World Cup page then how about removing it from there instead of these pages. Lewispb 09:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statistics about World Cup of more notoriety than a million articles about tiny villages in the USA
  • Strong keep Instead, I propose to remove some of the information at the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. I think, that the results at that page should be as on 2004 European Football Championship. When the WC is over, a statistic page also could be made, also as Euro 04. kalaha 10:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified delete If you delete this, at least merge the information with the 2006 World Cup page. 63.93.197.67 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the person who said that this is one of the stupidest AFDs I've seen in a long time. It makes far more sense for detailed information like this to be on its own sub-page, especially so the main article isn't ridiculously long. DiegoTehMexican 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a detailed review of the matches, so it won't make any sense to delete it.

Early 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But parts of it like score etc are already in the main article. Kingjeff 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Summary style and stop making that ridiculous point. You might as well delete Speed of light because the number 299,792,458 is already in Light, or History of saffron because Saffron already mentions Cleopatra. Melchoir 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy obvious keep due to size constraints in main article. BoojiBoy 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This has nothing to do about how big the main article is. This info shouldn't even be in Wikipedia. All the group stage pages are nothing but news which is against Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have not answered my question: how do you distinguish current events and nothing but news? --Neo-Jay 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
nothing but news would be if we took an article straight out of the newspaper, rewrote it and posted it here as an article. This is the biggest sporting event in the world, the entire world is fixated on this event, peple from 200 nations wanted to be involved in this tournament, detailing that is certainly a current event, adding as much detail as possible (with sources of course) is important. It would be "world cup cruft" if we were detailing what shoes each player wore, who wears their socks up or down, what size shorts people wear, which goalies use which types of gloves, etc. As is we're posting fact, and verifiable fact at that. Hope that helped, if not i'm sorry, but its obvious that this debate will result in a keep of all information. Batman2005 14:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question Neo Jay. A current event article is the main FIFA World cup 2006 article and nothing but news is the group articles. Kingjeff 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be time for you guys to give it up. Batman2005 14:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an answer to Neo Jay's question. Melchoir 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Kingjeff 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neo Jay is asking you to define your terminology and expand on the general principles, if any, behind your thoughts. You have responded by restating your position on the current example. That is not an answer. I am explaining this to you so that you might understand why you are not being taken seriously. Melchoir 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Melchoir and Batman2005. --Neo-Jay 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously some of these pages will have to be merged in due course to make a historical summary, but they are useful and interesting during the competition.--Grahamec 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Maybe an important game we can keep like the final. But to have all 64 matches is rediculus. Kingjeff 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No it's not, it's perfectly normal and indeed desirable for the major quadrennial sporting event in the world. I take it you haven't seen one of those almanacs which record the details of every Test cricket match which has ever taken place, back to the 19th century? -- Arwel (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not almanacs. If we're going to do all 64 matches why not make an article on every Wikipedia user. Kingjeff 15:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on ever user, its called his user page. Batman2005 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for reasons already amply given above. - Arwel (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles make the main article shorter and easier to read, and they have a lot of useful information. No-Bullet 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — A billion World Cup viewers can't all be wrong. ;-) Keep on the basis of a notable event and wikipedia is not paper. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as the 2006 FIFA World Cup is a very notable sporting event, and putting details about the specific groups in "sub-articles" to the main article makes sense as it is preferable to the main article being of an excessive length and thus hard to read. Andrew (My talk) 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Highly notable, highly verifiable. If this were 3rd-division football, then maybe delete, but the World Cup deserves extensive coverage. --EngineerScotty 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very notable, relevant information in regards to the world cup and plenty of sources and references. Subject of great importance.--Auger Martel 17:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely cruft, but it's cruft a billion people are interested in and it would make the parent article too big if it were upmerged. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not yet.This article is useful during the course of the world cup but really has no place in an encyclopedia in the long term. Gerrynobody (Withdrew vote)
  • Keep. I was alarmed to see this notice at the top of the group E page, which has been my preferred source of information on that group. I haven't seen a single coherent logical argument for deleting this article. "The information exists elsewhere outside Wikipedia" is not a reason for deletion. Exoplanets are added to that page as they are discovered, which is "news", so should they be deleted as well? This afd is idiotic -- borderline infuriating. Wikipedia is not made of paper, so why do people have this mysterious urge to delete useful information from it? Are we running out of disk space? --dreish~talk 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to take your comment seriously. Kingjeff 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until after the World Cup is over, at least. Right now I'm finding this a very useful source of information. After the championship is over? Maybe Palnu 18:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question:Does anyone agree to keep it till the end of the world cup? Kingjeff 18:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and long after. This stuff about news is daft - the SuperBowl is news when it happnes but has plenty of pages. BlueValour 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and indefinitely thereafter. At the moment I count 4 delete votes and 34 keeps, accumulated in less than 24 hours. Does this not suggest to you that your nomination was rather ill-considered? -- Arwel (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and keep it forever, obviously. Uris 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep for obvious reasons, which heathen dared list this for deletion???--Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Absolutely not. Kingjeff 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep to create an archive of results and games for future reference, not just current reference. -- 86.138.55.85 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Quadalpha 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish we had this sort of information for all the World Cups.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  21:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Matei Tache 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Jared Hunt 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • HEY ADMIN Can we get on with this and just remove them from AFD, the obvious consensus here is keep! Batman2005 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an admin, but I'm going to do it anyway. If not for Muhaidib's lone dissent, this AfD would be a textbook speedy keep. As it is, the ridiculous pile of keep votes means that the result has a snowball's chance in hell of changing within the next four days, and if we waited that long, the obsolete notices would be up for most of the rest of the First Round. I am therefore closing the AfD as a keep. Please direct any whining to my talk page. Melchoir 23:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidex[edit]

Transwikied recipe deleted with no explanation given. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. TheProject 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plameology[edit]

This article contains nothing but speculation and false comments. The term Plameology only brings up 191 references of use on Google. All of these are to Wikipedia and a couple left-wing blogs. --Jayzel 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short-term if even existent internet phenomenon. Will not be notable in a couple of weeks, let alone years. Nip it in the bud. Batmanand | Talk 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; 44 unique hits without Wikipedia and no reliable sources. Melchoir 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term was used on national television (CSPAN2) on Friday, June 9th, by no less than former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wife of outed spy Valerie Plame, during a panel discussion about the CIA leak case: "As the facts have emerged in Plamegate, thanks to the dogged investigation of members of this panel, and the other Plameologists – and I can assure you that my wife wanted to change her name to Wilson because she didn’t think that Plame was very easy to understand or remember - she had no idea that ultimately it was going to be not just well-known, but the beginning of an ‘-ologist.’” (Wilson's televised remarks are currently archived on CSPAN under "YearlyKos Convention", 6/9/06. The quote is at the 12:45 minute mark.) The word "Plameologists" was used yesterday in the title of a National Review article by reporter Byron York,[60]
While one may not like the way the article is currently written, or have problems with NPOV, or disagree with the politics of the bloggers involved, it's obvious that both the word and the Internet "Plameology" phenomenon are real. I've been tracking its increasing use on Google over the last few months. Anyone doing a Google search now will quickly see references to dozens of sites using the term, not just a "couple" of left-wing blogs (and for what it's worth, the National Review is a conservative publication, and Byron York is no left-wing blogger). Where did you get only "44 unique hits" which have nothing to do with Wikipedia? I don't get that number at all. (I see 207 current matches for "Plameology", 219 additional matches for "Plameologist", and 461 matches for "Plameologists", though none of those numbers necessarily reflects the extent of the term's use since many blog sites have only irregularly-archived comment threads. And FYI, the prominent Wilson and York quotes, footnoted above, are yet to appear in Google.)
I have made a good-faith effort to define an Internet neologism which has enjoyed increasing currency in 2005 and 2006, and which shows no sign of abating. Note that the article does not credit the views of any one Plameologist, does not recommend sites, and attempts to remain neutral on interpretation of the facts while summarizing the gist of what Plamelogists have been saying and predicting, sometimes with great accuracy, over the past few years. The suggestion that the word "[w]ill not be notable in a couple of weeks, let alone years" is colored both by partisanship and by a misunderstanding of the facts. Given that Fitzgerald's investigation remains open, and Lewis Libby will go on trial for perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Plame leak in January 2007, we're bound to see continued use of the word and more print references, such as yesterday's by the National Review. (And FYI, the non-indictment of Karl Rove after five grand jury appearances, publicized earlier this week by Rove's own lawyer, by no means ends an investigation which has always been larger than Rove. In fact, Rove's known role leaking Plame's CIA identity to reporter Matt Cooper, and his subsequent non-indictment after facing what many believe was considerable legal jeopardy, has led many Plameologists — who number among their ranks former prosecutors with significant experience with grand juries and complex conspiracy cases — to speculate that Rove is cooperating with an investigation that has quietly advanced to higher levels, and which will use Rove as a witness.[61][62] A number of Plameologists said this before Monday's announcement from Rove's lawyer.[63])
If the investigation fizzles, it will at least have been a notable (if transient) historical term, pointing to a particularly feverish moment in U.S. political/media/Internet culture. But for now, please keep. Sandover 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not trot out the censorship canard. You are required to WP:Assume good faith. You gave no reputable source as suggested per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Also, even if the neologism was in wide use (which it isn't), it is nothing but a fancy term for a small group of people who do nothing but speculate -- and speculation is forbidden on Wikipedia per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lastly, as this is just a random made-up word with no possibilty for expansion into an encyclopedic article it fails the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary test. --Jayzel 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right off, I'll say it's not fair to criticize me for a transition edit, since I deleted the "censorship canard" on my own. I won't defend it because I don't stand by it.
Second, I do assume good faith, but I must admit my good faith has been recently shaken by a crazy situation on the Laura Ingraham page, which seems to be occupied by a wild-eyed Laura fan (already banned once) and what appears to be his newly-minted sockpuppet sidekick. I'm exhausted and wary from a pointless epic battle over — get this — whether Laura spent six or eight days in Iraq in February 2006. (For the record, her website clearly states that February 5th is her first day in Iraq, and February 10th is her last day in Iraq.) I'm wondering if an awful spirit has taken over Wikipedia, and you'll see why if you look at the Talk page. So I apologize. That's the context.
Also, there seems to be an upturn of trolls on the Plameology-related threads, possibly because of the CSPAN2 broadcast on Friday (repeated several times over the weekend) in which Joe Wilson himself said the word "Plameologists". Wilson implicitly acknowledged the term's wide currency, and sang the praises of his 1000+ audience's collective Plameology skills. I'm pretty sure the event was billed early on as a Plameology Panel. It was delivered before a political blogger convention in Las Vegas with more than 100 media members present.The CSPAN video is definitely worth a look (go to "YearlyKos Convention" 6/9/06).
Please know I wrote the article in good faith. On reading some of your recommended links, however, I must admit (at this tired hour) that I'm more convinced that the article should be deleted than not. But I don't want to believe that, so I reserve the right to revisit the issue tomorrow, if you don't mind. A couple hours ago, I thought I might be able to revise the article to conform it to all Wikipedia standards. Maybe I will think so again tomorrow when I'm less sleepy-headed. Sandover 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism that lacks notability. Deli nk 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete per nom.--Auger Martel 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Voice! Your Vote![edit]

No assertion of notability. Article was added by User:Yvyv which makes this a vanity page more than likely. NN group. Dismas|(talk) 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Tons of Google results, none having anything to do with this. As nom said, no assertion of notability. --djrobgordon 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement and no notability pretty much sum it up. -- Kicking222 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Voice! Your Vote! is a registered non-profit organization. Registered with the State Governemnt of Maryland in Baltimore, MD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yvyv (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No one doubts that it exists, but Wikipedia doesn't have an article on just anything. Has the organization been the topic of multiple non-trivial reviews by impartial, reputable sources? If not, it fails our standards of notability/ Melchoir 01:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (per arguments in this and the other related articles). W.marsh 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California High School Speech Association[edit]

Delete NN Organization with just over 1500 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability pm_shef 23:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no independent sources. Melchoir 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I think the nom is right that not enough is done to establish notability. It's on the right track, though, in talking how it is different from the NFL with the extra events it sponsors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this article needs work, but so do many in Wikipedia. State forensic leagues are not mere chapters. They have hundreds of events each year, thousands of participants and are the main way in which NFL members gain experience. It is like saying we should not have a New York Mets page, since we have one for Major League Baseball. In addition, state leagues sponsor different events than the NFL does. These would be lost if there were not state level pages. In addition, there is more to this page already than there is for most of the High School pages in Wikipedia. Sure, the page needs work, but a lot of our pages do. See also the discussions at Talk:National Forensic League, where active encouragement has been given to developing State league pages. --CTSWyneken 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 02:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Gold Loaf[edit]

Please. We don't even have an article on the restaraunt. This could be a one-sentence blurb in the Elvis article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd. The creator of that article is an experienced 5000+ editor. You might want to contact him/her to see what the deal is. Otherwise, delete. BillC 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I have a bias towards inanimate objects. Seriously though, the anecdote is amusing and acceptably well-known. It does well on Google, including [64] and [65]; it appears to be reported in the book The Life and Cuisine of Elvis Presley. Melchoir 01:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was trying to find info on the sandwhich and was surprised that Wikipedia had nothing. Thats why I made the article. What's wrong with the article? We have ones on much more obscure subjects! It needs more info, refrences, and a picture but, I think its a good start. --The_stuart 21:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source and merge into trivia of Elvis. Doesn't seem like it deserves it's own page or it would be even found if it was on it's own. Yanksox (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gross!!!!! otherwise, I'm neutral Bwithh 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio High School Speech League[edit]

Delete NN Organization with less than 150 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability pm_shef 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no independent sources. Melchoir 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article is better than its kin in that it is not weighed down with lists of winners and tournament qualifying point allocation tables. However, it also shows how little substance there is to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak keep. This is more weakly written than the similar article on the Texas Forensic Association but as per my comments there and for the Wisconsin group, I'm going to stick my neck out and say we should keep these. They have real notability in the lives of thousands of high school students in each of these states although this might not be immediately visible in Google hits. The article on Texas, in particular, has benefited from a lot of input over nearly four months. I think these others will also improve. QUESTION: is my reasoning totally wrong here? I ask since I'm a newbie on AfD discussions. Interlingua talk 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your reasoning is good, but in this case, the question is more whether the State level organisations are notable independantly of the National Organisation (NFL). My argument is that they are not. I absolutely agree that the National Forensics League is notable, but as per many past decisions, I don't feel that regional divisions of a national organisation are notable enough for an article unless they can establish that notability on their own - which this article, and the others, don't do - pm_shef 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's still a stub, but state forensic leagues are not mere chapters. They have hundreds of events each year, thousands of participants and are the main way in which NFL members gain experience. It is like saying we should not have a New York Mets page, since we have one for Major League Baseball. In addition, state leagues sponsor different events than the NFL does. These would be lost if there were not state level pages. In addition, there is more to this page already than there is for most of the High School pages in Wikipedia. Sure, the page needs work, but a lot of our pages do. See also the discussions at Talk:National Forensic League, where active encouragement has been given to developing State league pages. --CTSWyneken
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, retitle per WP:NAME appears in order. W.marsh 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHSSL[edit]

Delete NN Organization with around 1500 Google hits. Only claim to notability is being associated with the National Forensics League, and community consensus has many times in the past agreed that regional or local branches of a notable organization are not notable simply by association. No claim to notability, plus, much of article is simply a collection of lists pm_shef 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no independent sources. Melchoir 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This reads too much of a brochure and record book and not enough of an encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I think it definitely does the job of an encylopedia article. It provides all the facts there is to know and, in my opinion is rather descriptive. -- Dominant One <font="navy">Talk 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue isn't whether it "provides all the facts" the issue is whether it is notable enough to have an article. The article at present is simply a collection of lists - that is unencyclopedic. - pm_shef 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename with full name Yes, it is a stub, but state forensic leagues are not mere chapters. They have hundreds of events each year, thousands of participants and are the main way in which NFL members gain experience. It is like saying we should not have a New York Mets page, since we have one for Major League Baseball. In addition, state leagues sponsor different events than the NFL does. These would be lost if there were not state level pages. In addition, there is more to this page already than there is for most of the High School pages in Wikipedia. Sure, the page needs work, but a lot of our pages do. See also the discussions at Talk:National Forensic League, where active encouragement has been given to developing State league pages. --CTSWyneken 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cfred.--Auger Martel 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Forensic Association[edit]

Delete Organization is not notable except by association with the NFL (which does not make it deserving of a page). Article is filled with weasel words, industry jargon, lists, and specific information (like scoring systems) that are unencylopedic. Despite its claim of being one of the most successful organizations in the United States it has just over 500 google hits. pm_shef 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; no independent references. Melchoir 01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Well written and formatted, so that's a star for the writer, but it lacks notability. Keep. After looking at the series of AfD request for these debating socieites, I have to change my opinion. Debating societies are an important part of high school life comparable to sports and spelling bees. These articles are not just vanity pages for local high schools but are generally well-ogranized collaborative efforts to describe the functioning of debating societies in large US states (California, Texas, Ohio, etc.). They might not seem too notable to a 45-year-old guy in Chicago (me!) but there are other standards of notability that they meet. Some need more work than others, but this one for Texas is pretty well advanced. Interlingua talk 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's important to note that besides the first paragraph of the article, the rest of it is simply a "how to guide" of debate in texas. Something more appropriate for their website than an encyclopedia - pm_shef 03:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's a stub, but state forensic leagues are not mere chapters. They have hundreds of events each year, thousands of participants and are the main way in which NFL members gain experience. It is like saying we should not have a New York Mets page, since we have one for Major League Baseball. In addition, state leagues sponsor different events than the NFL does. These would be lost if there were not state level pages. In addition, there is more to this page already than there is for most of the High School pages in Wikipedia. Sure, the page needs work, but a lot of our pages do. See also the discussions at Talk:National Forensic League, where active encouragement has been given to developing State league pages. --CTSWyneken 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Keal[edit]

The article was created and primarily edited by 69.137.236.54 who admits that he is the subject: Talk:Solomon_Keal. Clearly vanity and I fail to see the importance or notability of the subject. Google search [66] brings up nothing notable, but the first two hits are the official website and the unofficial fan site...curiously, both of which are registered to the same person as a whois search will show. Clearly this is vanity/spam by someone who is attempting to spread his name all over the internet. IrishGuy talk 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and also delete his two albums (listed in the article) Completely, amazingly non-notable; admitted vanity, and as such, highly POV; almost a speedy candidate, but there are very slight claims of importance. -- Kicking222 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the article uses intrawiki links to tons of famous people in an attempt to assert notability, but of course, it's not as if this guy has ever worked with (or even met) any of said people. And then there's that whole "he registered his own fansite" thing that Irishguy brought up; that's not a case for deletion, it's just really shady. -- Kicking222 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shadiness is rampant. The two websites (official and unofficial) are registered to Stephen Simons [67] and [68]...who is the only person to review Solomon Keal's Thoughts and Affections album on CD Baby [69]. His other album, Heritage, also has only one review [70]...and the reviewer is Keal's father-in-law [71]. 69.137.236.54 has also been spamming Wiki with links about his religious sect: [72]. IrishGuy talk 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that's some amazing research, my man. Well done. Second of all, this guy is... well, I'm not going to say anything bad about him. However, he should get a very stern warning or a short-term block. -- Kicking222 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per creators own comments on discussion page WP:VAIN. DrunkenSmurf 00:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author needs to put this on MySpace, not Wikipedia. Interlingua talk 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 bean counting might suggest otherwise, but remember that AfD is a discussion, not a vote... 2 strong arguments to keep verse several "per nom"s to delete. W.marsh 13:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Forensics Coaches Association[edit]

Delete Article is almost entirely a description of various types of debate which already exists at Debate. Besides that, the article makes no claim to notability at all and gets a grand total of 37 Google hits pm_shef 00:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as wholly non-notable (except for info already covered in better articles). -- Kicking222 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be it resolved that we delete this article. I argue on the affirmative side of that issue. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem is less with the Association, which has some reasonable notability, but with the info, which is just a list of standard material. The author needs to give info specifically on the WFCA if this article is going to avoid being deleted. Weak Keep. After looking at the series of AfD request for these debating socieites, I have to change my opinion. Debating societies are an important part of high school life comparable to sports and spelling bees. These articles are not just vanity pages for local high schools but are generally well-ogranized collaborative efforts to describe the functioning of debating societies in large US states (California, Texas, Ohio, etc.). They might not seem too notable to a 45-year-old guy in Chicago (me!) but there are other standards of notability that they meet. Some need more work than others, but this one for Texas is pretty well advanced. Interlingua talk 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI agree that debating is important, but this page (wisconsin, not texas) is simply the same information that already exists on Debate. It has little unique content and doesn't meet the crucial test of claiming notability.
  • Keep Yes, it needs expansion, but so do a lot of stubs. State forensic leagues are not mere chapters. They have hundreds of events each year, thousands of participants and are the main way in which NFL members gain experience. It is like saying we should not have a New York Mets page, since we have one for Major League Baseball. In addition, state leagues sponsor different events than the NFL does. These would be lost if there were not state level pages. In addition, there is more to this page already than there is for most of the High School pages in Wikipedia. Sure, the page needs work, but a lot of our pages do. See also the discussions at Talk:National Forensic League, where active encouragement has been given to developing State league pages. --CTSWyneken 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - it's been transwikied. Not really a soft redirect due to typos etc. Proto///type 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation Snells law[edit]

Transwikied to Wikibooks, deprodded without explanation. I'd suggest a redirect to Snell's law, but anybody typing in "Derivation Snells law" (which has two grammatical errors anyways) is likely looking for the actual derivation, not just the law itself. TheProject 00:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was closed, not an AfD. Melchoir 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francs2000[edit]

This user is a bastard who deletes other people's hard work for no good reason and should be STOPPED! Wikipedia cannot be allowed to get away with this tyranny! Stop this user NOW! Jeeperscreepers 00:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cops[edit]

I'm not really sure about this one. From the article I have absolutely no idea who or what "Jimmy Cops" is. I contacted the author on his talk page, but he didn't respond. Nothing on Google either Travelbird 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete No relevant Google hits, and not a word in the article to explain. Looks like a dream band lineup or something. -- Scientizzle 00:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, nonsense. DrunkenSmurf 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Melchoir 01:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. I looked at the wiki-pages for all the current members and couldn't see any reference there to Jimmy Cops.Ted 01:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete makes absolutely no effort to explain notability or what it is. ?!? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't you tell? Jimmy corps is too cool to explain itself. And it's too cool to have any google hits...or a Wikipedia article. Yanksox (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Seems to be a list of favorite this and that. Interlingua talk 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unintelligible. AdamBiswanger1 04:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Leadership and Supervision[edit]

advert - at best, a single sentence on main university page would be enought Charlesknight 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was spam. DS 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S10forum.com[edit]

Spam. Need I say more? --ApolloBoy 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep; this is not an article. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox[edit]

blatent eye sore, vandalism magnet, an afront to everything that wikipedia stands for, take it to uncyclopedia please--Popelanfel 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS Wolf[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Even though Pitchfork didn't like them being reviewed by the foremost hipster webzine makes them notable, no? ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per existence of multiple non-trivial works featuring AIDS Wolf. This fulfills WP:BAND. [74][75]. They also seem to be more than your neighbor's garage band who plays at the bar on friday nights. AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The cited sources are enough for me. --djrobgordon 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. A bit unpleasant tho'.Ac@osr 07:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also recently did a European tour [76] and are on Skin Graft Records, a notable independent label. Kellen T 09:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toured on 2 continents, released record on notable indie label which received press coverage from established sources (Pitchfork, The Wire, etc). Dancarney 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC, "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" I'm pretty sure two continents should cover that. Yanksox (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough, well written aricle, little stuff is cheap. Joeyramoney 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100th day[edit]

Delete OR holiday.- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coment: Google returns 279,000 results for '100th Day' school,. many of which are leasson plans for 100th day celebrations. I don't really know it seems like it's more of a popular lesson plan than it does a traditional holiday, and I'm not sure lesson plans are inherintly notable. Deathawk 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; I'd want a published reliable source that claims this is indeed a common practice. Melchoir 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; it needs references, but celebration of the 100th day of school is something I remember from 1st-2nd grade, so it does actually exist...Scott5114 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Even if it's common, it's not something that I consider noteworthy. SmartGuy 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Richardcavell 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-existant, nn, and/or OR holiday —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete if you check out the links, you can see this is something created by teachers just to make 100 days seem ok. Not-notable, WP:OR. Yanksox (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of it - some sort of American initiation rite? In any case I see no merit in this article. BlueValour 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_15&oldid=1081096149"