Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 20 June 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A8 along with its image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McKinney as Magic Man[edit]

I don't believe the subject is noteworthy enough to deserve an article here. Editor88 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio, fails CSD:A8. {{db-copyvio}} tag removed by editor. --Coredesat 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I was the one that originally speedied it. That makes me mad--direct copyvio. Delete it. --Alphachimp talk 06:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. A children's magician who's mistaken Wikipedia for a free advertising resource. --Calton | Talk 06:59, 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. Sango123 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gregoire[edit]

Subject is the spouse of Christine Gregoire, governor of Washington State. While his wife may have achieved high office, this gentleman himself is not individually notable. The page has been sitting under a redirect to Mrs Gregoire for a couple of months before being reinstated with a plea for "consensus" on its future. Deizio talk 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the civilized discussion, Deizzio. I have a number of observations to make in regard to this AfD request:
1. What? Are we running out of disk space? <wink>
2. Let us concede that the number of minutes a page has stood unedited is no factor in its future editing.
3. Note that no concern has been expressed over the following, whose notabililty is entirely reliant on familial relationships to the powerful and famous: a) US First Ladies; b) Other US gubanatorial spouses, many of whom are first ladies/gentlemen of populations larger than several European nations; c) the spouses and offspring of any of the various European royalty; d) Shiloh Nouvel Jolie. Certainly, marriage to famous people does, in many cases, confer notability. Or shall we AfD Mrs. Clinton?
4. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Gregoire, more than any other gubantorial spouse, is the focus of concern. Surely he's at least as notable as 2/3 of the other folks on in the Spouse of Governors category.
5. Inasmuch as Governor Gregoire's politics have -- allegedly -- been intertwined with her husband's business, it seems to me that Mr. Gregoire, perhaps more than any other gubanatorial spouse, is in need of a stand-alone page.
6. Let it be known, I couldn't give a mouse's backside about Mr. Gregoire. But the same is true of my interest in Dolly Madison, Nicole Brown Simpson and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. We could AfD 'em all, for all I care. But Mr. Gregoire is neither more nor less notable than any of the others. --The Editrix 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Relationship with a notable person does guarentee notablity. In this case, Mr. Gregoire is not notable. --Danielrocks123 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Jolie kid (after more than one AfD under different names) is a redirect to her mom, as are her siblings. Nicole Simpson never would have merited an article alive. I don't see an article for Patty Blagojevich. US First Lady is a very high-profile position. US state governor's spouses generally aren't. Fan1967 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. -- Vary | Talk 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BIO applies, and this person doesn't satisfy the requirements. Marriage to a person who does meet the WP:BIO test does not satisfy the test. If one's notability is entirely dependent on that of another, then that person is not notable. The examples given by The Editrix do not support the thesis that marriage to a "notable" person conveys notability. They are people who have notability in their own right, who have managed to parlay the advantages of being married to a notable person into achieving their own personal notability, or have played a significant role in the reason for their spouse's notability. The interesting trivia that this person is the first "first gentleman" of Washington can be included in Ms. Gregoire's article. Agent 86 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I appreciate the quite civilized defense above. Danny Lilithborne 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. Aplomado talk 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability by marriage and nothing else isn't notability: even Prince Philip's notability is from being a quoteworthy idiot. And to respond to the numbered comments above: irrelevant; irrelevant to point of being insulting; First Ladies are in the news a LOT, prove it, see first subsection answer, wrong -- try clicking that link, and Hilary Rodham Clinton is an elected US Senator -- asking rhetorical question is bad enough but asking stupid rhetorical questions is far worse; your difficulty in understanding is not our problem; there's not a shred of a breath of a mention of that in the article -- source?; and for someone who doesn't care at all, you've spent a fair number of words ladling out the smokescreen. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Could we be a little more civil please? You could easily have made the point that Mr. Gregoire is not as notable as Senator Clinton without being insulting. Also, princes and dukes (both of which describe Prince Philip) are generally considered notable per se without being quoteworthy, idiots or not. -- Jonel | Speak 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More civil than what? That gaseous snow-job by User:TheEditrix? It seems to me that smarmily insulting people's intelligence is decidely uncivil, no matter how few curse words appear in it. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. While I agree with every point Calton makes, I also agree with Jonel that the points could have been made more kindly. Agent 86, above, managed to make most of the same points without insulting anyone. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to Christine Gregoire--TBCTaLk?!? 02:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The subject is not notable on his own merit. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say being married to a governor is notable, even if the info is a bit sparse. --Transfinite 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be consistent, if this is deleted, I think the other gubernatorial spouses in the category of Spouses of U.S. State Governors should be looked at. Out of 50 states, only 14 other spouses are listed and one, Maria Shriver, is clearly genuinely notable in her own right. The remaining 13 look no more notable than Mr. Gregoire. It seems that people in the other 35 states have not felt the need to create an article for their state's first spouse. Fan1967 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Have no fear, out of fairness to The Editrix and her "why Mike?" ponderings, I intend to bring our other gubernatorial companions to the dancefloor if this is deleted and no-one beats me to it. Deizio talk 03:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other first gentleman doesn't look notable either. Mrs. Taft is barely a stub. A few are judges. Mrs. Bush is the only decent sized article, mainly due to an embarassing incident. Fan1967 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being married to a governor on its own is not notable. The idea of notability by marriage or relation is a bad one.--Prosfilaes 03:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Christine Gregoire, this guy is certainly not notable on his own merits. --Deville (Talk) 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. ILovePlankton 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for a standalone page Artw 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we needed to list the spouse of every politician, WP would be twice as big. WP:BIO --Alphachimp talk 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the wife as per Jolie concensus). He did nothing of note himself. Mrs. Clinton was a First Lady (high position) and even if she wasn't I think she was notable on other grounds than marrying Bill (either authorship or charity work). - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wife per MacGyverMagic (or, second choice, Delete per Agent 86, Calton, et al). AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria, but no predjudice against a redirect to Christine Gregoire if that is consensus.--Isotope23 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable -->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete appears to fail WP:BIO.--Andeh 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keephe's the first person to be married to a female governor in the state. keep it.---User:Jwinter2006 23 June 2006 (UTC)
<fireworks>*Hi there! Enjoying your first day on Wikipedia?</fireworks> Deizio talk 11:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. No importance to him personally. Juansmith 23:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. I wouldn't merge it. He is not notable himself and there should be some privacy for non-notable pepople. --MarkS (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but it does not pass WP:BIO.--Tdxiang 08:38, 27 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 18:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepaway Camp Films Forums[edit]

Serves only to promote its subject, which is non-notable. Sleepaway Camp (film series) seems notable enough to me. - Richardcavell 00:19, 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. Deizio talk 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Breastwick[edit]

No evidence of notability. Just another vague soft-core porn flick. Delete along with the redirect The Wicthes of Breastwick. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 22,200 google hits, seems notable enough. ILovePlankton 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is now. The article is absolutely horribly written, and if there's any notability, it's not asserted. --Coredesat 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a synopsis of a porno. Uh.......................................................... --Alphachimp talk 06:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Seems notable enough? WTF? This is crap. Erik the Rude 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Something about your comment just keeps me laughing. --Alphachimp talk 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I'm inclined to ask for userfication since this must be the most riveting synopsis I've ever read. Was this guy typing with his left hand? ~ trialsanderrors 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sorry for playing Devil's advocate here, but this is no different from any of the other film entries we get. It's got an IMDB entry. Last time I checked icnlusion guidelines for films weren't that strict and we should be any harder on porn flicks. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It wouldn't matter if this weren't a porn movie. The problem here is that this article is just a synopsis, and nothing more. No notability is asserted anywhere in it. --Coredesat 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete appallingly badly written and no notability.--Anthony.bradbury 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As good or even better than our other porn movie articles. --JJay 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is simply a synopsis with no notability given. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability Eluchil404 05:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is the article written in present-tense broken English, but it contains virtually no information about the movie whatsoever, just an unneccessarily detailed summary. Even if the film has notability, I seriously doubt that there can be enough information about it to write a Wikipedia article about it (I mean a real artilce, not the one that currently exists).

205.188.116.133 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think the description of the movie as "pornographic" may be confusing things. Though I have not seen it, I think it might be better described as erotic horror or softcore. The director and at least some of the performers are known genre stalwarts and the movie has several reviews by known review sites such as DVD Talk http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0478833/externalreviews The Amazon sales ranking is not especially high or low [1] Шизомби 07:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable movie, sorry.--Tdxiang 08:42, 27 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp El Har[edit]

Delete. This camp is not notable. It has been de-prodded by the original creator. --Danielrocks123 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: ugh, more summer camps? I say "weak" because this gets a lot of Google hits, although they all seem to be directory listings. Melchoir 01:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.hi, i did d-prodd it, and i apologize, i was new and didn't really know the right procedure for stuff, it won't happen again. but, no, i don't think it should be deleted. i think it is note-worthy, even though it's not the most significant piece of information. it could use some expansion. Lastofthetribe 20:20, 16 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, Danielrocks123 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you realize that the above links to a google search for "Camp". Boy oh boy, I'm really convinced now! Above user put up 136 hits for "Camp el har" and "harlin roper", while the "camp el har" search gives [2] 6400 hits, some of which refer to a planned "camp el har" project in Uganda. Most are listings or individual's opinions of the camp. Notability is beyond obscure. Pascal.Tesson 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. Zero news hits, Google hits seem to be mostly job postings. ~ trialsanderrors 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stictly average summer camp. I don't see a compelling case for an article here.--Isotope23 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete Article is not verified. Off the top of my head, my former employer Camp William Hinds is older. Checking online it is past its 75th anniversary now. It is a BSA camp. Many of the early BSA Councils opened camps in the first few years of their existence and they would thus be over 70 years now. I suspect that there are plenty of old summer camps. Even the article limits the claim to "first ... independent Christian camp in Texas" - which makes me think there were non-independent Christian camps in Texas before them, and probably also camps that were not explicitly Christian. GRBerry 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Later Comment Discussion with User:BigDT at another summer camp's AFD has led me to think that the most relevant criteria is the proposed draft at WP:ORG. This article fails to meet it because it doesn't use third party sources to establish notability. GRBerry 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, summer camps are almost always non-notable and there is nothing special about this one and the fact that it is unverified only makes it worse. -- Kjkolb 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, just another camp. Inner Earth 10:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but only if cleaned up and verified.--Anthony.bradbury 13:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep been established for a long time so has some history that could be expanded on. Needs to be expanded though.--MarkS (talk) 19:26, 26 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. -- Longhair 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy's pizza[edit]

Delete. Non-notable restaurant --Danielrocks123 00:32, 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. Deizio talk 12:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Philosophy[edit]

Not notable as per WP:WEB Phileas 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (and second nominee in a row that misuses apostrophes - I am probably doing too much proofreading in real life right now and probably should go on a break). Agent 86 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. Not the least notable forum I've ever voted to delete, but still doesn't pass WP:WEB. -- Vary | Talk 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is. Article not written in NPOV style also at all. Lsjzl 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 63,379 [3]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, and it seems like an Ad to me. --WinHunter (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per WP:WEB ILovePlankton 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NPOV. Considering how much this nomination has been vandalized, I'm sad that I can't suggest speedy deletion. --Coredesat 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some research, I'm going to try this anyway. Speedy delete, as the creator of the article (Centripetal Farce) has been vandalizing this AfD debate. --Coredesat 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another obscure forum fails WP:WEB --Alphachimp talk 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It fails WP:WEB, is also has an Alexa rank: 63,379 (though that's not as a crashingly awful as some that come through AFD) - Motor (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its Alexa rank might warrant an external link in Philosophy, but not a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor spent a lot of time vandalising user pages and has been temp. blocked. Just a note. Lsjzl 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete, or if some people strongly want to keep the content, merge. It certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Anand 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Wep 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: This article was created by the screenname of a user banned from the I Love Philosophy web forums who has a grude to bear against the administration of said website. This entry as of 24-Jun-20006 was not representative of the actual website in question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdv (talk • contribs) 17:06, June 24, 2006
  • note: The user banned from said forums did not create this out of a grudge. In fact, they bear no grudge whatsoever toward the administration of I Love Philosophy. The article was created out of satire in an attempt to get a laugh out of other forum members, something that it has succeeded in doing. Centripetal Farce18:34, June 24, 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. Sango123 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerances versus preferences[edit]

This article appears to be original research and a personal essay, and hence not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have seen no evidence that the phrase "Tolerances versus preferences" is widely used in any field, and a request on the talk page in October 2005 asking for references has not brought any positive response. The only users who have substantially contributed new material to the article or supported it in the talk page are the banned User:JRR Trollkien, the banned user user:EntmootsOfTrolls, and the original anonymous contributor, also banned (who could well in fact be the same individual as the two banned users, based on the editing history). Enchanter 00:50, 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. Deizio talk 12:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalyptic Media[edit]

Not notable, appears to be somewhat vanity (incognito appears to be a user) Gnewf 00:53, 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 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors For Arms[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a band, just like all other acticles on bands on Wikipedia. They have 3 EP releases and an upcoming album in 2007 on Lobster Records, that has great sources for promotion and is one of the bigger indie lables. No reason to delete. They deserve a right on wikipedia like everyone else! AWilhelmPetter 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't dig up anything that would suggest any notability. Aplomado talk 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point I can find nothing that shows me they are notable. DrunkenSmurf 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MUSIC says notable if released 2 or more albums on a notable record company, and theirs both has a page, and according to that page, seems to have released things from some other notable groups. Seems to me this satisfies "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Not saying keep just yet cause I don't really know anything about them, the label, or anything, but it appears to me to qualify. If I could ask the above why they felt it did not? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep in mind that WP:MUSIC is a guidline not a hardfast rule and editors may look for more than just meeting a part of this guideline when making their decision. In this case, it should be noted that the group has not yet released an album on Lobster Records, they released the prior ones by themselves as far as I can tell. In addition, I personally look for independent reviews of released albums and/or of a performance. Currently this band's album will not be "dropping" until next year and their current tour has a bunch of TBA's as to where they will be playing next. Based on these factors I feel they are not yet notable, although I certainly wish them luck. DrunkenSmurf 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable signee on a notable label, both reported on relevant sites, national tour (hey, we have Barbara Streisand on the site, and she doesn't even tour!). ;) Parsssseltongue 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot find that Lobster Records is a major label or even an Indie with a notable roster. It should probably be deleted as non-notable too. Can some links be provided to support this claim? -Thanks Nv8200p talk 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lobster Records has Yellowcard on the roster. DrunkenSmurf 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they were on Lobster. Article says they are on Capitol -Nv8200p talk 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over_It used to be on Lobster Records. They would be nowhere without Lobster Records and look where they are now. I know the guys in Anchors For Arms. They have written 8 songs and will be recording a debute full length in September and it will be released on Lobster Records in early 2007. This is a keep! AWilhelmPetter 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Read the article more carefully. They are "currently signed to Lobster Records". Their previous releases are all listed as "Independant", which can mean anything from myspace to selling CDs out of the trunk of their car. It does not appear that they in fact have released anything on a major label yet. Many bands sign with record companies, but end up not releasing an album, or they do and it sells 37 copies. Doesn't appear they're there yet. Fan1967 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not looking to argue... just want it on the record: Wiki editors/admin need to loosen their policy on record releases. The business is very different now. Maybe I'll write an essay on it sometime. :) In the meantime... and though I'm certainly an [eventualist]... the fact that they're signed, as well as their touring, is notable enough for MY vote. Parsssseltongue 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, barely any useful information in the article. --Coredesat 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Lobster Records is big in the southwest/california; Indie releases that result in label signing is good enough for me (and I'm a bandeletionist) Teke 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't really see much that they're doing notably, other than the semi-notable label as referenced above. --Alphachimp talk 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that only relying an a assumed "2 record minimum rule" is not a good idea, but this band's only claim to fame appears to be being signed with Lobster Records. They've not yet toured or released anything with a label, the work they released themselves doesn't seem to have gotten any awards and they fail every other WP:MUSIC criterion there is. I don't think there's anything else notable in the article that warrant us to step away from the criteria listed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:46, 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 Delete. Deizio talk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GOOP[edit]

Protologism? Seems to have something to do with a GameFAQs sub-board. Was de-prodded by an anon. Prod justification was "A dictionary definition but not a widely-used phrase. No real claim for notability." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vary (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 delete. Sango123 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draglide[edit]

Non-notable webforum Artw 01:06, 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. Sango123 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Trading Card Game[edit]

Non-notable fancruft.--Zxcvbnm 01:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With only 39 Google hits, this doesn't seem like a game well known to the general public. joturner 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also due to lack of Google results it seems to be fan-made, not an official TCG--TBCTaLk?!? 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ðra
  • Delete per above. --WinHunter (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable (I've played Halo for a while and I've never heard of this). --Coredesat 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --Alphachimp talk 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. As TBC correctly noted, there's nothing official about this (that in itself doesn't determine notability, but this is non-notable fan-created material). — TKD::Talk 09:24, 27 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Gillen[edit]

Non notable game journalist. Nothing substantial has changed since the last version of this article, which was deleted for non-notability. ScottNestle 01:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: KsprayDad 01:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, worked on a couple of notable magazines and website (such as PC Gamer and Eurogamer), high amount of Google results [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, working on a couple of notable magazines does not necessarily make one notable. --Coredesat 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite notable magazines, he hasn't done anything that notable --Alphachimp talk 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough - plenty of google hits, a couple of google news hits, reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes [6] and seems to write for Guardian Unlimited.[7] Also mentioned in a NY Times article. [8]. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks notable enough to me. // Gargaj 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although working for a notable magazine does not make on notable, I would say it helps a lot. Add to that the gooogle results, and I think this qualifies as notable. Viridae 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the musical is produced he will be notable. Note that the article cites no references, and of the three external links, two are Gillen's own sites and one of which was "originally written by Gillen." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. Re Google hits: Google Web results are dicey because they are easily inflated by SEO, self promotion, bloggers scratching each others' backs, etc. The check I like to use is Google Groups. For "normal" queries, Google Groups typically yields in the ballpark of 1/4 to 1/10 as many hits as Google Web. In this case, the search yields only 31 hits, not convincing. And he gets no hits at all in Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authorial Comment - Er... people keep on forwarding this to me telling its been up for deletion a few times, so thought I should actually say a piece to try and get it sorted one way or another. I'd write up the entry myself, as it's clearly not up to par, but I really hate the ego-ification of Wikipedia: subjects clearly shouldn't write their own entry. Why did someone think me worth listing? I'd guess it was because I was the gentleman who coined the phrase New Games Journalism, which *does* have its own entry and kind of precipitated the whole debate about games journalism that's bubbled along for the last two years and annoyed just about everyone (Which is why I was cited in that New York Times Article, a few other hefty academic books, the occasional academic course and get invited to go speak at conferences and such - I started a "movement", God Damn Me). As far as I was aware, I was the first guy who won a real world award for his games writing back in 2000 when I won the PTC Best New Specialist Journalist award (Against people from the NME, New Scientist, Health and Fitness, etc). I've written for videogames, such as the script for the game Chaos League. Comics wise, god knows how Phonogram will be taken, but it's already had noted creators like Warren Ellis say that it's one of the top three singles of the year. And working for magazine-wise, I've worked for Wired, The Guardian newspaper (Where I wrote the first long-form videogame review in a mainstream newspaper ever), Edge, PC Gamer, Games Developer, Develop, MCV, Gamesmaster, PC Format and far too many others. Hopefully that's enough stuff to sort it out one way or another and stop people mailing me about it. In terms of comments on the entry, I don't think either Commercial Suicide or Kenickie.com are really that relevant. Generally speaking, keep up the good work. Wikipedia remains one of the marvels of the modern world. [Kieron Gillen] 18:00 21 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment no strong opinion one way or another (and from the looks of it my opinion wouldn't change things either way), and I've never heard of Mr. Gillen before the AfD, but it is damn refreshing to see someone who isn't violating WP:VAIN, screaming that the article about them is up for deletion, and actually takes the time to list sources and make a case per WP:BIO. Kudos to to you Kieron.--Isotope23 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. Wikipedia does need to have standards, and it should be beyond an individual's ego. If my entry was written to the same quality as my old comrade's Stuart Campbell's it wouldn't be an issue. -- Kieron 22:00 21 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment Kudos to you Kieron for the same reasons as above. Could you possibly provide some links to sources for editors of the article? Leave them on the articles talk page. Thanks. Viridae 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a "person achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Key player in the NGJ movement, as well as cartoon artist. Anthropax 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enought, especially per Stumason. --David.Mestel 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whoa. If he wasn't notable before, that unWP:VAIN comment above (per Isotope) oughta make him notable. -The Editrix
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep He has a long history in publishing and if he can provide more information to help us flesh out his biography then that is all to the good. (Emperor 14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. I dare say that this guy is notable enough. Plus I give him points for weighing in on the debate in a gentlemanly fashion. Green451 17:45, 27 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 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nukefilms[edit]

Vanity. -- Barrylb 01:43, 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. Sango123 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Stations![edit]

Non-notable fanzine. As with several other fanzines the page seems well intentioned enough, but the basic purpose seems to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. ScottNestle 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Only 72 relevant Google results [9].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the article is writing about something that doesnt exist... not notable. --Alphachimp talk 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The book exists, and has been reviewed on several websites, and in print media and alongside the creator's professional work. I also mentioned in the Pony School 'articles for deletion' discussion that the user who nominated the article for deletion may have ulterior motives stemming from personal animosity towards the creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:47, 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 deleted, CSD-A3. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhirubhai Ambani International School, Mumbai[edit]

Empty article, no clues as to notability of school, if any. ScottNestle 01:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would seem to fit CSD A3 as the article currently stands. Compare, however, to History::The British School, Panchkula by the same creator; started off as three words ("The British School") and is now a full-fledged article (albeit with POV problems, essentially a single editor, and no incoming links). -- Jonel | Speak 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A3, virtually blank article. --Coredesat 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete it's somewhat empty. --Alphachimp talk 06:19, 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. Sango123 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 Avenue Rd[edit]

Blow-by-blow description of a Toronto bus route -- not a particularly long route, either, thank goodness. Was prod'ed, but tag removed with comment, Not appropriate for PROD...there have been deleiton debates regarding bus route notability (see Wellesley College Senate Bus)...so arguably analogous disputable notability here. It's a city bus route -- that's it. Calton | Talk 01:57, 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. Sango123 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the machine (technology)[edit]

Dicdef article, not written well and does not differentiate between fact and fiction.--Zxcvbnm 02:14, 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 delete. Sango123 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Evening with Joe - Stalin The Musical[edit]

Non-notable play made by Cambridge students. Gota shot at the Edinburgh Fringe Fest, and that appears to have been that. Twenty-eight Google hits, all told, and they all seem to be notices regarding the original Fringe or Uni performances. Calton | Talk 02:19, 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 G7, author has requested deletion and was the only contributor  RasputinAXP  c 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Steven Gao Controversy[edit]

The article is about an incident that is not particularly notable concerning an otherwise unnotable individual. No widespread fame of the incident or lasting implications. The salient points of the article have already been included at Cherry Hill High School East—and sufficiently covered in one paragraph—so no further merge is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thank you. I would like to say keep. THis isn't small news, it made international (To some degree) news. --Adam Wang 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclosure: The above editor is the primary editor for the article's content. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Calm down people, I made it for my cousin. Delete if you want. --72.1.206.12 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


*If you want to keep it, then why did you nominate it for AfD? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I nominated the article; Adam chimed in before I could finish posting the nomination. For clarity's sake, my position remains delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a news story. Like when CNN shows a bear stuck in a tree. It has overstated significance. AdamBiswanger1 02:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Cherry Hill High School East. This "controversy" was limited to that school and its local community. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think anybody would be searching for "The Steven Gao controversy", so I see no need to keep it as a redirect. I don't even think Steven Gao is a likely enough search term to have it as a redirect; I would favor that redirect being deleted if the article is deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for people to air their personal grievances about minor High School incidents. Does not rise to the level of a Wikipedia article. Gwernol 03:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN, vanity; I must admit that it is hard to find the words to describe just how non-notable this is. This sort of thing happens at every high school every couple of years. --Deville (Talk) 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prank turned slightly sour, except the kid everyone will have forgotten this within a year. Hence, non-notable. -- Koffieyahoo 05:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOV, WP:NFT (well, it was a school prank), and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above + this quote This was not a minor high school thing Um. Yes. It was. --Alphachimp talk 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POV, WP:NN, WP:NFT, WP:HORRIBLE SPELLING ... This entire episode reflects upon the stuborness and inefficiency of the Cherry Hill School Board. Say no more. ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete con fuoco. I was trying to be nice when I redirected it.  RasputinAXP  c 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. TomTheHand 16:19, 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. Sango123 19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Really Good Man[edit]

Non-notable "independent" film. The article originally read "...the film recieved little attention..." -- which the one (1) Google hit for the title seems to bear out. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed with the comment Correction of "non-important" status and added claim that it's "a bit of underground favorite in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas".

See also characters from this film:

-- Calton | Talk 02:28, 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 deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phat Gun[edit]

Non-notable -Nv8200p talk 02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I wish Phat Gun all the best, but currently he is not notable and this article provides no assertion of notability or evidence of such. DrunkenSmurf 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Phat Gun--TBCTaLk?!? 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and "give me a break" Batman2005 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nn and qualify for {{db-bio}}--WinHunter (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Article is also vanity and contains crystal-balling. --Coredesat 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright Phat Gun@2006 Artw 06:07, 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 deleted by Kjkolb - Richardcavell 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 color rebellion[edit]

non-notable blog, fails WP:WEB. This article has been deleted before. AdamBiswanger1 03:04, 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. With only 4 editors calling for deletion, it was never in danger of being deleted. There was a majority in favour of keeping as opposed to merging. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Load Letter[edit]

  • See first AfD.
  • Delete. I don't believe that a single error message on a certain brand of printers fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements. It was briefly used as a joke in a single movie, but the joke is adequately described in that movie's article. — Mike • 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to LaserJet or Office Space--TBCTaLk?!? 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interestingly, I went to this page just the other day, and found it suprisingly informative! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnewf (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 June 2006.
  • Merge per TBC. --Coredesat 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with re-write to remove uncited "commentary". While notable in its connection to Office Space, the phrase has a separate and verifiable basis, which is beyond the scope of the film article-- similar to TPS report. It might be noted that the phrase "PC Load Letter" generates over 74,000 entries on Google (as opposed to a few hundred for other HP printer error codes). This article has been cited for interest on Digg.com; the phrase has been used as the name of a Seattle band; on [www.cafepress.com/shopmmp/532199 t-shirts]; and as a common rant by tech bloggers: [11], [12], [13]. --LeflymanTalk 06:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Agent 86 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Leflyman. I don't believe it will be as useful of an article as a part of a larger one. PCLL has equal (ir)relevance to both Office Space and HP blahblahJet printers, it stands out as its own concept. hateless 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a printer error message, FFS. -- GWO
  • Keep. As well as being well-embedded in Internet popular culture, I think the "Office Space" references are sufficient to bring it within WP:NEO. Tevildo 11:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Leflyman. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Office Space. Its presence on digg and some blogs does not indicate notability... because all of that is related to Office Space. It really is just a printer error message, albeit one with slightly higher profile than most. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a printer error message, true, but not just any.... Well written and has sources. I'd say merge to the appropriate printer article, but it seems to cover multiple printers. Merging it to the Office Space article isn't right either. (It doesn't make sense to propose a merge as TBC does, if you can't say exactly where, cleanly... that's an argument that, if notable enough, the article needs to stand alone) It should stand on its own. Keep or, if you must, merge but then make sure that ALL the other articles that reference it are properly corrected to point to the right section of whereever it ends up. Not a delete comment in any way shape or form. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how being well written makes it any more of a valid subject. Viridae 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't. However we sometimes use as an argument for delete "This topic needs an article, but this one here under consideration isn't it, it's not well written and reflects badly on WP and there is no evidence anyone has worked on it lately to make it better...", thinking that it is better not to have any article than a very poor one. The comment was addressing that argument, should it be raised (which it hasn't been). Sorry for lack of clarity. The key point is that this term is notable enough to merit an article, or some exposition, and trying to force fit it somewhere won't work well, too many different places reference it. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd argue the opposite here. This is a well written, well sourced but completely pointless, unencyclopedic article. And pointless & unencyclopedic trumps everything. -- GWO
          • Perhaps to some individuals, particular those who may not be "tech-minded", the phrase might appear pointless; but then, aren't any number of obscure topics which are uninteresting/unknown to the masses also "pointless"? In this case, the phrase is a meme of a cultural significance within a certain "in the know" group -- so much so, that it's referenced in a song written for System Administrator Appreciation Day: "He's the only one in the office who knows what PC Load Letter means." (by Canadian comedy troupe, Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie)--LeflymanTalk 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • the phrase is a meme of a cultural significance within a certain "in the know" group -- You can't have cultural significance and be restricted to a tiny clique. That makes no sense. -- GWO
            • Of course it does. Sub-cultures are a common enough phenomenon, particularly on the Internet. See also: In-joke, Internet meme and The Internet and Memetics (1999 paper), which notes, "As Internet culture develops and moves farther from real-world culture, it becomes harder, not necessarily to gain access, but to join in effectively once access is gained... those who do may not share the technical and cultural interests of those with access."--LeflymanTalk 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see that being badly written would push an article over the edge to be deleted, but I don't think it applies in the reverse situation. Yes the article is well written, but that doesnt overide that fact that its about an error code on a printer. Most of the notability seems to be attributed to its uses for a joke in a movie - in which case, it should have a short mention in the movie's page. However when voting merge, I am not reffering to the entire article. A short description of what it is and what it means followed by its significance as a cultural reference spawned by that movie. If neccesary, redirect the page when it has been deleted to the movie's page. In fact, I am adding Redirect to my vote. Viridae 01:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and Redirect to Office Space. See the comment above for change of vote reason. Wiki is not a tech manual or here to diagnose problems with electronic equipment. If there isn't a mention of it in the relevant movie's page, then add a short reference. Viridae 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point here is not the diagnosis itself, but rather that HP missed the mark in developing this term for not thinking globally enough. That miss is (within limited scope) culturally significant given how widespread it is, and it has entered popular culture (again, within limited scope). Doesn't really belong on the movie page in my view, rather with the relevant printer (but which one? it applies to many) Hence not mergable. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you clarify what you mean by "but rather that HP missed the mark in developing this term for not thinking globally enough."? Viridae 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lar below. I would support a merge; however, as noted below, there are multiple merge targets possible, and there is enough content here to support its own article. Note: I had to put this at the top because some unknown glitch cut off the edit window about halfway through the section. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 18:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
moved from above; and reverted accidentally deleted comments--LeflymanTalk 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - PC Load Letter? What the $%#@ does that mean? Notable just from the Office Space cultural reference ... BigDT 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge where appropriate. If it is notable for being in Office Space then that is where the mention belongs. If there is a band with that name—and there are numerous bands named after all sorts of common or clever phrases—then if the band is notable it will have its own article. Note that the main reason it gets more hits (which without office space references is about 30,000, not 70,000) is that it is a much more common error than for example "PC Load Legal" or "PC Load A4", because Letter-sized paper is far more common. "Paper jam", which gets more than 300,000 hits, does not have an article. —Centrx→talk 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does warrant an article. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Weak keep, primarily because, as Lar said, there isn't a very good merge target available. BryanG(talk) 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 04:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MikeWazowski 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Laserjet or similar, with a see also of some kind to Office Space from there. Centrx makes a good point about "paper jam", but even though this is wringing notability out of being in a movie, it's still a printer term and that's where it should be redirected. Deizio talk 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is actually quite informative, and has a lot of (good) information that wouldn't really be appropriate to an Office Space section. Many of the other Office Space-related articles (TPS Report, etc) have their own article, and this definitely falls into the same category. 69.255.20.212 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. The above is me, I forgot to log in... again. Dark Shikari 03:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was quite informative and was around long before the movie Office Space Beholdthenightmare 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please add new votes to the bottom of the page. ViridaeTalk 01:43, 28 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 a clear nonsense page. If this guy really is 13 yrs old and has a Vietnamese name, well he wouldn't look like a fully grown African American. The account in question is a borderline vandalism-only accountBlnguyen | rant-line 03:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quang Tran[edit]

Non-notable, bogus information Travelbird 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be a hoax page, no verifable information. DrunkenSmurf 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verfication or notability. Additionally, the creator removed the AfD notice and vandalized Travelbird. Teke 03:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pitiable grasp for thug status. Danny Lilithborne 03:27, 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 - another nonsense/vandalism page from a borderline-vandalism account which has been blocked for a week. The article names Quang Tran as Sumter, South Carolina baddest gangster, a bit of contradiction as in the other nonsense article that I speedied, he is apparently from Denver, is 13 with a Vietnamese name, but apparently looks like a fully-grown African-American man. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumter, South Carolina baddest gangster[edit]

Non-notable, most probably a hoax, no Google hits Travelbird 03:16, 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 (equally split between merging and keeping, but the article was never in danger of being deleted). Kimchi.sg 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lumbergh[edit]

  • Delete. The article in question contains no references, and is largely original research opinions based on editors' viewings of the movie. The article mostly recounts plot points within Office Space that involve the character, and, for that, the movie article can suffice. As it stands, the character itself is enjoyably comic, but is not notable enough to merit his own article apart from the main article (note, also, that no other character in the movie appears to have a separate article devoted to him or her). — Mike • 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Probably the most notable character in the movie, but nothing that a redirect to a section on Office Space can't handle. Danny Lilithborne 03:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Office Space and Delete. The pop reference in Family Guy is the only decent, sourceable, non-subjective info here, and that doth not a notable character make. Deizio talk 03:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Deiz. Also of note, this article is a good nine months old. I'd call that "falling through the cracks", neh? --Deville (Talk) 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mike and Deiz. WP:FICT states that major characters in major works should only recieve articles if the page becomes too long. So far, it really hasn't. AdamBiswanger1 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup References can be added and this page is not beyond saving. I don't see a reason to delete it there are pages about people from harry potter and star trek. MichaelBillington 05:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you're comparing this film to two of the biggest in the history of cinema? - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make that merge. WP:FICT states that characters like this person do not deserve a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Lumbergh has become a significant cultural icon in American corporate culture. Someone needs to spend the time referencing the article, but that won't be difficult; there is plenty of commentary that has been published about this character. Even Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons has his own article. Gary_the_Snail of Spongebob has his (its?) own article. Googling the word Lumbergh gives 147,000 hits, of which the Wikipedia entry is fourth. Urban Dictionary has entries showing the term Lumbergh has become a generic term for a bad boss. dryguy 12:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Office Space is a very significant movie in popular culture, and this character is a large part of the reason why, and is significant enough to merit an article of its own. If kept, the article needs better sourcing and evidence of notability. Keep or Merge (not to be considered as a delete comment in any case) ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Office Space. It's a great film and character, but it does not justify its own article. What urbandictionary says is irrelevant. - Motor (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you could just go ahead and Merge this to Office Space, That'd be great.--Isotope23 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The character has become a cultural icon. He's the Bart Simpson of Office Space. If you could just leave this one alone, that'd be great. --The Editrix 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep warrants an article--->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep per last few comments. MikeWazowski 04:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above Scented Guano 04:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect. Non-notable character. Deltabeignet 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dryguy. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect as per that WP:FICT thing. As long as the actual merge is done, instead of most "merge's" where the page just gets redirected and none of the information gets passed on. SECProto 01:19, 25 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. Kimchi.sg 16:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies[edit]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Furthermore, articles should not consist of "[m]ere collections of internal links." — Mike • 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See also Category:Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. -- Jonel | Speak 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice towards recreation if the recreation actually describes what it is, rather than just the list. The category should not be deleted. Also, most list articles are collections of internal links, and WP:NOT doesn't disallow that, it disallows collections of external links. --Rory096 05:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it stands, the article is an indiscriminate collection of information. There's no description of exactly what it is. --Coredesat 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no major problem with the cat, but the list contravenes WP:NOT. Deizio talk 13:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - contains zero context. If it had year, director, country etc. I'd love to see it kept. Deizio talk 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete it, and we have other similar pages elsewhere. --Bachrach44 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's just no actual content. It's better off restarted. --Rory096 20:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bravo (television network) and link to the list from there, then delete. We don't want to be violating copyright on someone else's list (see the history of the Blender (magazine) article). This should not be counted as a keep. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Copying an editorial ranking produced by a commercial entity is uncomfortably close to copyright infringement. Can it be demonstrated that this is fair use of the information? — RJH (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And would the ranking be worth the fair use claim considering that we have the (unranked) fully-populated category? -- Jonel | Speak 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial and probably a copyvio. Calsicol 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - uh... Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_21#Category:Bravo.27s_100_Funniest_Movies; "listify" has actually been suggested there... -- Jonel | Speak 02:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is pretty funny. The feeling at CFD seems to be that only the most important groupings ought to be Categories. Just imaging if every movie ranking were a Category, how many Categories would be at the bottom of articles about famous movies. So in general, if you guys don't think something should be a list, don't suggest that it be a Category, because at CFD they're suggesting just the opposite. --JeffW 03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A "[m]ere collections of internal links" is a pretty good description of most "List of" articles. --JeffW 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, If I understand your vote correctly you're in violation of WP:POINT. You clearly know the policy, know this list contravenes it but are voting to keep. Yes, there are many bare lists on WP, and yes, they are all anti-policy. Doesn't mean you get to keep the ones you like just because so many others haven't been brought to the dancefloor yet. Deizio talk 11:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the policy and I don't think it was meant to apply to a list like this. Is the problem that there is nothing but the links? I believe that if you read the top of the AfD page it says something like you shouldn't propose an article for deletion if it can be made into a valid article with a little work. --JeffW 15:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not why I believe the internal links clause is outdated and should be deleted. --JeffW 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are pure "lists" on the delete list? To those who say delete, its funny because I ony saw part of the special a few months back and my FIRST reaction was to go to WP and see what the entire list was and compare it to the AFI list (which is also on WP). Schnu 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --subjective, pointless and stupid don't even begin to describe it's inclusion. --Bobak 23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless. Freddie Message? 23:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (list and category), but not merely on the principal of "Not a collection of links" -- rather, the fact that this is based on work of a particular for-profit enterprise, makes it copyrighted, and thus presentation of "such a "Bravo's list" would be a copyvio -- since there's no Fair Use argument for its inclusion on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as numerous critics of this list point out, there's no clear criteria for its organisation, making it further, non-notable. (See discussions at: RottenTomatoes.com, TelevisionWithoutPity.com) In contrast, however, I'd suggest that the American Film Institute's top 100 comedies of the last 100 years would be notable, and appropriate for an article/list; it is newsworthy and based on a nomination/voting system: "AFI distributed a ballot with 500 nominated films to a jury of 1800 leaders from the film community, including film artists (directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers, etc.), critics, historians and film executives."--LeflymanTalk 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this is considered notable, notes can be made on the relevant movie pages. Category handles this much better, IMHO, since there is very little addition information in the list. I.e. no context, thematic categorization, descriptions, or entries that don't have their articles. Eluchil404 05:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Encyclopedic Canderra 17:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Greasysteve13 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've got the Rolling Stone list of greatest guitarists of all time and numerous other lists. Plus, we can always add other information to it to better the article. Nothing a little editing can't fix :). Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this list is referred to in an article, its very mention would be insignificant enough to merit reversion. Not as indescriminate as others that I have seen but still non-notable and not worthy of inclusion. -- Alias Flood 02:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this page interesting and a good reference for similar movies. It may be a "mere collection of links" but it is a useful collection of links. --203.1.248.11 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such policy as Wikipedia:Interestingness. Merely finding an article interesting isn't sufficient reason under Wikipedia policy to keep it around. — Mike • 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also no such policy as AfD voting rights for anons. Deizio talk 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there is no "voting rights" for anyone, as AfD isn't a vote-- however it's up to the closing admin whether to heed comments presented by anonymous users. As noted in the Guide to Deletions, "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion... As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous."--LeflymanTalk 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no real need for such a page. Seems like a waste of space at best, as interesting as it is. (besides, Animal House is overrated). The Son Of Nothing 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is only a small step down from 100 Greatest Britons; its deletion proposal looked very different. --BDD 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (That said, it definitely needs some work. Background on how the list was compiled, at a bare minimum, is necessary. Perhaps my keep should be altered to be weak or qualified.) --BDD 23:43, 27 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 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snape's Worst Memory[edit]

While I'm a fan of the series and edit some of the Harry Potter pages, this particular article is beyond fancruft. It's non-encyclopaedic, unless the encyclopaedia was the Encyclopaedia Potteriana, which it isn't. We don't need an entire article dedicated to one chapter of one Harry Potter book. There are plenty of online resources where this type of thing would be great; this isn't one of them. Exploding Boy 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too am a fan of the series, frequent contributor and member of the HP Project, I have to agree that this article should be nuked. If this article resulted in keep it would only open the flood gates for countless articles dedicated to individual HP chapters, which would piss the community off and only hinder the HP Project. Therefore Delete and if necessary merge any reusable bits into the main articles i.e. Severus Snape or Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that merging requires us to keep the edit history of the article by either a history merge or redirecting. If we merge, deleting the history is against the GFDL requirements. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Order of the Phoenix/Chapter 28 if the Wikibooks "Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter" want it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to expand upon this, the article title is the same as Chapter 28 of "Order of the Phoenix", and the contents describe this chapter in detail. Hence, my proposed Transwiki target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Death Eater Dan. --Coredesat 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Kedavra this one. It's not encyclopaedic in the slightest, as it does nothing but summarise a single chapter of a book, including lots of quotes that are probably significant copyvios. This page could only justifiably exist if a page for every other chapter of every other Potter book existed, as there's no reason for it to be singled out above the rest. And if a page for every chapter of any book existed, it would be a completely ludicrous state of affairs. Are people likely to search for this chapter title, though? Would a redirect to the main book article be at all worthwhile? Seb Patrick 10:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above if they want it. Merge if it's not in Snape's article yet. Otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. This is an article that no one would ever really look up. Adamc714 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with Severus SnapeAc1983fan (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to snape --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Death Eater Dan. No need to redirect, who would look that up in an encyclopedia? Inner Earth 11:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Seems like a bad idea to have encyclopedia articles about chapters of books. TomTheHand 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Kedavra!! No individual book chapters in our encyclopedia, please. Quite possibly a copyvio as well, which makes any tranwikification seem inappropriate. Grandmasterka 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I love the Harry Potter series, this is too much. Individual chapters do not deserve articles. --Musicpvm 05:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Kedavra per above. Freddie Message? 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The importance of the memory can be briefly explained in Snape's own article. And I do mean briefly, the "and then he said, and then she said, and then..." re-telling on the article being discussed is ridiculous.--RicardoC 00:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Kedavra per nom. AgentPeppermint 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avada Keddavra per nom. ForestH2 21:20, 26 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 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboys[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per imdb[15] and mention in Washington Times[16] article (link is dead, but text is readible enough to signify this article). That seems suficient enough for notability. Yanksox (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Did you even google it? 3.6 million hits! very notable. MichaelBillington 04:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, dear God, I hope you're kidding on that Google reference. — Mike • 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise, a quick look at the results on the first page would indicate they probobly aren't majority about the movie... (vote below) Viridae 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox. --Coredesat 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Yanksox. The nomination does not, for me, provide sufficient reasoning to persuade me that this ought to be deleted. Notability is a concern, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent 86 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. This fan film is very well known and is certainly notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox. I would like to add that if bands can be covered if they contain a musician notable for other reasons, the same should go for fan films (see last line in article). - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete. I misread this and thought Andrew was cast in the film, not as the title monster. And I am ashamed to admit, I forgot to check his IMDB record. If I did, I would've seen only two minor entries and voted delete straight away. - Mgm|(talk) 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think perhaps the nominator did not do his research on this one, as this is pretty clearly notable. Well sourced and well written article that doesn't need improvement, is encyclopedic, and should stay. Given the high traffic in AfD, it is my view that bringing apparently poorly researched nominations here wastes the time of many editors, perhaps needlessly. Keep ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - MichaelBillington's googling technique is silly and I don't buy Mgm's argument. If some barely, if at all, notable actor (playing "the boogeyman" is his most notable film appearance?) is in a film, that doesn't make the film notable in my book. Being listed on IMDB certainly doesn't imply notability. Legitimate media coverage seems limited at best, though I can't really tell how detailed the Washington Times article is of course. Wickethewok 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox. Viridae 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the more well-known and popular fanfilms in the genre. Easily meets WP:WEB. I'm not going to go into the nominator's motives, but his mass listing of articles I created after a recent dispute with him is interesting. TheRealFennShysa 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did not search for page creators when deleting, and one would think if I was in bad faith seeking a "revenge" upon TRFS I would nominate those Wikipedia articles written on TRFS' own fan films, even though they have been acknowledged by Lucasfilm. In fact, I looked only, as I said in my original nomination, for those articles I did not feel made a sufficient enough claim of notability. And, as TRFS has heard me say before, a nomination for deletion is not a deletion itself, merely a statement that the community needs to review this and attempt to come to a consensus as to whether it has a place here. — Mike • 14:53, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Formula (2002)[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it has a link to IMDB, that gives it notability in my standards. MichaelBillington 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, and yet in the very next debate you failed to vote keep on an IMDb-featured topic. Deizio talk 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelBillington. --Coredesat 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelBillington. ILovePlankton 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No claims of notability in the article. Being on IMDB is a terrible argument. Heck, like Sorority Pantyhouse Girls #7 or whatever has articles there. Wickethewok 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability, and would be hard to wring one out. Having an IMDb listing has been shown to be no source of notability, and votes to keep which state that as the sole reason should, imo, be discounted. Deizio talk 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most well-known and popular Star Wars fanfilms in the genre. Easily meets WP:WEB. I'm not going to go into the nominator's motives, but his mass listing of articles that I've either written or contributed to after a recent dispute with him is interesting. TheRealFennShysa 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Responded to at TRFS' identical allegation made here. — Mike • 14:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having an IMDB page is well below wikipedia standards of notability. Just another bored-would-be film maker. What next, wikipedia pages on film student graduation films? Spare us. -- GWO
  • Keep Appears notable enough, with the references it has given. --Wisden17 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to be verifiable. And WP:Notability is an essay, not a guideline/policy. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - While WP:Notability is not a guideline in itself, there are other guidelines reinforcing the concept such as Wikipedia:Notability (music), so I don't think the concept can be just blown off. Just because there is not a specific film guideline doesn't mean you can assume the concept of notability can't be applied here. Wickethewok 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean to imply that notability isn't a sufficient reason to vote delete. However, the fact that there isn't sufficient consensus to make it a guideline also makes it equally valid to vote keep, as well as Wikipedia is not paper. Mainly, I was trying to point out that determining notability in an unbiased way is difficult, so I don't think anyone's opinion on the matter should be discounted. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:26, 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Haynes[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral has a link to IMDB, but doesn't seem to have any real claim to notability. MichaelBillington 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article includes enough information to assert a claim to notability. The external links provided give some support to that. The nomination does not provide sufficient reasoning to persuade me that this ought to be deleted. Notability is a concern, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. Without any other reason than it is not "sufficiently notable", I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Agent 86. --Coredesat 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Fanboys film appears to be notable based on the research some voters did, so it only makes sense to keep the film's director listed as well. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my change of mind on the Fanboys article. - Mgm|(talk) 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per agent 86. ILovePlankton 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is an important criteria, and lack of it is sufficient for deletion, if it's clearly not there. However that is not the case here. Peter is notable for the body of cinematographic work, and for Angels 2200. Not mergable to individual films or to the comic without significant and needless duplication of information, so article should stand alone. Keep ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable filmmaker and artist. TheRealFennShysa 15:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of short films and webcomics. Most of the article is synopses of the films, two of which are themselves not notable enough for articles. —Centrx→talk 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep: An assertion of "not notable" is insufficient grounds for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An bare assertion, by itself, is not, I agree. But if the assertion is supported with evidence of failure to find notability in the expected places, and thus there is good reason to believe the subject is in fact not notable, that is sufficient cause to remove the article. It is my view that Peter Haynes is notable, for several reasons, in several areas, as I outlied above, but notability IS a valid and important thing to measure articles with, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable New Zealand filmmaker. MikeWazowski 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of reliable sources. The only remotely related information from a reputable third-party source that I can find at my library is a 1993 story involving a fire near Mark Hamill's Malibu home that quotes a security guard named Peter Haynes. Note that "Wikipedia:Verifiability [is] non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. ... Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." -- Dragonfiend 15:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - considering that Peter Haynes is a New Zealand filmmaker and his information is easily accessible on the net, you should try your search again. He's listed at NZshortfilm.com (a website specifically about New Zealand filmmakers), a recent article about a New Zealand film festival, a comics news site, and on top of all that, Peter Jackson himself selected Haynes' film Jungle Fever as a wildcard selection in last year's New Zealand 48 Hour Filmmaking Competition. The article may need some re-writing, but the subject is clearly notable. TheRealFennShysa 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Which of those sources do you consider to be "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'm not familiar with splurd.com -- does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It seems to bill itself as "Proof that any retard with a computer can make a webcomic," [17], which doesn't sound like the most reliable source to me, unless we've extended our official verifiablity policy to include "any retard with a computer." -- Dragonfiend 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Interestingly enough, I don't find the text "any retard with a computer" anywhere on that link you provided. Regardless, focus on the "weaker" reference if you want, but the NZ Short film links are the key - it's a major film competition in that county, done with the co-operation of Peter Jackson. I'd say that easily counts as credible. TheRealFennShysa 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Do you see that little box on the left of the splurd site? It apparently loads a random phrase above the "click to read Splurd's comics," one of which is "Proof that any retard with a computer can make a webcomic." Hit "refresh" a few times, and you'll see it. As far as the New Zealand Short film contest goes, they seem to list around 4000 "filmmakers" [18]. Are you suggesting we should have articles on all of these people? I don't think so. What I'm looking for (and what Wikipedia requires) are "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," such as major newspapers, magazines, etc. Not film contest web sites with hundreds or thousands of contestants, or amateur webcomics bloggers. If the security guard near Mark Hammill's house is getting more press than this filmmaker, then we probably shouldn't have an article on this filmmaker. -- Dragonfiend 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • All 4000 entrants? Probably not. Repeat finalist in film contests? That's rather a different bar though. Association with notable people confers (a small dollop) of their notability. Peter Jackson is mega-mega-notable, and his association with Peter Haynes confers (a small dollop) of notability on Peter Haynes. Coupled with the other items cited, enough, in my view, although perhaps not yours. ++Lar: t/c 05:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which "other items cited"? Are any of these "items cited" in "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? -- Dragonfiend 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - More information is required, the article could assert more notability, but at present I don't think that it does. Benjaminstewart05 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment: Just simply believing the world is flat doesn't make it true. Provide evidence of lack of notability. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second vote by individual transmuted into a comment — you can only vote once.
    • Note: Cyberskull, this is your second "Keep" not-a-vote of this discussion. Also, Cyberskull seems to misunderstand the "Burden of evidence" section of our official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. " -- Dragonfiend 13:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Non notable bio. --Kunzite 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since a filmmaker who has made short films of sufficient quality to receive national attention (and a nod from Peter Jackson) counts as notable. I would say the article ought to provide more references for said attention, such as by using the links supplied above. That Wiki should have an article on this person has been argued sufficiently in my view. Xuanwu 21:40, 25 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 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closet Cases of the Nerd Kind[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It won an award from a film festival in a large city. Good enough for me. hateless 07:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (of course!) -- I recall seeing this short years ago, at school, back to back with Hardware Wars. It's a notable and historic early SF spoof. See a brief review at: LowComDom.com and check out the user comments at: IMDB --LeflymanTalk 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability asserted. --Coredesat 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coredesat. ILovePlankton 12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very notable parody film - it was a mainstay in film festivals in the early 80s, and still has commercial distribution. Easily meets notability guidelines. I'm not going to go into the nominator's motives, but his mass listing of articles, quite a few from people he's had recent public disagreements with, is interesting. TheRealFennShysa 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Responded to at TRFS' identical allegation made here. — Mike • 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep The subject of this article seems to carry at least some significant cultural value (and it is certainly old enough to do so). --Charlesxavier 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a classic award-winning short film. Damn funny, too! MikeWazowski 04:19, 22 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 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porklips Now[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per imdb[19], and okay google test[20]. Yanksox (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's definately got some TV play - I remeber seeing it on UK TV back in the 80s, which I guess is an indication of some notability. Also I remember it asbeing kinda funny. Artw 05:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess it's in IMDB. That makes it somewhat notable and credible. --Alphachimp talk 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this is at least marginally notable, per above. --Coredesat 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and IMDB entry doesn't make something notable. After googling, there doesn't appear to be much notability outside of a small group. - Motor (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being in IMDB is not sufficient to establish notability by itself, and the article makes no other claims. Google test [21] does not give good evidence of notability in my view, too many false hits. Delete ++Lar: t/c 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's verifiable (and verified), NPOV and not OR. Those are the three necessary criteria; notability doesn't have as much consensus on Wikipedia as a criterion for inclusion but even there it has enough, I feel, to be included along with 1,000,000+ articles. It's like libraries. The little local one will only have major works in English, works which are likley to be consulted every month, at least. [[[Widener Library]] at Harvard, has 3 million books including shelves of things in Sanskrit or medieval Catalan, works that might be consulted once every half century. Interlingua talk 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable film with national commercial distribution (granted, 25 years ago) from a notable filmmaker. Easily meets notability criteria. TheRealFennShysa 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Weak keep. Gad, I actually remember this from a showing on the local late-night "Creature Features" back in the 80s. But boy, does the article need a buffing-and-polishing. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another classic film parody. Why is the notability on these even being questioned? MikeWazowski 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - along with Hardware Wars is a classic, seminal movie spoof by Ernie Fosselius. --LeflymanTalk 05:38, 22 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 due to withdrawal of nomination. — Mike • 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How the Sith Stole Christmas[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of TheRealFennShysa's citation and scans of the magazine in question, which appears to offer non-trivial detailed coverage, I feel obliged to withdraw my nomination, as I now feel that the article in question satisfies WP:WEB. — Mike • 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable imho --Alphachimp talk 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike some of the other fan-films you've nominated, this one has no assertion of serious notability, no external sources (articles, reports, whatever) that mention it, and no information on any kind of video release. It's just another online fan-film, and as such it ain't worthy. Seb Patrick 10:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability. --Coredesat 10:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It says the finished episodes still need to be released. Fanfilms are generally not worthy of an entry unless they receive recognition from the original creators (for example by receiving an Official Star Wars Fan Film Award. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. ILovePlankton 12:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seb Patrick. But interestingly, googling for "how the sith stole christmas" gets slightly more hits than "Porklips". - Motor (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most well-known and popular Star Wars fanfilms in the genre. Easily meets WP:WEB, which is what arguments SHOULD be based on. TheRealFennShysa 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back that up with relevant links? Did it receive recognition from Lucas? If it did, it's notable and we're done immediately. - Mgm|(talk) 07:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Bracewell never submitted his film to the official Lucasfilm contest, so it was never considered. However, I did unearth something which is even more relevant as far as notability is concerned, and will be updating the article accordingly. Movie Magic Magazine featured this film heavily in the September 2004 issue. Here's a news update on the article from TheForce.net, and since the magazine doesn't appear to have online archives, here are scans of the cover, and the article, page 1 and page 2. As you can clearly see, HTSSC is featured very prominently. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan films are the equivalent of vanity publishing. Only the very best deserve mention. -- GWO
  • Comment - your vanity publishing comment might have merit, were this film being hosted on the filmmaker's own website. However, it's not - I can' t speak for iFilm, but TheForce.net has a rigorous screening process, and does not accept and show everything submitted to it. TheRealFennShysa 16:36, 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. Sango123 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional counter-strike[edit]

Page is promotional, and the subject cannot have its own page unless it is significantly improved and expanded. The subject is also covered by Counter-Strike culture. RoyBoy 800 03:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is solely advertising for a Counter-Strike server. Does not belong on Wikipedia.
  • Delete. Appears to be copied directly from another site (likely the one it links to); it is promotional; it is essentially a strategy guide, and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia; needs a huge amount of wikifying, to the point of complete rewriting. I see no reason to keep this. Even if it was fixed, it still wouldn't belong here. Hargle 04:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COunterstrike-cruft Artw 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert--Alphachimp talk 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. --Coredesat 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't this qualify for a speedy since it is advertising and makes no claims to notability? It's not an article about professional Counter-Strike, it's an article about one Counter-Strike server and it's rules. --Habap 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete - Advert. Benjaminstewart05 20:01, 22 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. Kimchi.sg 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FictionAlley.org[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need an article for every Harry Potter web site out there, the main ones already have established articles and I believe that is quite sufficient. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB --Alphachimp talk 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It certainly comes close enough to several requirements of WP:WEB to merit retention (and some sort of {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} tag). It has been nominated for a Prix Ars Electronica award and Webby. The external link in the article shows that a significant amount of mainstream media has reported on this website. More importantly, following the external links shows that this was granted 501(c)(3) status by the US IRS as an educational entity. I suspect that you must have some notability to get the attention of the IRS (especially if it's anywhere as near difficult to get as is the equivalent designation in Canada). Agent 86 07:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Agent 86. --Coredesat 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After fanfiction.net, this is another one of the few massive fanfiction websites a lot of people know. Alexa ranking is fine (34,675; not staggering) but together with the mainstream media coverage and its *IRS status it should give them sufficient notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, when it wins a webby recreate it. Until then, and given the information at hand, it fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another webforum. -- GWO
  • Weak Delete It fails WP:WEB but could be kept with a clean-up and reduction of non-encyclopedic content. doktorb | words 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like an advert to me. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete nn fanfiction site, failing WP:WEB --WinHunter (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In 2100, nobody will care. --Alex S 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fansite. --Musicpvm 05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fansite with Alexa rank of 36,010. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as comments by Agent 86. Inner Earth 19:00, 26 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 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MWPP-era[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need an article for every Harry Potter web site out there, the main ones already have established articles and I believe that is quite sufficient. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's just fancruft. --Alphachimp talk 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Coredesat 10:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Ample coverage of this 'era' in Marauders (Harry Potter). - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, a shorthand term in Harry Potter fan fiction. - Motor (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. AgentPeppermint 17:49, 26 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 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unknowable Room[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need an article for every Harry Potter web site out there, the main ones already have established articles and I believe that is quite sufficient. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's really not necessary to have articles for every Harry Potter-related fansite on the internet. --Coredesat 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a Harry Potter fansite, its 2,827,381 Alexa traffic rank is really not that impressive. The goal of the article seems to be disparaging fanfiction.net. It's their right to throw out people who break the rules. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, Big Name Fans set up their own Big Name Fan fiction server after a fan fight with fanfiction.net. fancruft. Alexa traffic ranking funny too. Fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is like a log of the ins and outs of a small group of fans. It belongs on the web, but not in an encyclopedia. Interlingua talk 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. AgentPeppermint 17:35, 26 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 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Name Fan[edit]

  • Delete. Unreferenced neologism. — Mike • 03:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an in-use description dating back to 1959. References do need to be added ([22], [23]) however. Ziggurat 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interestingly, the article is still listed as a stub. It should have a {{verify}} tag put on it before being nominated for deletion. A quick google search (which is not the end-all and be-all) provides verification. Agent 86 06:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verifiable, otherwise delete. --Coredesat 10:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No verifiable sources right now. Wickethewok 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some quick sources, including a journal article. There is also a reference in the book The Battle of the Sexes in Science Fiction [24], but I don't have a copy so cannot cite it definitively. Ziggurat 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Ziggurat said, a verifiable term in the fan community, probably older than each one of us. TheRealFennShysa 15:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a sufficiently meaningful or well-used phrase. -- GWO
  • Delete. This is phrase that means a big-name fan, its constituent words. The article is a dictionary definition with some speculation and a few examples. —Centrx→talk 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep - it's a specialized term in a number of distinct fandoms, so it's not correct to call it fancruft. (Although, it's probably more often used as BNF, rather than spelling it out. See SMOF (which is probably more crufty). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-known and verifiable term in fannish circles. MikeWazowski 04:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is is germane to the history of fandom(s), but it is also a very much in-use term that merits its own article, and not just for definition re Centrx. Hemsath 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page was useful to me when i needed to know what 'BNF' stands for. Gabriel Roth 01:24, 24 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. Petros471 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Walpurgis[edit]

  • Delete. Or merge into Death Eaters, if we must keep it around. In and of itself, the information is trivia, not fodder for a full article. — Mike • 03:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Death Eaters; referenced, but no possibility of expansion and it's too short for an article on its own. Ziggurat 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Death Eaters--Lividore 07:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Coredesat 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Death Eaters as relevant information. Nicely sourced, don't see any reason to delete a perfectly fine piece of info, just because it was misplaced. I do seem to recall a real life group with this name from somewhere in history from which Rowling took the name. Maybe that group is worth an article? - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with death eaters. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Merge with Death Eaters per Mgm. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:49, 22 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 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of real-life characters[edit]

This list has been around for several years, but its definition and purpose seem vaguely defined. While I suppose I grasp that this is a list of "famous public personae", I question the need for a list of this sort, and whether it is encyclopedic in nature. I can't really decide where I think this information belongs, but I don't think it merits its own article -- and I certainly don't think it deserves this article, which is sparse, confusing, disjointed, and unmaintainable as written. Delete as unencyclopedic. Xoloz 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indiscriminate. Same for List of borderline fictional characters ~ trialsanderrors 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well for a kickoff, the title surely falls under indiscriminate information - an inherently unmaintainable list. In addition, the article itself is extremely garbled and confusingly-written, and the list itself is arguably inaccurate. For example, Marilyn Manson and Alice Cooper aren't "characters", they're pseudonyms. It strikes me that such a debate could arise over any number of potential subjects in this article. There's just far too much ambiguity - Ziggy Stardust is surely just a fictional character? Alan Partridge is a fictional character who sometimes interacts with "real" people - should he go in there? Completely unmaintainable, far too much possibility for debate over what should and shouldn't qualify, and therefore it's just not Wikipedia-fodder. Seb Patrick 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list that provides zero context. In some circles, that's known as listcruft. Deizio talk 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This /has/ been around for a while and remains a purely irrelevent list of barely well defined reasonable content. It is listcruft of the most pointless kind doktorb | words 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. This is pointless, and a category will do just fine for most of the entries. Crypticfirefly 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crypticfirefly Anonymous__Anonymous 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; indiscriminate collection of pseudonyms, real people and fictional characters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 22 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 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grunnings[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only non-notable, but also unnecessary. --Coredesat 10:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company makes drills and Vernon is an employee. Nothing more is known about the company. Doesn't require separate article and it's so unimportant to the story as a whole, I doubt merging would help anything. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dursley family#Vernon Dursley. --Alex S 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dursley family#Vernon Dursley. Not enough information to merit its own article, but the information is encyclopedic. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:51, 22 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 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gurg[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unneccessary. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These non-notable Harry Potter character/detail articles are really getting out of hand. --Coredesat 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their deletion is too. Mass nominations for deletion when most can be merged is bad too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gurg Merge and redirect to a Harry Potter article on giants if it exists and if this info is verifiable. ' Gurg is the title of the leader of a pack of giants. That's about it. Nothing more can be said about the subject. Does not warrant its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is the smallest bit of trivia possible. Maybe mention it in one of the Harry Potter articles, but this little mention doesn't need attribution that a merge & redirect preserves, IMO. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. Tobelia 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I would agree with Mgm, but the Harry Potter article on giants does not exist. I'm sure this sentence can find a home elsewhere. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AgentPeppermint 17:40, 26 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Foods, Inc.[edit]

On 17 June, Gmaxwell blanked this article with the explanation that it was spam. On 18 June, I reverted. As it obviously is Gmaxwell's intention that the article be removed from Wikipedia, I'm listing it here (and notifying both Gmaxwell and the article's author). I don't know whether the company is notable, so this is not a vote. If kept, the article definitely requires major revision, as it does read like an advertisement. —David Levy 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure if they're notable, but this is clearly an ad. A google search shows that (a) it's an MLM that spams job sites to recruit, and (b) a lot of people really, really hate them. Fan1967 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as written is spam.--Peta 05:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure advertisement. No assertion of notability. Fiddle Faddle 06:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. --Coredesat 10:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice; the company might be worthwhile, but this text is puffery. Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising; no evidence of notability presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisin. sigh, hire an ad agency--->|Newyorktimescrossword 21:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Actually, I'd intended to put a copyvio notice up since the content was just copied from some website. Since tawker bot's whitelist was goofed and it reverted me, I missed that the template text never made it in. --Gmaxwell 06:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This company is not an MLM. I am not sure where you got that impression, but that accusation is false. Celebrity Foods does use job sites on the web to recruit sales representatives, customer service reps, warehouse workers, etc., but none are the for the use as an MLM. In response to this being a copyright violation, this is also a false accusation, as this was written and revised based upon the things that I know about the company. Finally, the fact that a Google search was performed and there are some dissatisfied customers, this should not have anything to do with this article being nominated for deletion. I am sure that Wikipedia has articles on other items that are disliked by people, yet those entries remain. Numerous revisions have been made in an attempt to be accepted, yet I am unsure what needs to be edited to make this sound less like an advertisement. This is all factual information about Celebrity Foods presented for the purposes of providing basic information. Advertisement is not the aim. What suggestions or links to assistance can you provide to help? --User.Celebrityfoods
  • Delete We99 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sniff, sniff, I smell an advertisement. Dipics 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatent ad Nuttah68 09:43, 24 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 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ingleby[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IMDB listing[25]. Yanksox (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 68000 Google hits, credited in major films / TV series. Ufretin 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox. No substantive reason given to support allegation of insufficient notability. Agent 86 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (if not Speedy) Keep He's a well-known British actor who has also appeared in a major Hollywood film. The article doesn't reflect that, as it doesn't mention his recurring roles in Early Doors and No Angels, nor his significant one-off roles in Spaced and Life on Mars. Allow me to bring the article up to scratch, but he easily fulfils notability requirements. Seb Patrick 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yanksox, but expand. --Coredesat 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per his major roles and IMDB listing. Well-known actor. You can't judge him on just his appearance as a minor character in Harry Potter. - Mgm|(talk) 10:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never seen him, but the article is verifiable (and verified), NPOV and not OR. In addition, the actor has considerable notability. It's a well-written,short article. Interlingua talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's probably worth noting that the original nomination referred to an older version of the article that consisted of little more than a four-item filmography, so I can understand the original nomination even though a click to the IMDb entry would have established the various things he's been in. I've edited it since the nomination, however, to provide the assertions of notability that it was previously lacking. Seb Patrick 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stan Shunpike alone is sufficient for me. snug 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seb Patrick's rewrite is enough to establish credibility for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep established notability --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple verifiable roles which aren't bit parts and one of which is a major film Anand 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The actor in question has played a role in at least two major motion pictures, and the article provides useful information. There is no reason not to keep this. --JagSeal 23:05, 24 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. Petros471 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magorian[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Magorian has now been merged with Minor Harry Potter characters. I am actually already in the process of merging/redirecting numerous Harry Potter stubs and articles that are non-notable/unencyclopedic on their own and therefore don't warrant their own page, but would benefit inclusion within a main HP article. Regards, Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Death Eater Dan. --Coredesat 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Death Eater Dan. (Why am I trusting a Death Eater? ;)) - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I absolutely think this is important enough for inclusion, even though I'm not a fall of the movie or the books. However, they have a massive cultural presence, and this character is important enough to merit a section, if not a stand-alone, article. Interlingua talk 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minor Harry Potter characters, a merge is not necessary because the content is identical and therefore, there is nothing to merge. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Redirect per Deathphoenix. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per deathphoenix. -- Rpresser 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Dan said - Dalf | Talk 01:13, 28 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. Exactly to where doesn't need afd to decide. I'm going to tag it with Wizarding world just to put something on it, editors can decide. Petros471 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimbulus mimbletonia[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Delete, per nom and per my comment on Gurg. --Coredesat 10:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neville Longbottom. Hasn't played a sufficient role in the series to warrant its own article, but is useful in context to Neville. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MGM. Interlingua talk 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a new section in Wizarding world titled "Plants" (maybe right after "Medicine"). There are no Harry Potter articles that contain plants, but I think this would be a good place to put it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Merge per above comments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Deathphoenix. A "Plants" section would be worth having - there are plenty. Tobelia 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per either Mgm or Deathphoenix. No preference for which except that Neville Longbottom already exists. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - either of the article above will do, can get a mention in both but it does ot need an article. Redirect is significantly better than delete in that it prevents the recreation of the article. Dalf | Talk 01:15, 28 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. Petros471 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogg (Harry Potter character)[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Ogg (Harry Potter character) has now been merged with Minor Harry Potter characters. I am actually already in the process of merging/redirecting numerous Harry Potter stubs and articles that are non-notable/unencyclopedic on their own and therefore don't warrant their own page, but would benefit inclusion within a main HP article. Regards, Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Death Eater Dan. --Coredesat 10:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the minor characters list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Interlingua talk 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minor Harry Potter characters, anything that needs to be merged has already been merged. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to minor hp characters. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Redirect per Death Eater Dan. -LtNOWIS 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Death Eater Dan/Deathphoenix. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Since parenthetical disambiguation is used and very few pages link to it, the redirect might be unnecessary, as it won't be used as a search term. Delete, while editing appropriate links. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability. Freddie Message? 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect no need to delete. It's concievabl that it might be used in a page or as a search term (I type parenthetically disambiguated names into the search box) and redirects are cheap. Eluchil404 05:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to minor hp characters. Dalf | Talk 01:16, 28 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. Kimchi.sg

Digital Depiction[edit]

About as notable as Apocalyptic Media, that is, not much. Gnewf 04:01, 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 delete. Kimchi.sg 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nukedit-CMS[edit]

Not Notable, Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Article does not assert the encyclopedic nature of the subject. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Kershner 04:04, 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 merge. Petros471 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Black[edit]

  • Delete. Not notable. Hell, article even says, "His name has not appeared in the actual text of the series." — Mike • 04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Delete, per nom and per my comment on Gurg. --Coredesat 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Black family where it belongs. It' notable in context of the family tapestry, not for an article on its own. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as MacGyverMagic - if it can be verified. Anand 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per MacGyverMagic. AgentPeppermint 03:59, 23 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. Kimchi.sg 16:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber, The Lesbian Queefer[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in principle. Normally, I don’t care if an article on a pornographic movie/actor/actress/whatever survives or fails an AfD nomination. However, the nomination for this and the other pornography-related articles by this editor does not provide any substantive reasoning to support the allegation of insufficient notability. As a result, I am left to make assumptions, and the assumption I make is that the nomination is in some way related to censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Even if I assume good faith, notability is a concern for any article, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. The real question is: "is it encyclopedic?" Based upon WP:5P and WP:NOT, this article may very well be. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike has nominated several films today and as far as I can tell, maybe half were pornographic; so your assumption would appear to be erroneous.--Isotope23 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cast fails WP:PORN BIO -- GWO
  • Very, very weak keep per Agent 86. --Coredesat 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn porn film with nn porn cast. Try a ref at Vaginal flatulence#Pornography. Deizio talk 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The director recently entered the race for Governor of Nevada. Adds to notability.Jim Miller 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO. Entering the race for governor doesn't make your previous films notable...--Isotope23 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. —Centrx→talk 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete as per above ---CH 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Cast fails WP:PORN BIO (I know that's only a proposed guideline, but star also fails WP:BIO and film itself is otherwise non-notable.) --Satori Son 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --JJay 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnotable. —Xezbeth 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, cast fails WP:BIO/WP:PORN BIO. --Coredesat 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly non-notable, while it's too early to treat WP:PORN as policy, this surely would fail pretty much any criteria we could reasonably put to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 26 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. Kimchi.sg 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points Awarded in Harry Potter[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too short to garner an article and not notable enough/spoiler to even exist on the page. Yanksox (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* Delete, per nom and per my comment on Gurg. --Coredesat 10:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously incomplete. Material is more appropriate for the Harry Potter Lexicon. The system itself is already convered in the article on the houses. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't care if I lose points and Hufflepuff loses the House Cup, this trivial article has got to go. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good grief--MichaelMaggs 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. You've got to be kidding, right? Anand 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Had I been able to see the finished product, however, my opinion might be different. (As far as I know, the information in the books is incomplete, making this impossible.) -- Northenglish (talk) -- 17:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete My boyfriend and I were listening to HP6 on audiobook, and I wondered if there was a list somewhere online of all the points awarded and taken away in the Harry Potter books. We both independently thought of Wikipedia. It would be interesting to look through a list of all the points ever awarded and why, and where else on the web could you find something like this? I know it's seriously incomplete because I don't have the time to go through all 6 books by myself. It would be a monumental task for one person, but if 20 people each found 15 examples, it would all come together easily. And that is why I turned to Wikipedia. If you have to delete me I understand, but if you could help and find just a few examples, then I'm sure there would be lots of people who would appreciate the end result. Thanks for your consideration. <3 oatmealpie 14:52, 22 June 2006
  • I know that, at heart, the Wikipedia is designed to create an encyclopedia for the people, a perfect shining image of the knowledge garnered without censorship and politic. But this theory makes the assumption that people are perfect, and that trick never works. Wikipedia, in my mind, should be for the amalgamation of as much documented information as possible, and House Cup Points just happens to fall under that category.
    If the rest of this community disagrees with me, you will delete this topic, and there's nothing I can do about that. All I can do is to attempt to persuade you otherwise. This slash and burn editing will lead only to the false elitism and ignorant hierarchy that plague online bulletin boards and chat rooms. If you have nothing to add to the topic, leave it alone and it will die of it's own accord, but don't actively call for deletion on no grounds better than "It's a silly topic".
    I encourage you all to remember that if it was a topic considered of vital importance that everyone can agree on, the Britannica already covers it.
    In the Half Blood Prince, Professor Slughorn awards Hermione a total of 30 points to Gryffindor for her knowledge of potions on the first day of class. — 70.162.10.119 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is this IP address' first edit.
    • It fills me with pride that you both independently thought of Wikipedia, but you probably should have thought of hp-lexicon.org. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: I've just spent time updating the page with information found on the Harry Potter Lexicon, so now the page is 100% up to date, though not exactly original. -- Kirstenweasley 26 June 2006
  • Delete - even the totals of something like "Snape took X points from harry in all the books" as a single line in another article would just be trivia. Dalf | Talk 01:19, 28 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.

Hello - apologies but it will not let me edit his main page. Simon got married to his partner Tony in 2015. He is part of the LGBTQ+ community. This is confirmed on his official Facebook page. They entered into their civil partnership in 2006.

Evidence - https://www.facebook.com/simon.fisherbecker/posts/3707004396034200

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DE84:A000:191D:DF24:BD65:2EE3 (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2021 (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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fisher-Becker[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe that the article in question is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. — Mike • 04:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient imdb and ghits to warrant this article. Agent 86 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. His IMDB profile clearly shows he's notable. Granted though, the article needs serious expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeper --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:04, 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 merge. Petros471 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wizarding Examinations Authority[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Petros471 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtown Square, Pennsylvania[edit]

Even if it were a good article, it would be duplicative of Newtown Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Has practically no substantive content, and I have my doubts about the copyright status of the picture (which is identical to the one on Newtown Township's website). Several months ago I proposed that this article be merged with Newtown Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, but now I think that would be a case of adding nothing to something. Spikebrennan 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree it should go however I think it is worth moving the blurb about SAP, Lyondell and PMI over. They are 3 fairly well know corporations based in the township.--Looper5920 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' per nom. --Xyrael T 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that the township is in fact often called Newtown Square, and it's not just an unincorporated community within the township, merge. --SPUI (T - C) 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Newtown Square" is the name of the post office for the zip code area that includes Newtown Township but also includes portions of Edgmont township and small slivers of Radnor Township and Marple Township (in Springton Pointe), as well as a small portion of Chester County. Some people use the words "Newtown Square" and "Newtown Township" interchangeably, but that usage is technically inaccurate, just like using the words "Broomall" and "Marple Township" would be inaccurate.Spikebrennan 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then I suggest keeping it separate. --SPUI (T - C) 22:58, 16 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per above. --Coredesat 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Just merge them under the official name and have the Newtown Square titles redirect to it.
  • Merge, could have been boldly done...--Isotope23 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:11, 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 Keep Eluchil404 10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Adams[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. -- Wikipedical 04:16, 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. Petros471 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bane (Harry Potter)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Eluchil404 10:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errol (Harry Potter)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merged with Minor Harry Potter characters, so redirect. This the result also advocated by WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan (Harry Potter)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. W.marsh 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrackspurt[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. If anyone actually creates a page on the series message me and I'll restore to allow a merge. Until then merge is not an option. Petros471 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Erotica 12[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in principle. Normally, I don’t care if an article on a pornographic movie/actor/actress/whatever survives or fails an AfD nomination. However, the nomination for this and the other pornography-related articles by this editor does not provide any substantive reasoning to support the allegation of insufficient notability. As a result, I am left to make assumptions, and the assumption I make is that the nomination is in some way related to censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Even if I assume good faith, notability is a concern for any article, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. The real question is: "is it encyclopedic?" In any event, this {{stub}} article contains information that supports an allegation of notabilty. Based upon WP:5P and WP:NOT, this article may very well be. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can add anything to this (the article has not been updated since it was created in January). Having one notable actor doesn't necessarily make the movie notable. There's nothing else to assert the movie's notability. --Coredesat 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn porn. Proto///type 14:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm conflicted enough that I can't "vote", but maybe I can provide enough information for other people to be able to. See the AFDb entry and IMDb entry for the film. In favor of keeping it would be that: the movie is part of a notable series (Swedish Erotica); it is chock full of other notable actors (the legendary John Holmes, Jamie Gillis, Juliet Anderson); it is the only appearance of Bambi Woods outside Debbie Does Dallas; finally, it does get 13,300 Google hits, which is certainly Googlebombing, but compare it to 677 Google hits for "Swedish Erotica 11" or 529 for "Swedish Erotica 13". In favor of deletion would be that it is just another compilation film, no real plot; number 12 in a series; and while the article we have can be expanded from the IMDB plot summary and actors listing, it will never be longer than 2-3 paragraphs. For what it is worth, if it is kept, I'm willing to expand it to that. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Swedish Erotica and expand into an article on the Swedish Erotica series. This was a very notable series of films, but there were, of course, dozens of them, so doing an individual article on each might be pushing it. IMO this particular film passes the (non-policy) WP:PORN guidelines (which I stress again are not policy and should not be used as the sole deciding factor), and would make a good starting point for a larger article on the series itself (although at the present time it's little more than a stub). 23skidoo 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Swedish Erotica. Series is notable, the individual movies aren't. -- GWO
  • Merge per GWO.--Isotope23 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --->|Newyorktimescrossword 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Merge to a series page per above, if anyone has the motivation, or else delete - nothing on this page worth saving by itself. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the article "Swedish Erotica" does not yet exist, how do you propose that we merge the content "Swedish Erotica 12" there? --Alex S 06:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or otherwise keep, this movie is notable as some of the only "evidence" of Bambi Woods' career, b/c what happened to her is a mystery. PseudoAnon 06:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:35, 22 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 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night Walk[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe either part of this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination does not, for me, provide sufficient reasoning to persuade me that this ought to be deleted. Notability is a concern, but it is not a requirement. The real question is: "is it encyclopedic?" Based upon WP:5P and WP:NOT, I believe that this article is encyclopedic. Just because this flick might not be good is an opinion, which this article properly leaves out. Agent 86 06:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 10:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability guidelines are in place for a reason. The article as is currently written does not have an encyclopedic level of citation/reference. And further, even if it did, one can have a (literarily) encyclopedic article about nearly anything, given the appropriate references and sources. Without both notability and verifiability guidelines in place, the signal-to-noise ratio in an encyclopedia like this would certainly skyrocket. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:40, 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 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lust Detector[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in principle. Normally, I don’t care if an article on a pornographic movie/actor/actress/whatever survives or fails an AfD nomination. However, the nomination for this and the other pornography-related articles by this editor does not provide any substantive reasoning to support the allegation of insufficient notability. As a result, I am left to make assumptions, and the assumption I make is that the nomination is in some way related to censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. Even if I assume good faith, notability is a concern for any article, but it is not the sole criterion. Wikipedia:Notability is not policy or a guideline. The real question is: "is it encyclopedic?" Based upon WP:5P and WP:NOT, this article may very well be. Without any other reason, I cannot support deletion. Agent 86 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 80 Google hits, all of which are sales sites or lists, in which this is one of dozens of other films. —Centrx→talk 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that it is a pornographic film is not the point; it's just a description. If this was a documentary that consisted of that much information and had less than 250 relevant Google hits, I'd vote to delete that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --JJay 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. —Xezbeth 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Vegaswikian 22:21, 25 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. Petros471 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Heartbreakers[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments in other nominations above regarding censorship and notability. I will not repeat in order to avoid breaching WP:POINT. Agent 86 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, Mike, it seems like 80% of those could be prodded and should not appear on AfD unless they're contested. Second, Agent 86, yes, you're way in WP:POINT territory. As you point out, what is under discussion here is the article, not the nominator. Some nominators help their case by making a pitch for deletion, others don't. But in the end it has to be the article to make its case for inclusion, not the nominator for exclusion. If you're voting keep on an article without merit because you have an issue with the nominator you're disrupting WP to make your point. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow up. Please note that I in no way made any issue about the nominator or any sort of ad hominem argument. My issue is clearly with the article. My concern about WP:POINT was that I might be verging on the edge of it by responding to each nomination; however, the nominator chose to make multiple nominations and therefore there is nothing wrong with responding to each. On re-reading POINT I see that, in my opinion, I've done nothing contrary to it. In any event, I think I succinctly made my position clear that I am commenting (not voting, as AfD is not a vote) on the articles and was civil about it. Please assume good faith. Agent 86 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK. I was saying this mostly because you pointed it out yourself, but I'll strike it and apologize. Nevertheless, stick with the articles at hand and not the nomination. Articles have to provide proof positive and not nominators proof positive. If you don't think WP:NN is a viable criterion, stick to checking whether WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV are fulfilled. WP:NN is only a shorthand for saying that the article hasn't attracted enough outside attention to meet those three policies. ~ trialsanderrors 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was kind. You're a good person, Charlie Brown. Agent 86 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I recall this was one of the more notable pornographic films that Traci Lords starred in. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electric_Blue_28_(second_nomination) - which was kept around on much weaker grounds. Only a "weak" keep until I can find documentation saying so, but my memory tells me this was one of her more famous films before the scandal. Side note, Agent 86 is doing nothing wrong in his comments and recommendations. Nominator has nominated a slew of articles for deletion all at once, with the exact same explanation or lack thereof for each one. Rather than assuming each to be trying to disrupt the Wikipedia, I'm assuming good faith for both. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough notable performers in this one... Traci Lords alone would make this notable in the genre.--Isotope23 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I didn't know there existed a move with Amber Lynn, Traci Lords, Peter North, and Ron Jeremy. That's about as notable as it gets in porn. PseudoAnon 06:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Vegaswikian 22:23, 25 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 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini a Go Go[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment in The Lust Detector, above. Agent 86 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another unextraordinary porno. -- GWO
  • Delete. Another non-notable, non-notability-asserting pornographic film, of which there are thousands. 700 Google hits, most of which are again sales sites and lists of which this is one amongst many. —Centrx→talk 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very unnotable. —Xezbeth 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. More notable then most schools. Vegaswikian 22:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to directorship of Fred Olen Ray. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 26 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. Petros471 18:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Cavegirl[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a film sufficiently notable to merit its own article. — Mike • 04:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment in The Lust Detector, above. Agent 86 06:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my comment in The Lust Detector, although this has a slighter more interesting 326 google hits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unextraordinary porno. -- GWO
  • Keep per above. --JJay 22:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Directed by Fred Olen Ray, a noted and prolific genre filmmaker. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - per starblind, rather notable --Jaranda wat's sup 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. More notable then most schools. Vegaswikian 22:24, 25 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 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Party: Big Switch 3[edit]

  • Delete. I do not believe this film is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia article. — Mike • 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment in The Lust Detector, above. Agent 86 06:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another non-notable, shot-in-a-week porno. -- GWO
  • Keep per above. --JJay 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very minor production. Calsicol 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Musicpvm 05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. —Xezbeth 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, non-notable porno film --Jaranda wat's sup 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Given it is a niche film it may not be as well know. Being a stub and lacking information as a result is not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian 22:27, 25 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. Petros471 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor (Harry Potter) (second nomination)[edit]

  • 1st Afd — ended in a delete, but admin has rejected {{db-repost}} due to "not substantially identical to the three-word article deleted at VfD".
  • Delete. I do not believe this article describes a sufficiently notable subject to merit its own article. I suggest deleting it or merging it to Minor Harry Potter beasts. — Mike • 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into and redirect to Neville Longbottom. (Such a redirect was suggested by several voters in the original VfD, despite the fact that there was nothing to merge.) The information would fit nicely there, and the fact that three different editors have created this page indicates that it's a reasonably likely search term. Minor Harry Potter beasts appears to document fictional species, not specific animal characters. —David Levy 05:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect, completly agree with David Levy, couldn't have put it better myself. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. I umm..."third" David Levy. redirect to Neville Longbottom btw and not Minor Harry Potter beasts. anirudh 07:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)talk[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. I umm..."forth" --mboverload@ 09:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Neville Longbottom for easy reference. Trevor's important in contact, but doesn't feature enough in the story to warrant a separate entry much. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. --Coredesat 10:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:00, 24 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 per CSD A3 (a list consisting of only external links). - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of online Christian pop radio stations[edit]

List and link cruft -- Koffieyahoo 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT, all external links, seems like spam. Yanksox (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A3, basically an empty page but for repository and sorting of links. Jammo (SM247) 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete One of these things is not like the others...one of these things just doesn't belong --mboverload@ 09:57, 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. W.marsh 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minaret of Freedom Institute[edit]

This article is of a non notable website that gets only 11 google hits. Its more spam than anything else--CltFn 05:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Text is identical to that on the organisation's website. So, the current version is a possible copyvio. -- Koffieyahoo 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. Need an article, not a copy of their website. I get 10,000 GHits for the organization, and 4,000 for the website. Seems notable enough. Fan1967 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep per Fan1967. How can we explain the discrepancy in the number of Google hits? One person gets 11, another 10,000? I searched with "Minaret of Freedom Institute" and also got 10,000+.Interlingua talk 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is puzzling, isn't it? Fan1967 16:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fan1967. BhaiSaab talk 21:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I get 9,900 Ghits for "Minaret of Freedom Institute", 12,900 for "Minaret of Freedom" and 59,900 for the phrase without quote marks. BuckRose 23:10, 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 nomination withdrawn. W.marsh 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Prive[edit]

De-prodded by anon; unsourced original research about a non-notable nightclub in Los Angeles. Delete (see below). MCB 05:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are three links to other publications on the page, it's improperly sourced but it is sourced. Booking, tabling, etc. are covered in the Seoul Times article. I've personally been to a K-Club before (not that particular one) and the experience sounds quite similar, it should not be hard to find (more) solid secondary sources for this article and quite easy to trim off the OR excesses. The article probably should be renamed K-Club instead, but that's another matter. hateless 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was not sourced at the time of the original PROD. I looked for references but did not find these, only a few mentions in blogs and personal pages. I could see an article about K-Clubs or "booking"; perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the scene could make the article more general. With the current sources I think it's probably OK to withdraw the nomination for now. MCB 17:59, 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 deleted by Quarl. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Journal of Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research[edit]

80% of this article is in Turkish. Removing it leaves little of English. Brad101 05:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - A8 I've delete the article's contents and put up a copyvio notice, informing the article's creator. joshbuddy, talk 06:13, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heliopolis (Gundam)[edit]

Fancruft Artw 05:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please express your concerns in more detail. Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion because what is or isn't fancruft is entirely subjective. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be important city in the Gundam mythology. I agree the article isn't very well written, but let's try to get a rewrite before trashing it. Wasn't there a Gundam WikiProject? I'm sure they'd be happy to take it on. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MacGyverMagic. --Coredesat 10:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A minor part of Gundam mythology, which itself is minor part a piece of fairly minor fiction. Fancruft. -- GWO
  • Delete per Gareth Owen. I have to say that the chances of this AFD succeeding are very low given the precedent for every little tiny thing regarding Gundam articles to be flooded with Keep votes, though. -- Kuzaar-T-C- 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, possibly expand. Extremely significant to the Gundam storyline IIRC. If not, then Merge and Redirect to appropriate Gundam article. Jumbo Snails 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an important "city" of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. --WinHunter (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Locations of the Cosmic Era or somesuch. 132.205.45.148 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is kept, every place mentioned in every fictional or mythological storyline or fable should also be kept and we will be overloaded by such things as San Francisco (Star Trek) to describe Captain Kirk and co's sojourn there to find whales and nucular materials, and San Francisco (Maltese Falcon) to describe all that went on there, and San Francisco (Vertigo), ditto; and that's just one real city that has cameo appearances in mythical and fabulous stories. Carlossuarez46 22:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks context, sources, reason for existence. After reading it WP:HOLE came to mind as there was no explanation of why or if it was notable or important. None of the keeps above give any reason beyond "significant to the Gundam storyline", which tells me that per WP:FICT, this is fancruft of zero general interest. Worse yet, completely unsourced (so much for WP:V) and presumably the author's very own WP:OR. AFD is not a vote and WP is not a democracy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 26 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 by Xoloz. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OS@M@[edit]

Non notable person; just a troll Phileas 05:35, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drinal forums[edit]

Not notable webforum. The article is a little hard to follow but it all sounds rather childish Artw 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it seems like the only category they have is for tests. --David.Mestel 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it looks like the forum is members-only. It's also not notable. --Coredesat 10:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability what so ever. DrunkenSmurf 13:06, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons of Doukutsu Monogatari[edit]

A game-guide. This serves no purpose other than to teach players on how to play the game, and as such is wholly unencyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 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 deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not the place for nonsense made up words. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margle[edit]

Completely non-notable neologism. Prod removed without comment. Rory096 05:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Teke 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, very vain. Yanksox (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong delete as original prodder. Terribly vain and obviously non-notable. Grandmasterka 06:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain neologisms like this really margle me. Jammo (SM247) 06:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I got margled just trying to undertsand it. More nonsense than a neologism. Certainly not notable, but amusing in its way. Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this really is patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 07:08, 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. Kimchi.sg 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raasta[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Has only released 1 single, hasn't even released any albums. Very few relevant Google hits, and they're nowhere near the first page. Rory096 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Apparently does meet WP:MUSIC if their single really was #1, the article didn't mention that at the time. --Rory096 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we know the list is actually the Pakistani pop charts? I would withdraw my vote if that can be established, but the site looks specious. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. joshbuddy, talk 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so is it NECESSARY for a band to release a whole album prior to them being considered worthy of existing in the realm of wikipedia?
Funny how easily you say "only released 1 single" - their single has gone to # 1 go here and check for yourself http://www.itspakistan.net/music/default.aspx - scroll down and you'll see. Its the Pakistani pop charts.
Would it not be unprofessional of wikipedia, to NOT accomodate a profile/article about a band whose single has gone to # 1 in its relevant market? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glovste (talk • contribs) .
    • Yes, going to number 1 is also a good criterion to include an article. However, such a chart the musician lists on needs to be international or kept by a reputable radio station or magazine. This just appears to be the chart of a random website. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't remove the AFD tag on the page Glovste. All it does is allow the AFD to continue without potential Raasta fans knowing about it. If you really want to help your case, look at WP:MUSIC and make an argument that it fits under one of these criteria, attacks on professionalism isn't going to sway anyone. That said, I looked at the page, and I'm not convinced it's a national chart. It seems to be a chart for listens on that particular website. Yet, if they're a non-English language band (like song title would suggest), then the Google test might be irrelevant. hateless 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, when it comes to Pakistani music, I would say the Google test is useless. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 28,000 listens in a country with 164,000,000 people? That means 0.017% of the population of Pakistan has listened to it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Dunno how you got the figure of 28K listens. Is it that 28k albums are sold? If so, the listenership wd be much higher, 'coz the average family size in pakistan wd be much higher than a western household. Also, ppl. don't need to buy a single (In India, the no. of singles released could be counted on the fingers of one hand; dunno abt Pakistan though) to listen to it, thanks to FM radio and cable TV. If you are refering to the 28, 000 listens mentioned on the website, it refers to the no. of times people listened to it on the website and not total listens. Given the literacy levels and internet access in Pakistan, i don't think too many ppl wd be logging on to the website to listen to the song. But on radio and TV, they can listen. --Gurubrahma 07:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the number from the website, which is sadly the only source we have from which to establish notability. Not to mention that it falls quite a bit short of being reliable. Other evidence is always welcome. When will people learn that WP is not built on faith but on verifiable evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 08:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Trialsanderrors' comment. --Coredesat 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only Google reference I can find to the song is the cited website. It won't help to search for "Raasta", which is a common word in Urdu and Hindi. NawlinWiki 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further to the link above which says their song went to #1 in Pakistan, to acertain their notability go to http://www.pakmanzil.com/revamped/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=MostPopular as well as http://www.pakmanzil.com/revamped/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=TopRated - their song is not only the most popular on one of the leading Pakistani pop websites, but it is also the highest rated. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.76.159 (talk • contribs)
    • Response First, I posted a final warning on your talk page for trying to remove my edits. If you continue vandalizing Wikipedia you will be blocked. Second, both links lead to "access denied" pages. Read WP:RS to see what reliable sources are for WP content. ~ trialsanderrors 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Yeah, I get the point. Have I 'vandalised' since the multiple warnings? No, I have not. So why are you repeating yourself, when it clearly does not appear necessary. Secondly, what you've written here and tagged as Response is hardly a response to the comment I left about the band's notability - to access those pages all you need to do is register yourself a free account, which takes less than 2 minutes, and being a wikipedia 'admin' you are obliged to do whatever it takes to ascertain the worthiness of an article, so I'm sure you will have the time for that. Your reply seemed more a case of letting out your personal frustration on me just because I removed your comments a couple of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.76.159 (talk • contribs)
        • You are not in the position to remove my comments from this page. You are invited to respond to them, but if you remove them you're liable to be blocked for it. Also please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so that we don't have to do it for you. About the pages you linked to, I don't see why I should sign up. I did a search for Raasta in the search field and came up with no articles and 2 downloads. Notability still not established. Also, I'm not an admin, and it is the duty of editors of an article to provide proof positive for the edits, not of other editors to provide proof negative. Read WP:V: The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response**** The point about comment removal has been understood already and you do not have to continue going on about that. Since I have not removed any more of your comments ever since those warnings, there is no question of me being blocked for it, so I'm sure that we have both said enough on the topic of content removal and subsequent banning now. Any further attempts by you to continue to rave on about that topic should, and would be deemed as harassment, and otherwise futile at best. Now regading the 'burden of proof', it seems that you have a habit of stating the obvious, or shall I say, answering questions that were never even asked in the first place. I simply do not need to be told that it is my responsibility to demonstrate the validity of my article, rather than you trying to prove the invalidity thereof, because I already know that, and that is precisely what I am doing here. By directing you to proceed to a URL where this band's song is also the top rated, is precisely me 'providing proof positive', and you having to register an account on that website is simply part of the process in me providing that 'proof positive'. Nobody asked you to provide 'proof negative'. ~ signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.76.159 (talk • contribs)
          • I'll leave it to the closing administrator to determine whether an apparent pay site with closed content counts as a reliable source for an unsigned band. End of communication. ~ trialsanderrors 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, maybe you guys need to visit http://www.musicpakistan.net which is the most popular/dominant pop music website in the region and scroll down on the main page! that'll help settle this debate over this band's notability. They are obviously big in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.186.109 (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't, but thank you anyway. ~ trialsanderrors 07:49, 24 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. Kimchi.sg 17:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swimguard: Underwater Safety System[edit]

Reads like a total advert to me, does not seem to be notable Tawker 06:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advert per Tawker -- Samir धर्म 06:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamcruftisement. Jammo (SM247) 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The system is notable, but the article is written like an advert. A rewrite would save deletion Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to remove advertisements. Delete if this is not possible. --Coredesat 10:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start again. If the advertising were removed we would have an article on electronic surveillance systems for swimming pools. That in itself may fail a notability test if such systems are found in less than 50 locations. Eddie.willers 11:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the system itself may not even be notable. An ad about the company who make it most certainly is not. Ad spam, kill it. Proto///type 14:25, 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. Kimchi.sg 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinic software[edit]

The article is an advertisement in two ways:

  1. As it stands it is a rehash of Actinic Software's website, at least in part, and is a pure advert for what may be an otherwise notable corporation.
  2. It unashamedly refers to "My website" and links to it. Granted, Actinic provides eCommerce software, but this appears to be designed as pure link spam to drive people to the editor's wesbite

It was prodded. The prod was removed by the originator, then replaced by the prodder. What thus ought to be an ovious prod candidate has become an AfD candidate. Fiddle Faddle 06:19, 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. Kimchi.sg 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massanetta Springs Middle School Conference[edit]

Apparently non-notable conference centre Jammo (SM247) 06:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The subject matter of a conference attended annually by 1000 middle schoolers should be notable. The article fails to assert the notability. If redrafted to assert notability then it should remain Fiddle Faddle 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - a conference attended once a year by a bunch of middle sch**lers (be careful when you say the S-word, or the schoolcruft attack force will parachute down and vote 'keep' cos it has the word 'school' in the title) is nowhere near being notable. It is physically, metaphorically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, ecumenically, spatially and logistically impossible for any kind of notability to be asserted, as it is inherently not notable. Proto///type 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: how on Earth could this "article" possibly benefit the Wikipedia reader? ---CH 00:09, 22 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. Kimchi.sg 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies parodied on The Simpsons[edit]

Simpsonscruft - the potential for this list to expand is very large, given the sheer number a) of Simpsons episodes, of which I would warrant every single one in some way is a parody of some film and (b) the sheer density of cultural reference and parodies actually present in each particular episode. Any information can be part of the voluminous number of pages which are dedicated to each and every Simpsons episode and the associated pages. Listcruft. Jammo (SM247) 06:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maitch 08:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such a list makes finding such parodies a lot easier. Or would you prefer surfing every single episode article? I would however include rigid rules about what to include and what not. The body in the film "Stand By Me" wasn't found in the sewers but near a train track. So either it was a parody of the book, or not related at all. That one should be removed. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Point taken, but it is going to be ridiculously long, and indeed still expanding. It is also arguably going to involve a lot of OR for some of the more subtle ones, and arguably POV based on people's interpretations. Jammo (SM247) 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those that are not abundantly clear or rely on interpretation should not get on that list. - Mgm|(talk) 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. KleenupKrew 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessive fancruft. --Coredesat 10:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessive fancruft. -- GWO
  • Delete - WP:NOR. Cruft must die. Proto///type 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are already detailed articles on Simpsons episodes which no doubt mention movie parodies.. This is Simpsoncruft which duplicates existing material. doktorb | words 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. ---CH 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly encyclopedic, but too long for an article, if properly maintained. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone looks through all the Simpsons episodes and adds all the parodies. User:Clay4president
  • Merge With an article similar to this. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being parodied in the Simpsons is a benchmark of social notability, in a way. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 23 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. Kimchi.sg 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have been parodied on The Simpsons[edit]

Simpsonscruft - the potential for this list to expand is very large, given the sheer number a) of Simpsons episodes, of which I would warrant nearly every single one contains parodies of celebrities, (b) the sheer density of parodies actually present in each particular episode and (c) the record-holding status of the show with regards to celebrity guest appearances, practically all of whom poke fun at themselves (parody could mean anything from the guest appearance of Tony Blair in a jetpack to more indirect parody characters such as Krusty the Klown as a parody of the TV clown Rusty Nails. Any information can be part of the voluminous number of pages which are dedicated to each and every Simpsons episode and the associated pages. Listcruft. Jammo (SM247) 06:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list has well-defined borders and while it may get long, it's certainly maintainable, verifiable and all the other good things we require of lists. I much rather use a list to find the episode that parodied <insert celebrity> than go through each episode in turn. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. KleenupKrew 10:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessive fancruft. -- GWO
  • Delete - This would just be a list of pretty much every celebrity. Wickethewok 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, duplicates information elsewhere, and virtually indiscriminate (what celebrity hasn't been parodied in the 15 seasons or so we've had of the Simpsons?). Listcruft must die. Proto///type 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike the movie parodies list, above, this one is a bit more cut-and-dried. Alternately, it could be turned into a category. 23skidoo 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A big list and it'll get bigger, but not unreasonably so. The topic is certainly verifiable, can be written NPOV and doesn't involve OR. In addition it has notability, triply so: through the importance of the show, through the importance of the celebrities and, finallly, through the importance of celebrity parodies on the show. It's at least as important as the chalkboard gag Bart does at the beginning of the show. Interlingua talk 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's article worthy, probably not category worthy. --The Editrix 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subjective ("celebrities"), permanently incomplete, fancrufty. Deizio talk 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you've been parodied on the Simpsons there's nothing subjective about your celebrity status. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Possibly maintainable if restricted to characters actually named in the episode. (Which this list is not.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article similar to this Anonymous__Anonymous 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but leaning more towards delete due to the sheer broadness of this topic. Freddie Message? 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of celebrities on The Simpsons. User:Clay4president
  • Delete - Even with as many Simpsons articles as I have on my watchlist, and as active as I am in WikiProject The Simpsons, I am leaning towards delete with this one... there is no verifiability as to the fact that the writers planned on making some of these characters specifically in the likeness of said celebrities... although there are some (like Roofi) that are obvious, characters like Wolfcastle have a little bit of several real-life celebrities, not just Arnold... I also removed a couple that played themselves, as such entries by definition are not parodies... if kept, this list needs to be merged with List of fictional characters within The Simpsons... - Adolphus79 04:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find this list troubling, because it is hard to verify if it truly is a parody of a certain, and because it is hard to define what should included and should be excluded. --Maitch 13:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I personaly found this to be a very useful list, it really isn't that long and will certainly, even when complete, not be as long as some of the other Simpsons lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.102.142.220 (talk • contribs) 21:46, June 26, 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. Kimchi.sg 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Reed - Actor/Musician[edit]

apparently local actor/musician. prodded a while back but prod removed

  • Delete. Appears to be vanity, and the same user has spammed other articles with gushing praise for the same actor! David L Rattigan 09:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:MUSIC guidelines, also as vanity. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the theathre's website has a page with a lot of photos featuring him. I imagine he might hold the lead in several of their plays, which would make him notable. Is there a UK theatre search site like IBDB (IMDB's Broadway counterpart)? - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for being a provincial hack luvvie who is out to glorify himself via Wikipedia's web presence. Eddie.willers 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VAIN (both links to personal website) of non-notable ---CH 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with being a fan of this actor. Have seen him in numerous shows and he is a great actor. Having spoken to him, he has no idea about this page so it's not him trying to glorify himself as someone but it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (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. Kimchi.sg

The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir)[edit]

This article is empty of content. While it is a stub about what may well be a notable, even signifcant book, I feel that there is wholly insufficient material on the page to assert that notability. One sentence, a couple of external links, an infobox and an author's link does not feel suficient to assert notability. Having articles as placeholders is not what wikipedia is about.

The article needs either to be edited to describe the subject and assert its notability, or be deleted Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Now just sufficient for me to move my opinion, see below. I'm not withdrawing the nomination because I think the peer review process is valuable and shoud run its course, but I would not have made the nomination with the xtra information that is now available. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the author himself is entirely notable with a very positive reputation in Islamic circles. It is simply the article about this book that I see as non notable in its current empty form. I am making this addendum in case of any errors in understanding of my nomination rationale Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded to share actual information about the book. The current stub is insufficient despite the author's notability. BTW, what the heck is (tafsir)? Is that part of the title or some unneeded disambiguation qualifier? - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for no context. A rewrite or expansion would be acceptable and would make me change my vote. --Coredesat 10:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why dont people just use their time to expand a admited notable book instead of using their time decunstructing the encyclopedia?--Striver 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not whether the book is notable or not that is under discussion. It is whether the article on the book is notable (or asserts notability sufficiently and in a referenceable manner). I see you have worked on the article to start to seek to assert that notability. For me it is not enough to change my nomination yet. For others it may be sufficient. This is the entire purpose of this nomination: Either to have the article improved by one who has the knowledge to improve it, or to have it deleted. It is not rhetoric that preserves articles, but good work. Thank you for starting that work. Fiddle Faddle 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current version, but expand if possible. This really illustrates why it is a bad idea to leave a substandard stub article out there. Remember Striver, the general audience of Wikipedia probably does not have the background or knowlege about Islam to recognize when a book covering it is notable. As the originator of an article covering a topic where there are probably very few experts involved in en.wikipedia, the onus really falls on you to flesh out these articles and justify their notability. You can't expect the average user to come along and even have an idea where to start expanding an article like this.--Isotope23 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I just get defensive when people start afd'ing stuff. I would appreciate if they could just ask me to expand it with a threat of a afd.--Striver 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changed my vote because notability is now asserted. --Coredesat 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Although I proposed this I see enough work done now to make it a valid stub and assert just enough notability to remain. Unsure of ettiquette as proposer, so am adding my vote against my proposal here. Looking forward to a better article as time passes. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as the above.DB empty, worthless, and shouldnt be here.At the very least, it should be Merged with the author's page.--AeomMai 19:15, 27 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. Kimchi.sg 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobman[edit]

There is no proof that Bobman is notable or even exists. Google shows no hits for 'The Bobman Chronicles', no hits for 'Dominic Wingfield'+Bobman Optimale Gu 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity for non-notable personal project. Jammo (SM247) 08:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Completely unverifiable. Very likely vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V. --Coredesat 10:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent hoax (I confirmed no Google hits on alleged Bobman Chronicles) ---CH 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I have seen the episodes, they are really good, and Dominic Wingfield obviously worked very hard on them. I got the DVD from someone who does not know Dominic, thus proving it has gained noteriaty around more than just a group of friends for example. I will get screenshots of the DVD later and post them on here. That should prove it exists at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.229.167 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete I have Bobman on DVD, my younger sister loves it especially Captain Dynamite, the villain!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.50.94 (talk • contribs)
  • Do not delete I have also seen Bobman on DVD as well as providing a voice. It took the creator a lot of time and effort and so deserves a place on Wikipedia.
    • Comment WRT the above Above three users have only contributed to this discussion or the article itself. Jammo (SM247) 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And based on RIPE Whois Search, all trace back to NTL Internet service based in Hampshire, England. --Satori Son 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Not even any mention of the project on the creator's MySpace page. Probably a joke. --Satori Son 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. All the RIPE Whois search has done is prove what the original page said, that it is most famous in Hertforshire, cozthe messages originate from around there

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kimchi.sg 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose_Agree[edit]

Her entry should be deleted because she isn't notable, other than for being a really old lady in porn. She did very few films and won no awards. It's almost a joke for Rose to have a Wiki entry. CJ 08:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The thing is, a lady born on 1910 being a porn actress in 2006 is notable. Not to my taste, but notable. In fact it creeps me out somewhat. But I don't thing my taste should decide what should be here. I would like to see a better article, but this one seems to make the cut. Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What makes her notable is being noted by someone other than grannypervs. If some oddball magazine like Details found it worthwhile to write a story about good Rose she's notable. If not, she only has a couple of films and the yuck factor going for her. ~ trialsanderrors 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would we be having this discussion if it was a 90-year old Formula 1 driver? Age can be notable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Age per se is rarely notable. All one has to do is to live long enough :). It is the combination of age and "other element" that makes for notability. In this case the combination of age and the unusual occupation makes her entirely notable. I just don't want to see! Fiddle Faddle 09:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Formula 1 drivers are notable by media attention and selection process regardless of age. Porn actors get neither by default, saggy tits or not. ~ trialsanderrors 16:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Driving a formula one car requires skills not usually found in the elderly. Sex, not so much. -- GWO
  • Keep. Oldest prawn star seems noteworthy to me, and I have come across her before (no pun intended). David L Rattigan 09:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She could easily be the oldest porn actress alive. The mere fact she's this old and still in this business makes her noteworthy. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trialsanderrors. I'm gonna be sick. --Coredesat 10:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fiddle Faddle. Distasteful, perhaps, but certainly notable. Tevildo 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeeewwwww, I mean, Keep, based on the proposed criteria for WP:PORN BIO and notariety. Age in combination with other factors can certainly be a determinative criterion. Agent 86 00:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Agent 86. --Merovingian {T C @} 02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Age alone can be notable if its over 115. Ms. Agree is notable (even at only 95) for taking part in an occupation usually reserved for much younger women. Eluchil404 05:58, 24 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 this, as well as Wave Structure Matter and Milo Wolff based on the same rationale. Kimchi.sg 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Wave Structure of Matter[edit]

This is part of four article series (!) about a heterodox theory of physics by, among others, Geoff Haselhurst, who helpfully created much of the articles here as Haselhurst (talk · contribs). It is part private theory and part POV-fork of Quantum theory (and related articles like De Broglie hypothesis). The main article Wave Structure Matter should be condensed to the standard treatment of fringe theories and satellite articles deleted. --Pjacobi 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Pjacobi 08:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kookery. -- GWO
  • Delete all four Incoherent articles about fringe theory of Milo Wolff which misleadingly presents it as respectable. I confirm that Haselhurst (talk · contribs) has apparently collaborated with Wolff, so WP:NPOV-WP:VAIN-WP:NOR vios also. In addition, I believe (Haselhurst disputes this) that Haselhurst may have violated copyright of images he apparently obtained from a website which allows personal use but requests fees for web page use. Despite many talk page messages urging Hazelhurst to improve/explain over many months, this has not happened.---CH 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not understand this. Contributions to the history of atomic theory should should rest on standard text books authors like Max Jammer. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 23:57, 23 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 by User:RHaworth under CSD-A6. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kittie Rose[edit]

This is an attack page for which the creator removed my speedy delete nomination. BigNate37 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A6, attack page regardless. Jammo (SM247) 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete unpleasant, pointless and attack Fiddle Faddle 08:32, 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. Useless as a redir. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Countries: Origin of Names[edit]

An attempt at a list of etymologies. Dictionary material, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has many countries' etymologies in their entries (e.g. wikt:Afghanistan). At best, these should be one-liners in the countries' articles. —Lamentation :( 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, etymology is not a proper Wikipedia field and redirect per below. Jammo (SM247) 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is interesting to have all this on one page together, I would like to see more, and would add some my self if the page stays given the List of country name etymologies, we don't need this one! GB 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. —Centrx→talk 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'd be keep if it had more than one line of info on it. You can't just start am article and expect it to finish itslef. --Mincetro 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT a dictionary and useful or interesting not reasons to keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of country name etymologies Fg2 09:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a logical place for a redirect and we already have List of country name etymologies. BigNate37 09:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The List of country name etymologies already does a good job and follows naming conventions. No need for a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---CH 00:23, 22 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. feydey 08:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Disciples[edit]

Non-notable band per standards in WP:MUSIC --Vengeful Cynic 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this can be expanded. Keep it a stub. They have been featured in many a goth fanzine/mag, are a mainstay of some goth DJs setlists, and are distributed by Metropolis. However, I'm a fairly big goth music fan... ---- Missvain 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dream Disciples have toured the UK and Europe many times and have played at the huge WGT music festival in Germany and headlined the Whitby Gothic Weekend in England; they have released several albums on indie labels; they have been featured in many music magazines and had at least one member who was once a part of a band that is otherwise notable. This is a band that easily satisfies the notabilty criteria. ---- Constantine-x
    • Please cite specifics and give some sort of sourcing. I'm not saying that this isn't true, but I've had a hard time finding any definitive information source to indicate notability. Releasing albums on non-notable indie labels is not notable. Features in non-notable magazines is also not notable. I'm not unwilling to bow to reason here, I'm searching for some legitimate citations that I can point to and say "this is why I am working to fix this piece of crap article instead of deleting it." --Vengeful Cynic 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A band only has to satisfy one of the criteria in order to be 'notable'. Having a member from an otherwise notable band means that this band meets the required standard. I would also suggest that Resurrection Records is a 'notable' indie label given that they include the likes of Inkubus Sukkubus on their roster. -- Constantine-x 16 June 2006
  • Delete per nom. Expanded or no, still nn band. Tychocat 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tychocat. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Leave as stub, allow for expansion. Parsssseltongue 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Constantine-x. Jumbo Snails 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added details of Dream Disciples playing Eurorock (Belgium) and Whitby Gothic Weekend (England), in addition to touring around Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Hexene 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the European tours, albums spanning a decade, link to another notable band (via Karl North) and presence outside of mass media traditions (mention in the last two Mick Mercer books plus goth magazines -- "publications devoted to a notable sub-culture") I believe they fulfil at least five of the listed Wikipedia criteria to be notable. 80.189.249.6 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the above reasons 10:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the previous reeasons, popular band of many years links to other notable bands in the goth gnre. Brett 21:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep they are very notable in their genre, Wikipedia has always ensured coveradge for Indie/Cult/Genre culture as well as the mainstream. I assume no-one is suggesting that only bands/films/books that make the top 20 in their respective sales/box office chart are worthy of inclusion. Gonzo 10:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dream Disciples were Signed to Dik Brothers records, the label owned by Fish of Marillion and did a 100+ Date tour supporting Fish in the Early 90s
  • Keep: notable band on the UK gothic scene in the 1990s and early 2000s. Extensive touring, signed to major UK goth independent label, sold a decent number of records for a minority genre band. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must add that Dream Disciples pulled a crowd nearly as big as Rosetta Stone at the Mercat in Birmingham on some occasions, although that's not really a Wikipedia-sourced statistic! I do suspect that if you were in the UK goth scene in the mid 1990s you can't have failed to have heard of them; they were one of the most prolifically touring bands and had quite a following. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Constantine-x. Strobie 18:59, 26 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. Kimchi.sg 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution "Boss Song Families"[edit]

Much as I love the game, and believe this information to be mostly correct, I also believe it to be Original Research and Unverifiable. At the very least, the only Google results for "Boss song family"/"Boss song families" are Wiki mirrors, meaning the page is incorrectly titled. (There are more results for ddr+"boss song", but no truly reliable sources I could use for the article.) Confusing Manifestation 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've played quite a few mixes of DDR, and the information appears to be verifiable, but this article fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 10:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This information is useful and encyclopedic, and while the term "Boss Song" seems a little weak, it's definitely been used before Wikipedia picked it up (by DDRFreak etc.), and I'm not sure where this (useful and verifiable) information would otherwise go... I'd be open to a suggestion. User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've played.. 6 US home, 2 arcade, and 1 import versions of DDR, and this article still confuses me. Article name is odd too. Since the information is in every respect "opinion" (even the name it says is fan-made), and no sources are given, this fails NOR. A list of the hardest songs would be an acceptable alternative. That would not be original research: since the games declare which are the hardest, it would not be opinion, and could easily be cited. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:07, 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. Kimchi.sg 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz[edit]

Vanity page for the composer, obviously autobiographical. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. Comment: Also sympathise with non-mainstream composers. However, subject doesn't meet WP:MUSIC even under non-mainstream criteria, and still a vanity page. IP check suggested as much. Pathlessdesert 12:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potentially fails WP:VAIN, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 10:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The person sounds notable, and the quotes from reviews would seem to back this up. The article will require substantial work, though. TruthbringerToronto 03:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's tough to make it as a composer, especially a non-pop composer, so I am sympathetic. But one has to say that there is a huge incentive for musicians to engage in guerilla marketing at WP, and this should be strongly discouraged re Wikipedia is a not a Yellow Pages Directory. Yeah, I see this is a "delete" but I am calling it a comment :-/ Why? Because a quick IP check suggested this might not have been written by the subject after all, and also he does have a fair number of Ghits. ---CH 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. --Strothra 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no credible, verifiable source of notability provided. Pascal.Tesson 07:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:54, 25 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. This means only that the article gets kept for now; it can be re-nominated for AfD and deleted after a reasonable period of time. Kimchi.sg 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Socialist Party United Left[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum 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!

"Political faction" started 8 DAYS AGO with NO results on Google. Please speedy if possible. mboverload@ 09:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy - under {{db-bio}} "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages." Viridae 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep See comment below. Viridae 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. --Coredesat 10:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted, but it doesn't seem like a speedy to me. The article certainly asserts some notability. the wub "?!" 11:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long, unsigned statement by anon, assuming bad faith by the nominator, moved to the talk page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do not feel that many of the opening comments of the above (comment has been moved to talk page) statement belong in AfD or anywhere else in wikipedia. This is a debate of the validity of the article on wikipedia, and not a comment on the intentions of the editor who nominated the article or those editors thus far who have supported it for speedy deletion. My political motivations do NOT play a part in my decision to support this AfD or any AfD in wikipedia. I do not live in/have anything more than a tenuous ancestral relationship with the country in which the party resides, a fact plainly obvious upon sight of my userpage. I ask that the above editor restrict themslves to comments that will further the debate of the deletion, not personal attacks. This said I change my vote in light of the new information. Viridae 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the SSP United Left should have a Wikipedia entry - it now has several google results - but I'm concerned that the entry here contains references to somewhat biased sources and also some POV, and might need some further work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redguscat (talk • contribs) .

Long, unsigned statement by anon moved to the talk page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would just like to point out to Anon that wikipedia is not the place to showboat your new political party. Viridae 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keepMerge per Metropolitan90. and I certainly do not feel that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. There are plenty of groupings within the political left in Britain. Not all of them have articles. At the moment this organisations only claim to notability is its existance and it's entirely possible that it might not even exist six monthes from now. however this would seem to meet the requirements in WP:NOTABILITY being the subject of outside media reports. Although the article certainly needs rewriting. At the moment it sounds like a press release. Ydam 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the most significant information and redirect to Scottish Socialist Party. This faction/platform does not appear to be getting significant news coverage as a result of its founding -- only 1 Google News hit for ("united left" (ssp | scottish)). [28] --Metropolitan90 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep give it a chance to pick up news coverage. Mustafa Bevi 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long, unsigned statement by anon moved to the talk page. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Once the news coverage starts in and the group attains notability, it will be appropriate for them to have an article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90 Jumbo Snails 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Scottish Socialist Party. The organization might become notable enough to have its own article at some future date, but for now it isn't. Oldelpaso 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator Hmmmm...I seem to have struck a nerve. Look, I don't even LIVE in Scottland. I didn't even KNOW they had a socialist party. Had you actually read my userpage, you would have seen I'm an American. As you can see I actually bothered to put it up for AFD and stuck the speedy tag on later because of the first two votes saying to speedy it. The anon comments are actually pretty humorous - accusing Google of supressing them and saying Wikipedia should block me =D The purpose of an AFD is to DISCUSS IT. I fail to see why these anon users seem intent on labeling me as some kind of evil capitalist out to get them. I look forward to future votes and a few giggles. --mboverload@ 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- I propose to call Mboverload a capitalist tool of repression. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Recently launched group, 0 Google hits for full name, 50 for "SSP United Left". At best, would warrant a couple of sentences in the Scottish Socialist Party article. —Centrx→talk 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As far as I am aware, the Scottish Socialist Party are in the process of a split, as happens to most parties of the left in time, and these lot are the result of that split. In time, they will become a registered party and no doubt will fight elections. doktorb | words 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much per Kuzaar. The article openly states that this is a "proposed platform", rather than a political party. WP:CHILL fellas. Deizio talk 22:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while the article has many external links, they appear to be to sites that are not reliable sources, such as en.wikipedia.org or rebelinkcolumns.blogspot.com. At the very least, clean up, as there is excessive use of weasel words. GRBerry 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Centrx and GRBerry; Scotland on Sunday even got the name wrong (United Front) on 17 June and no mentions in the Herald. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you view the edit history for Scottish Socialist Party United Left, you will actually note that at 00:41 21 June 2006, a link/reference to the online website of the Scottish Socialist Party's newspaper, the Scottish Socialist Voice newspaper was removed, the editor claiming that because they believed it to be "self-promotion?", it required removal. Notwithstanding the fact, that links and references to sources and bodies cited are a requirement under Wikipedia's [[29]], following reinstatement of the link, the editor who deleted the newspaper hypertextlink then LATER nominated the article for deletion on grounds that would appear to have NOW been extensively and ably rebuffed. There has been much reference (and importance placed in some comments) to the groups name appearing on search engines. Notwithstanding the fact that a topic coming up on search results on Google does not represent valid grounds for dismissing the existence of a group (the group's very own website IS linked to within the article), the statement made by the proposed deletor in support of their deletion proposition does not correlate with the facts NOW, given as of 1324GMT Thursday 22 June 2006 "SSP UNITED LEFT" solicits a considerable quantity of hits and extensive commentary across many reporting platforms on Google. This also clearly refutes the proposed deletor's contention "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages", a comment which we now note has now been rejected, and indeed scored through (see top of page). Much as many would like it to be, profit-driven corporations such as Google News are not the arbiters of what is or is not news or newsworthy. What is or is not news is entirely determined in a dynamic, symbiotic relationship between multiple purveyors and myriad consumers of that news. The fact that any one individual does not regard a topic or issue as news, does not mean it becomes 'un-news' to everyone else. There are MANY web-based stories regarding Scottish Socialist Party United Left (or "SSP United Left" for short). Whatsmore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The newsworthiness of an event, should be an afterthought. Importance and interest our forethought. We feel the importance and interest in this topic to be more than clear, and indeed in microcosm more than ably indicated by the level of contribution to this discussion regarding it's proposed deletion!It's worth pointing out that while the entry is titled "Scottish Socialist Party United Left", Scottish Socialist Party is commonly abbreviated to SSP, which helps explain why the latter i.e. "SSP UNITED LEFT" has many hits, and the former, i.e. "Scottish Socialist Party United Left", has few. Furthermore, the article has been written and edited with reference to and in attempted full compliance with Wikipedia content policies. It is worth pointing out that a group, subject or topics existence is not solely and blindly determined by any online references it happens to have on the internet. Online reference does not confer a greater level of reality, identity or legitimacy than off-line. Nor should undue weight be placed on this as a criteria for worthiness or inclusion within an encyclopedia, whether it be an online or off-line version. It will be clear from actual reading of the article and it's sources that the importance of the organisation mentioned therein is extensively and indisputably asserted. As such - the article - containing clear and present value of an important subject and topic and clear assertation of this, does not remotely represent a valid subject for deletion. This is in line with Wikipedia's founding spirit and philosophy. Furthermore, being written by a number of independent commentators, there is no evidence contained therein that the article represents a vanity article. Regarding the importance of the topic (which is a proposed Wikipedia policy). Clearly the emergence of a new faction or grouping within one of Scotland's leading left-wing political parties, a party which is in crisis and has been headline news for months does represent clear evidence, and I quote "that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." While we would reiterate our disagreement with the simpicity and independent objectivity of a google hit orientated argument as being a key and acceptable (if somewhat crude) benchmark of a topic's importance - we would point out that "scottish socialist party" typed into google, solicits 193,000 results http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22scottish+socialist+party%22&meta= typing "ssp united left" into google a faction which has emerged within the party (total membership 3000: total faction signatories currently about 150) solicits 62 results on google after ONLY a few days of being in existence. Since its inception, even a casual glance at the history of the organisation it seems clear that - like it or loathe it - the Scottish Socialist Party has been something of a political phenomenon which has achieved a great deal on the Scottish political stage, for the Scottish people, many of them poor, disabled and disadvantaged. Most people will feel that such a group - politically under represented at the political debating table for many years - does not deserve to be casually described or derided (even unwittingly or accidently) as an unremarkable group of people, nor have the early history of the founding of a completely new network within the party, which includes many important human rights campaigners and leading members of the Scottish Parliament (which is effectively Scotland's semi-autonomous national government!) dismissed as vain, or even worse casually deleted from history by Wikipedia. Not if Wikipedia wishes to truly aim to properly service the accurate, fair and balanced information needs of people worldwide, both today and into the future. This, we feel, would betray and undermine all the good work that Wikipedia has achieved since its foundation. We thank you for your continued support in helping bring clarity and level-headedness to this matter and trust you will help continue to keep the beacon of truth alive on the site. The fact that many organisations, people and/or websites do not subscribe a news feed to Google News, does not make anything they have to say 'un-news' and represent a lack of coverage, significant or otherwise. Yes the Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday newspaper did get the name wrong, calling it "SSP United Front" instead. No matter. Until recently their story was being reported on four Scotsman group websites, and now one. Whether a story or happening in the world receives no coverage, little coverage or a lot of coverage is entirely inconsequential. In the shifting sands of 24/7 news, and in particular the bolting race horse that is 'net news', it doesn't change the fact that that event did happen or continues to happen. We are all well aware that there are many happenings in the world (and many injustices) that never see the light of day in the media. It is worth reminding ourselves time and time again that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The word encyclopedia - derived from Greek - means "all round education". It is not possible to give people an all round education, by leaving certain segments of the circle out or giving certain angles less prominence than they deserve. 172.141.16.153 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The above is the only contribution from this IP address. However, they demonstrate more knowledge of Wikipedia than the average brand new individual.GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To elaborate on my argument above, at Wikipedia we don't think being a non-reliable source is a bad thing. After all, by our own standards for reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and all the regulars here think that Wikipedia is a good thing. We just, by the official policy against original research, can't use material sourced to a non-reliable source, no matter how important the topic is. Once there is coverage in media that meets the fact-checking standards required to be a reliable source, write an article using solely that material. See WP:FORGET for a semi-humorous guide on how to do this. (The suggestions for how to "forget everything you know on the subject" are humorous, the rest of that essay is quite serious.) GRBerry 13:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, while I think that the subject is notable, it is notable only in the context of the SSP's notablity and could be covered in the SSP article.--JK the unwise 15:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC) That said there is currently a page for the Veritas Members Association which if notable at all is so only because it is part of Veritarse. hmmm...--JK the unwise 15:13, 27 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. Kimchi.sg 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glaxis[edit]

Non-notable movie script that was never produced StuartF 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Fails WP:V. --Coredesat 10:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the article carefully. It actually discusses two separate subjects, only one of which is a script. Uncle G 11:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but the 2nd topic is a software program that is "still in its beta stages", which I think is also not notable StuartF 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is irrelevant. The article cites no sources and I can find nothing about anything known as "Glaxis Alerts". This makes it unverifiable. But deletion is not required to fix this problem. Simply apply the sword of verifiability to the article and rewrite it to be about verifiable things known as Glaxis, such as the subsidiary of PPG Industries that deals with back-ordering [30][31][32]. This does not require an administrator to delete the article. Uncle G 12:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the current articles are notable or verifiable, so they have no business being. The fact another article can be written with the same title has no effect on that. If no one writes that other article soon enough, UncleG's method would leave this unverifiable crap forever. - Mgm|(talk) 07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it wouldn't. The article could be rewritten now. Indeed, it could have been rewritten instead of being nominated for AFD in the first place. Uncle G 10:03, 22 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. Kimchi.sg 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Best[edit]

Lacks notability. Fails WP:BIO. Viridae 10:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, but only if expanded. Appearing on "I'm a celebrity" ought to mean she needs a new agent, but it is notability of a sort. Footballers' wives, eh? Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add to the article. "Alex Best" gets 67000 hits on google, over 500 alone on the BBC news web site. She is not just known as George Best's one time wife, but has notoriety in her own right. Markb 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. --Coredesat 10:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a minor celebrity in the UK, but has been subject of numerous interviews in certain sections of the media, particularly during and after her split from George Best. Needs expanding, though. Bob 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor celebrities are ten-a-penny in the UK. -- GWO
  • Keep - her fame was undoubtedly originally a result of her marriage to Best, but she has indeed become established in her own right since then. She's appeared on various TV programmes, is often in newspapers and celebrity gossip magazines in the UK, and I think she's even had a book out about her marriage to George. Just because she's not well-known outside the UK doesn't make her non-notable. Seb Patrick 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, has achieved fame for being involved in various newsworthy events. Marriage to Best doesn't confer notability, being at his side on TV and in the papers, especially when the motivation behind their marriage was repeatedly questioned, does. Deizio talk 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While she initally gained attention through her husband, she's had sufficient media coverage in unrelated areas to be regarded as notable. Oldelpaso 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can't think how this would benefit the general reader. Is the star of a list of All the worlds bars? Gosh, I hope not!---CH 00:35, 22 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 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Coca-Cola[edit]

POV fork. Delete KleenupKrew 10:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't get it. How can an article that is titled "Criticism of *" ever be made NPOV? The title isn't even NPOV. Merging it should not bloat the main article either, if only the appropriate amount were merged, say, one single sentence for each legitimate criticism. At the every least, if this is kept it needs to be renamed, something like "Controversies regarding Coca-Cola". KleenupKrew 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Please see this article from MSNBC [33] and the discussion on Talk:The Coca-Cola Company for more background. MSNBC slammed Wikipedia's coverage of Coke about 2 weeks ago for all the negative bias. KleenupKrew 10:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. Along with other major producers of fizzy drinks, Coca-Cola attacts criticism on a wide range of issues. We can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen.Markb 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup to make NPOV. If this cannot be done, delete. --Coredesat 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. Viridae 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Coca-Cola. There's no justification for making this a separate article other than hoping to avoid discussion with editors of the Coca-Cola article, i. e. a POV fork. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This article just needs to be made NPOV and it'll be fine. NuncAutNunquam Talk 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this much criticism would severely throw off the balance of the main article... there should be a section of criticism in that article with this being linked as the main article. It's not a POV fork... but a way to keep information without throwing off the balance of the main article. gren グレン 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gren. Inserting this into the main article would bloat it unneccesarily. Just make sure it stays referenced and free of crackpot conspiracy theories and POV warriors. - Mgm|(talk) 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MGM. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:44Z
  • Delete The article as it stands is garbage. Most of the criticism is generic and could be said about any number of products or companies. If it has sugar bought from America then it is benefiting from price supports and so tax payer money is going into greedy corporate pockets. If they buy third world sugar, then they are exploiting the poorly paid. If they use no sugar (diet), then they are charging for a product with nonnatuaral ingrediants. This kind of criticism is unencyclopedic and only useful in the marketing wars between the sugar-water sellers. Now, if someone whats to rewrite this in terms of Soft drink marketing wars, well that's a horse of a different color. WAS 4.250 13:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Criticism of articles are excellent flame-bait, but not encyclopedic -- MrDolomite 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily disagree (I haven't decided)... but, we have lots of criticism of articles. It seems to me that there needs to be a discussion about that in the context of the whole encyclopedia. There are already lots of "criticism of" articles and to me it seems more neutral to keep them all rather than delete a few of them. gren グレン 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article can't be made NPOV. It should be integrated into the main article, after cutting down to an proportionate length. Calsicol 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the main article should summarize the most notable criticisms. That's no basis for deletion, though. If that kind of "cutting down" were instead of a separate article, rather than in addition to it, then we would lose information that some readers might want. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, criticism is common, needs to be more NPOV though --Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gren and MGM but agree with those who say the article needs cleanup, particularly in presenting both sides of the criticisms. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to The Coca-Cola Company - according to Talk:Criticism of Coca-Cola, this merge/redirect is the intention of the editor working on the page anyway, so any worries about "losing information" would appear to be unfounded. Under the current inflammatory title, it is intrinsically WP:NPOV. Maybe it was moved out because the mother article was/is undergoing peer review? It should go back there anyway. --DaveG12345 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Criticism are, usually, not neutral. However, they can be reported from a neutral POV, that's what we do in Wikipedia. Afonso Silva 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You don't delete articles because they have a POV! And it's a criticism, which means that it looks at the negative things about the topic in question. Anyways, if it does not follow WP:NPOV you can just fix it up and it will be good. Freddie Message? 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wikipedia signpost mentions that this was branched off the main article in response to newspaper criticism that the negative parts of the main coca-cola company article were given too much prominence - re-merging would not really help in that case. - Master Of Ninja 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article solves a number of problems. -- Stbalbach 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A relevant article: keep --Splette Talk 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, summarize criticism and add such summary to main article as per Wikipedia:Content forking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:56, 26 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 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bias curriculum[edit]

promo, how-to guide, original research, inherently POV, delete. KleenupKrew 10:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for being Gramscian jibberjabber that could onle ever be POV. Eddie.willers 11:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure about this one. It would appear to be a POV and OR essay but it was well referenced which made me think twice. Judging from the high number of google results this would seeem to be a notable enough concept. Ydam 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and strong cleanup. The subject seems notable; the strongly POV text seems helpful, referenced, and useful to future editors. If there's some place to merge this to, I'd be open to suggestions. Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep and strong cleanup as per Smerdis. I found 36000 Ghits, FWIW. ---CH 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename somewhere. If somewhere cannot be found, delete. In either case, salt the earth. The title is inherently "biased", if the article is at all specific, thereby violating WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ghits don't handle hypenation at all well, so it would include "anti bias curriculum" which may not be the same thing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have many articles with titles that accurately reflect how the suject is actually referred to, even if the phrasing itself isn't NPOV (for example, Healthy Forests Initiative). It's not POV for us to report on a notable subject that exists because of someone's POV. This article does need cleanup to make that distinction clear, though; we should report this POV rather than adopting it. Also, I'm sure there's conservative criticism of the idea, and that should be incorporated into the article, with attribution. JamesMLane t c 06:19, 23 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 18:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Signs[edit]

Non-notable practical joke, appears to apply to only one high school. Bob 11:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am very sorry for my late reply to this, It could not be helped because I had to deal with some people who wished me to modify my page. I also apologise in advance for any offence I may cause in disproving other's theories that this was not, to quote people's words "something made up in school one day."

This action of putting "The Day" signs at strategic locations within a school is a documented and well used practical joke throughout the minority of American High schools. It has since spread to Australian schools.

I only thought of re-documenting it in wikipedia after reading about the "Columbine High School Massacre" in which one of the shooters was found to be in possession of "The Anarchist Cookbook." This triggered my memory and I remebered that this book has several offshoots, one of which is "The School Stoppers Handbook" or the "School Stopper's Textbook" (excerpts can be found at | FIS and | OP , some of my primary sources for this information ) which describe how through disinformation and acts of anarchy, a school can be stopped from running efficiently. Number 24 in both of these lists, describes how to distract teachers by sticking up "The Day" signs so that other acts of anarchy could be performed without intrusion.

For the record, cases have been reported in Australian schools, such as Waratah and Kotara High school. However, I chose to record Lambton High School's event, because the Police and Anti-Terrorism Unit were involved, thus giving the even more notoriety. My only source of primary information was an interview via phone that I had with the school and local police station, to confirm whether an event as such had taken place. Other secodary sources included the forum's on the now removed | Friday's The Day website,

What I have heard through unsourced means is that is was two students suspended, even though more "supposedly" helped them to commit this act and that the Police and Anti-Terrorism Unit were involved because a bomb-threat had been called in the same day. Technique 72 in the "School Stopper's Handbook."

As such, I believe the article in question is fit for listing in Wikipedia. Regardless of the outcome, I would appreciate a reply from Bob ( Who put the up for deletion. ) as to whether the article will stay or go. Happy Nit-Picking on other's works

Point to note is that "School crazes, fads, and fashions can end up in Wikipedia. But only if someone first sits down and researches them, and publishes a book, an academic paper, or a magazine/journal article detailing that research. Then the subject becomes eligible for Wikipedia."

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 25:22 24th June 2006 (Non-UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the insult, but the issue is out of my hands now. The question I would have for you is whether anybody other than yourself and perhaps those at Lambton High School or the "minority" of high schools would ever think of putting The Day Signs into this encyclopedia and finding it useful. When I put it up for deletion, the article did not mention any of the sites listed above, nor any work of reference - I think you'll agree with me that the article does read like something made up in school one day. Certainly, if this is notable, some of the information could perhaps be integrated into the school prank article or maybe the bullying article. Bob 07:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would it be possible to change your signature, please? I would imagine it's not going to further your case by insulting every user you interact with. Bob 07:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is out of your hands now. If I didn't think it was valuable to the encyclopedia I wouldn't have put it up. That is common sense. As for agreeing with you, please do not make assumptions on my part. It is a great suggestion that this be incorporated into the school prank article, especially since the school prank article is being considered for deletion for a third time. Are you trying to waste more of my time by suggesting this? You seem to be deleting my articles. . . and this is an editable encyclopedia, why don't you edit my name yourself? My point has been made, as such I do not need to "further my case" at this point.

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 26:48 24th June 2006 (Non-UTC) 

 Hey guys, i am one of the suspended students who was involved in fridays the day. We got the idea from another school who did it, though quite some time ago. I think it is worthwhile to feature this article. By the way, i made the fridays the day site. All it was was a pathetic flash cartoon and a spooky warning, as well as the forums, but it got the message accross. We were not the first to feature 'the day' signs and we certainly won't be the last. It is worthwhile because when it happens again, those who attend the school will need a point of referance.

-The terrorist behind FTD.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Xoloz 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Talent Productions Ltd.[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable group Ethii 11:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a valid reason for deleting an article of this nature. The company is currently in negosiations with a number of high profile composers and its members are devising new musical shows. It is important that theatre companies such as these are supported as they are insuring future live entertainment. --Theatrestudent 11:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a non-notable startup bunch of luvvies who are angling for free advertising. Eddie.willers 11:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising is not the reason for this article. DON'T BITE the newbies! It is my understanding that this network doesn't allow offensive comments. It is not an "advert" for the company as no specific productions or dates appear on this page. It is merely a statement of the existance of the company and what it does. If you read the mission statement for the company on their website their intentions are honourable --Theatrestudent 11:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Response To Theatrestudent. According to the public records at Companies House, HIDDEN TALENT PRODUCTIONS LTD., company number 05757637, was incorporated on 27th March 2006. That means it is less than three months old. By your own admission, it has only been involved in one production thus far - in association with the Students and the Student Union of the educational extablishment attended by the company's Directors. Take all the offence you need - these two facts do not demonstrate any kind of notability for inclusion wrt Wiki standards. Additionally, were it not for the fact you have bothered to create a limited trading company for this venture, I would suggest that the article be deleted as being something made up in school one day. Eddie.willers 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for your contributions here, Theatrestudent! This page is a discussion page for the community to decide whether certain articles are to be kept in our encyclopedia or removed. Nothing is done without a discussion, to which you are welcome to contribute. For your information, the article is being measured against some standards the community has devised that are listed here. If the consensus is that the article meets those standards, or the consensus is that the community doesn't know, then the article will be kept. Only if the consensus is that the article doesn't reach those standards will the article be deleted. This is not a reflection on the article, the author, the subject of the article or yourself. It's just how things are done here. Nobody is attacking you - people are just making sure that the encyclopedia is kept free of advertising and non-notable groups. We do this with hundreds of articles every day! ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Unless the creater can enlighten us. Has this group been the subject of any outside media attention, have any of their productions been? Ydam 13:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above arguments. Wickethewok 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good luck to you guys, TheatreStudent, but with no Ghits other than www.hiddentalent.org.uk/home.htm, this is nonnotable. ---CH 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not yet notable. MikeWazowski 05:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no there there. Yet. Good luck to them though. Dipics 18:40, 23 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 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Strazds[edit]

Appears to be vanity page. "Armands Strazds" composer gets 6 Ghits StuartF 11:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I originally placed an "autobiography" tag, which the creator removed with this disingenuous comment on the article's talk page his talk page. StuartF 12:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete google provides no confirmation of this guys notability. The article doesn't really tell us why he's notable either. Username of the creater makes it obvious that this autobiographical Ydam 12:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity autobiography as per WP:VAIN-WP:AUTO. It's tough to make it as a composer, particularly a non-pop composer, but Wikipedia is not a directory.---CH 00:46, 22 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 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Madeleine[edit]

Subject is not-notable. Also, a Google search only pulls 3 unique results for this person. Therefore, delete. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there are no Google hits for a (super)model with that name and also the two photos claim to come from style.com but no model with that name can be found there. Optimale Gu 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, I can't find anything substantial to verify this individual. Without some sources I am resigned to say delete. DrunkenSmurf 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: how could a "supermodel" have only 3 Ghits? (I checked that, BTW.) I suspect guerilla marketing by a "creative" agency. WP must strongly oppose using WP for advertisting purposes.---CH 00:48, 22 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 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screamager Magazine[edit]

This magazine has only released 2 issues since its inception in 2004 and the article has no information on its circulation. In fact, the fact they label a section "issues-catalogue" and include the tell all "for more info visit *** or email ***" suggests to me this is advertising for a non-notable magazine.

Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 2 issues since 2004? No relevant google hits either. DrunkenSmurf 13:38, 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 deleted A7, plus large passages of G1. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dawson[edit]

NN-bio. Speedy deletion was contested. Delete fails WP:BIO and is unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom this is just rubbish. DrunkenSmurf 13:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Optimale Gu 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and retagged - how was this article created with both a speedy tag and a contest notice? Utter nonsense in any case. NawlinWiki 15:36, 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 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True inheritors of Caledonia[edit]

Original research (even though some parts are sourced, the main thrust of the article is OR: the title yields no Google hits), and NPOV Fram 12:15, 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 merge/redirect I am just redirecting for now, if anyone wants to mention this at Village the history is still preserved. W.marsh 18:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selo[edit]

There is no particular reason why this should be separate from the article village - right now it sounds more like a separate advertisement for Bulgarian villages. Whatever salvagable content there is, it should be moved to village, and the rest deleted. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Main content is defs of Bulgarian words. JPD (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with village. Viridae 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. Not a place for translation of eastern European words. - Mgm|(talk) 07:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --MaNeMeBasat 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not appropriate for an article here. It does seem a pity to loose this though - it feels like there should be somewhere in an article about Bulgaria to include this, but I can't seem to see it. Inner Earth 22:21, 27 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 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protexx[edit]

Delete. Commercial spam and not notable:Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) As far as my quick googling could tell, only relevant google hit was on its own website, and the article constitutes little more than an advertisement.Jens Nielsen 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable company. -- cmh 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Freddie 02:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:39, 14 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. (Liberatore, 2006) 12:34, 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 Keep Eluchil404 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah_(tree)[edit]

the issue of oldest organism is highly debated and this is by no means the best or only candidate,should be merged with a more general article.Rodrigue 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006) 12:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject of the article is notable regardless if it actually is the oldest organism or not. Ydam 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ydam. JPD (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, is certainly notable Optimale Gu 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly notable. Jumbo Snails 19:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly notable. --Coredesat 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Existing organisms are notable by default. And even if this should've been merged, then it wouldn't have required an AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not it is the oldest doesn't matter, it's still notable. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand... I was hoping to see more information on this particular tree. --plicease 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If this is not an encylopedic entry then one wonders what it takes to be included! Vegaswikian 22:30, 25 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 move/redirect. W.marsh 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUNS (Nazi Organization)[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was: "There is no real need for this page. The organization is defunt and now under a different name.". (Liberatore, 2006) 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep thats not really a valid reason for deletion. I'd suggest redirecting to the name of the new organisation if we knew what it was move to Nationella Alliansen and edit the article slightly. Ydam 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Nationella Alliansen as Ydam says (the name was in the article!). JPD (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh can't believe I missed that. I do read all the articles I comment on, honest Ydam 13:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to the new name, although in keeping with other articles I would suggest National Alliance (Sweden) with Nationella Alliansen as a redirect and a new entry added to National Alliance (disambiguation). Keresaspa 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been bold and moved the article to its current, English language, name. Unless anybody wants the article as a whole deleted then this can probably be closed. Keresaspa 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (merge if needed) to whatever its new name is. Older people who only remember its old name should be able to find the article too. - Mgm|(talk) 07:57, 22 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 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Das[edit]

PROD was removed, hence putting on Articles for Deletion. Appears to be a non-notable, non-verifiable musician - I doubt that any of the claims in the article can be substantiated. Delete. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability for this individual or any sources to support claims made in the article. DrunkenSmurf 13:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only 7 distinct Ghits for "Michael Das" Coromandel; I suspect Coromandel should be proded too. ---CH 00:54, 22 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 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William's Whales[edit]

For clarity, this AfD is asking not only about William's Whales but also both albums created to promote the band. Please ring in on all three. Kershner 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non notable band (two albums, but self released: no google hits at all Fram 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I also nominate the articles for their two albums, New Celery and Blitzkrieg Bop Sessions Fram 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just formed, extemely non-notable band, and "albums" should be striken as well. DrunkenSmurf 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom, delete and delete both albums. Vanity. Kershner 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • William's Whales has a lot of hits on Google.

{Results 1 - 10 of about 95,200 for william's whales]

  • Google search results for William's Whales: 93,800 here. Google search results for "William's Whales": zero. Delete. TheProject 17:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now there are two for "William's Whales" on Google.
Yeah, two links to Wikipedia... Circular reasoning! Fram 09:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Studio[edit]

NN recording studio in Quebec; article acknowledges it is "not a professional grade studio"; no notable works recorded there NawlinWiki 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article lists a few works by bands with Wikipedia articles, and Once Was Not has an article by itself. It still needs to be wikified and de-orphaned, of course. Melchoir 01:23, 16 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, W.marsh 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Melchoir's comment above is accurate for the one linked in band and the album, neither of those articles mentions the studio. Just as the spouse of a notable individual is not themselves inherently notable under WP:BIO, a related topic is not inherently notable under WP:BAND. WP:BAND is in fact silent as to criteria for studios, so the relevant guideline is WP:CORP. There is no assertion in the article that it meets the WP:CORP criteria. The article even says "not a professional grade studio". GRBerry 23:16, 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. W.marsh 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CountrySTAT[edit]

reads like non-notable organization spam, author refuses to clean it up Adolphus79 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, organization is a subsection of United Nations/FAO. If not expanded substantially in the next few days, then Merge FAO Travelbird 22:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like World Agricultural Trade Flow and World Agricultural Trade Matrix, 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]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The FAO is a United Nations organisation - hardly non-notable! This is useful and encyclopaedic, BlueValour 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Cleanup or Delete - The article had four external links to a single software company's site. I eliminated three, but I'm not sure the fourth needs to stay. I think all of the articles that 132.239.90.209 suggested merging are excellent candidates for merging - none establish notability on their own in my eyes, but as a group they offer the beginnings of a good article. Of course, given that the general level of statisical illiteracy is (necessarilly) higher than the general level of mathematical illiteracy, I don't know how many readers such an article will attract, but it would be more helpful to them than each tool having its own article. GRBerry 23:29, 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 Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as for a bunch of similar pages. ImpuMozhi 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetnag Kumar[edit]

Possible Hoax. There is no snake with the following description. False information Pixen 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 14:12, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Request: I've closed several other Raj Comics-related AfDs, so I normally wouldn't mind merging or redirecting this, but there are concerns that this particular article is a hoax (ie, this character doesn't actually exist). Could some AfD regulars please take a closer look at this character and see if it actually exists in Raj Comics? Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:48, 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 deal with as copyvio I have listed it. W.marsh 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Afrizal[edit]

Apparently a survivor of the 2004 tsunami. Nothing particularly noteworthy here. May also have some copyright violation, as there are a lot of unreferenced quotes and the like. Indrian 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Copyright Violation Whole paragraphs of the article are directly taken from Here. In addition it is just a news story. DrunkenSmurf 15:30, 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 17:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O&J Productions[edit]

Advertising page for non-notable "production company". 101 Google hits, only 36 unique, and not all refer to this "company". Delete TheRealFennShysa 15:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely non-notable, almost certainly vanity, fails Google test, and the company has never done anything of import. -- Kicking222 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNot a vanity page. I added this page when i found them on youtube.com and video.google.com. All pages do refer to O&J Productions, but not to their actual site. They do, however, refer to videos they made on other websites. They are in the process of making videos full length. They are to be seen next year in film festivals in portland oregon. BooZker 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Posting your home made videos on googlevideo, youtube and ifilm does not a notable company make. DrunkenSmurf 14:00, 21 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adcruft and as per WP:VAIN ---CH 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are not mine. I found them when i looked up skate boarding trick tips. They started Carpet Boarding and i got to like them so i asked them some questions and made an article. Plus their are tons of bands on here how can you say what are famous and not? They are also NOT homemade. They are Indie commercials and are filming a movie to get into film festivals. Boozker 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to vote twice, BooZker... vote struck through after change by anonymous editor.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/redirect to Tonawanda Reservation Since this text is unformatted and could be a copyvio for all I know, I have just pasted it to the page in questions talk page, where it can be merged in later. W.marsh 18:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomawanda Seneca Nation Land Claim[edit]

Contested prod. User:The Famous Movie Director originally submitted this as a speedy saying "may be original research, no context provided". NickelShoe (Talk) 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I can't make sense of it since I have no background in the topic, but perhaps it could be merged into one of the articles on Tonawanda Reservation. Changed vote, see below. --Grace 22:44, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tonawanda Reservation or a sub-article thereof. (Note that the "m" in the name should actually be an "n".) I work a county away from the affected area, and this controversy gets a lot of coverage in regional newspapers such as the Ithaca Journal (ithacajournal.com). State and federal court cases have centered on this topic, and single-issue interest groups have formed and engaged in considerable argument. Current version of article has no citations and appears to be an original-research summary of the facts. Topic is notable, but doesn't need to be split off with a long name that won't be a common search term. Barno 20:29, 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 17:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything at Once and Scott McCurdy[edit]

Non-notable band. They've released 1 album (possbly on a major label), and the article references them as having won a 2005 Hamilton Music Award; the website for that award is here, and as you can see, it's for people in the local scene. Scott McCurdy is the drummer for this band; both articles were created, and all substantive edits were made, by the same editor. Mangojuicetalk 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right so becuase you decide the band is not notable they shoudl be deleted. Then, in 5 months when you think they are special enough to include them in the public record then entry is allowed to stay? Total rubbish. Leave the entry, they are on a major label and so what if they are independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.58.151 (talk • contribs)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May become notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Regarding the one album - the amazon.com sales rank is above 200,000, the amazon.ca is above 100,000. Stu ’Bout ye! 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup and citations (especially of touring, if that is to help notability), but is signed to a label (not a major, but as said above, so what?), and has won an award. Come on, Stu, you can't really think Amazon is the authority on notable music! Parsssseltongue 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The award is a local one, for bands from Hamilton, Ontario. And I think Amazon sales rank is a good guide to notability. In their native country, their album is the 100,000th best selling album. No All Music Guide entry, no Discogs entry. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it does need a clean-up agreed. Tour information from their Myspace does list some big shows/festivals and notes that major tours are in the works. Also, their album is available on "itunes" in the US for purchase (though apparently not in Canada). So, doesn't thq that make them as noteable as being on Amazon?. On top of that, according to the "all music.com website" anyone can have an entry on Allmusic provided they send them a free CD and you can buy the CD "AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release. The best way to ensure that your title receives full coverage is for you to send us one copy of the product along with any relevant promotional materials, such as press releases and artist photos." So how does that make allmusic the be all and end all? Perhaps the band has done this? Who knows. Lastly, who are we to write independent or up and comming bands out of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.58.151 (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 DELETE —Whouk (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Drennen[edit]

Just some random guy in A-ball who happened to hit a homerun off of Roger Clemens during a rehab start. Mr. Clemens has been pitching a long time, and there is no one else on wikipedia just because he gave up a homer to him. Also, to those who might argue that there is something significant about an A level player getting a homerun off of a sure Hall of Famer, it is worth noting that even the best of pitchers give up many homeruns in their careers and even the worst hitters in baseball hit homeruns off of the best pitchers sometimes (after all, pitchers hit homeruns occasionally). Not only will this guy not be remembered in ten years even in baseball circles unless he adds a few more accolades to his resume, he will not be remembered in ten months. Was prodded, but the tag was removed. Indrian 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Not notable outside Mr Drennen's immediate family (who will be hearing about it for years) -- GWO
  • Delete. nn at this time. First round draft pick, may be in the majors in five years, may be selling cars. It would take a crystal ball to know which. For now, he's just a guy who got a dinger in a Class A game, and that doesn't do it. Fan1967 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a hall of famer is pitching an A level game as a rehab assignment, it is because their current capability is roughly A level. Sports news authors hype everything. This just isn't encyclopedic content unless we make crystal ball level assumptions. GRBerry 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An incredibly deceptive nom, that ignores that Mr. Drennen was a first round draft pick at 18 by the Indians and will most likely get callled up. In his short time in the minors, the man homered off Clemens (in his first return to the major leagues), probably the greatest pitcher who ever lived. Drennen's hit made national news, with every major paper commenting. This is no random guy and no random story. I wonder to what extent the nom understands the dynamics of the story. I object to the false projection ten years down the road, at which point Drennan is entirely likely to have made his mark in the majors. I would encourage participants to read and expand the article. --JJay 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" was unclear to you? Hint: projections about what a great ballplayer this guy could be -- no matter how many excitable adjectives you slather on - are still projections. And an "incredibly deceptive nom"? Please. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your remarks civil Calton, you have been warned many times before. TruthCrusader 09:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, grow up. The semi-competent nanny act is getting old. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take my cue and respond to the nomination- to be precise the speculation regarding Mr. Drennan ten months down the road. I suggest you do the same before throwing out thoughtless comments. --JJay 02:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange that the nom's crysal ballism comment doesn't bother you: Not only will this guy not be remembered in ten years even in baseball circles, he will not be remembered in ten months.... I'm sorry, but if I was a betting man, I would say that a first round pick, a teenager, who homers off Clemens, is in fact more than likely to be remembered in both ten months and ten years. --JJay 01:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange indeed -- but since it's not the reason for the nomination nor of the slightest relevance to it, one wonders why you bring it up. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply responding to the remark that was directly addressed to me. I would encourage you to try to follow the flow of the coversation before commenting. Of course, when the delete voters cease their arm waving, and explain why an obscure minor league player gets these kind of google hits [34], or google news hits [35], I would be more than pleased. --JJay 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do have a valid point, and I have clarified my comment above, but Calton is correct that you are missing the point of the arguement for deletion. Furthermore, there have been quite a few #1 pick busts in the history of the draft, including quite a few that never made it to the Major Leagues. Indrian 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real argument for deletion. A first-round draft pick, a pro-baseball player, who smokes a living legend, qualifies for inclusion at every level. I also think your offhand comment about the prod is offensive. The prod was removed and the article was massively expanded (something you forgot to mention). --JJay 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
follow the flow of the coversation before commenting. Which I did, and do -- and your "I know you are, but what am *I*" rhetoric still remains as meaningless whether you were responding to a specific comment or whether it burst out as a non sequitor. You, on the other hand, DO seem to have a basic problem with following the basic flow converstion, given your continued ignoring of WP i not a crystal ball. If you sneer enough, you think you no one will notice?
There is no real argument for deletion Other than all the ones that have been brought up which you keep pretending don't exist, no. --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you may want to read WP:NOT before accusing other people of ignoring it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have -- and given your well-known tendency to mistake an encyclopedia for the telephone directory and make vague handwaving gestures at policy in general, you're not one to lecture me on understanding policy. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you sneer enough, you think you no one will notice- Civility really isn't one of your strong suits, is it? For your information, I'm not sneering, merely trying to save a good article. And the only reason given for deletion is speculation regarding whether Mr. Drennen will be "remembered" in ten years. No policy reasons have been given. And no one has answered my question regarding google and news hits. --JJay 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility really isn't one of your strong suits, is it? I don't respond well to obvious snow jobs: responding to the actual arguments actually made doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so maybe that makes us even. WP not a crystal ball? Ring a bell? --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't respond well to anyone who "votes" keep anywhere on AfD. Reread WP:CIV and abide by it, or stop addressing comments/accusations to me and other users. Thank you. --JJay 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that this article fits into a strange nether region that defies categorization in WP:BIO and leads to reasonable arguements on both sides for keeping based on an interpretation of that guideline alone. Vis-á-vis athletes, the guideline indicates that professioal athletes should be allowed in, and minor leaguers are certainly paid for their efforts, but other categories in Bio such as top athletes in non-professional sports and top athletes in college sports imply that the level of selectivity is slightly different. Baseball is unique among the major American sports in that there is an extended farm system that develops talent rather than teams just relying on high schools and colleges to develop players for them. WP:BIO goes on to discuss how first team squad members (not a baseball concept I know) that have not appeared for the first team may merit an entry, and this implies that lower level team members do not. By analogy, minor leaguers are the equivalent of the reserve team, and therefore WP:BIO strongly implies they don't belong. I acknowledge that the policy can be interpreted either way and that mine own is merely an opinion on how it should be read and only consensus can dictate how each case will be handled. I hope you can acknowledge the same about your views.
That long-winded explanation deals only with why minor leaguers in general do not belong and does not answer your question relating to this specific person. According to my interpretation above, this person would have to have done something highly unusual or special to merit inclusion. Being a sandwhich round draft pick (not quite a number one) is not enough in my eyes because his value is not yet known. If he goes on to be a Major League regular, then he will certainly merit an article, but he may flop and be forgotten like many picks (even #1 picks) before him. That leaves the homerun, which is the main (probably only) reason this article was written as is readily apparent by the content of the article, which focuses nearly exclusively on this event. A home run is just not too important an event in the grand scheme of things, many thousands having been hit in baseball history from its inception. Sure, there have been notable homerun feats like Reggie Jackson in 1978, Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Joe Cater in 1993, and even Bo Jackson in 1989, but this particular home run did not reach those lofty heights of importance, and none of those players have an article solely because they hit those homeruns. Roger Clemens has given up 347 home runs in his major league career alone, and this was just one more. While he may be the best pitcher of all time, that does not make him immune to homeruns. Even the best pitcher may give up a home run to the worst hitter on any given day, whether through luck, skill, or a temporary lapse in judgment. Any player could have hit a homerun off Clemens that day, it just so happens Drennen was the guy to do it. It does not make him special or notable. As for the press coverage, this speaks more to the hype surrounding Clemens than to any special achievement on Drennen's part. Any major sporting event is going to be covered by every news agency on the planet, and day in and day out the plays of certain players will be discussed. A third-string catcher on a last place Major League team who allows a passed ball that costs his team a win will be featured in media outlets across the country (particularly if it is a New York team), but if the game was not important to the team's overall performance that year, the incident will quickly be forgotten and the article on that player will not mention the incident regardless of how much media coverage was generated. The same situation exists here. While I believe your interpretation of WP:BIO is valid (even though I do not agree with it), I have yet to see you explain what makes this homerun special, or any more noteworthy than the 347+ other homeruns Clemens has given up in his career.
I know this is a long post, but you requested a more detailed explanation, and I indulged you. I would certainly be interested in hearing your response, but I hope you can keep in mind the difference between a valid arguement and one with which you merely disagree with. Indrian 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. That was a very good answer. There is little I think that I need to say now that I haven't already said. As you surmised, my reading of WP:BIO is that all pro athletes qualify for inclusion. Therefore, I would be inclined to keep the Drennen article regardless. I also don't see any reason why we wouldn't want articles on all the top draft picks- meaning well beyond the top ten. That's the kind of information I would hope a major on-line reference work could provide. The fact that the Clemens minor-league game was greatly hyped, televised nationally and covered by newspapers coast-to-coast (NY Times, USA Today etc [36],[37] - with Drennen's homer drawing extensive commentary and feature articles the next day [38], [39],[40]- makes the Drennen article especially interesting. In my view, it is the kind of story that people tend to remember and one that certainly bears inclusion here. --JJay 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A hitter who got lucky, a rehabbing pitcher on a bad day, the second coming of Mickey Mantle, whatever: it's a single event, a few inches of wire-service copy in the back of the paper, and whether Drennen someday becomes another Willie Mays, another [[Crash Davis] -- or just a footnote in Roger Clemens's memoirs -- is pure speculation, no matter how much you jump up and down and wave your arms. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. Would likely be kept anyway as a notable first round pick. The Clemens footnote alone is enough for inclusion regardless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was picked 33rd in the first round. Care to see if there are articles on any of the 32 who went before him? Fan1967 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, for that matter, who deserve them? --Calton | Talk 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure they all do. If the 32 don't have articles yet, they should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Fan1967's thorough research above. --Satori Son 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 and nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Please see the talk section for the more established Kinston Indians players articles that I created and everyone so quickly dismissed... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Barton. Good luck getting articles for Low A class players (Lake County Captains) considering that the articles for advanced A players (or in some cases even AA palyers like Armando Camacaro and Scott Rohel) that I created werent even allowed Nick22aku 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Nick22aku[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable minor leaguer --Jaranda wat's sup 22:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate if/when he plays in Major League Baseball or otherwise meets WP:BIO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As he meets WP:BIO now, does that mean this can be interpreted as a keep? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe just as soon as you explain how, as oppose to hand-waving. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as soon as he's out of the reserves and plays for the first team (i.e. just one game in major league will do), then he'll meet WP:BIO for sportspeople rather than your idiosyncratic interpretation of it. If he does something else notable, non-baseball, that meets WP:BIO, then that too will do. But he hasn't yet established his notability either through baseball or any other field. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I'm saying is, at the moment, my reading of the wording of WP:BIO, rather than anything idiosyncratic, shows that he meets it in at least two variables. If your vote isn't contingent on WP:BIO after all, then it'd be different story. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you plan on letting us know which variables, or is this another of your faith-based votes? --Calton | Talk 03:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Easy: "portspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" and "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." I certainly don't have to point these out to you, as you claim to not need a lecture above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:17, 27 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 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounding the Seventh Trumpet (Hopeless)[edit]

  • Delete. Re-releases of albums should not have separate articles, especially if they have exactly the same track listings and artwork. --G VOLTT 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:03, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Should this redirect, or just be deleted? This article is pretty much identical to Sounding the Seventh Trumpet, therefore there is nothing to merge. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A highly unlikely search term, so a redirect would serve little purpose. Oldelpaso 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if someone who knows naming conventions searches for this term, the search results would likely include a link to the actual article, I would think. The redirect serves little/no purpose. BigDT 19:35, 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape armour[edit]

This is part of a guide on how to play RuneScape. The game's article is encyclopaedic. The community is debatably encyclopedic. Individual pages detailing how to manufacture armor are not. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (a - now-deleted - guide page for Command & Conquer, a far bigger game than RuneScape) this should be deleted. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow people to host their GameFAQS-style guides elsewhere. I'm sorry if you really wanted to know that "Toktz-Ket-Xil shields can be purchased for Tokkul in TzHaar or acquired as an uncommon drop from TzHaar-Ket", but Wikipedia is really not the place for this information. I quake in anticipation of this AFD being subsumed by an angry horde of forum trolls. Closing admin, please ensure that you judge the discussion based on the strength of the arguments, and not by how many people bundle over and block-vote 'keep'. (Apologies to RuneScape people for assuming bad faith in advance, but I know what any kind of clear-up on gamecruft can end up resulting in). Strong delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Proto///type 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. -- GWO
  • Delete and transwiki to the RuneScape wiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is their license compatible with ours? - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, GFDL. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 09:28Z
        • As Wikipedia is also GFDL, don't you think that if they wanted/needed this, they would have taken a copy already? Proto///type 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No point duplicating unneccesarly, though some content has been lifted directly from WP (more likely when under threat), with or without attribution. If there is a more effecient way to do it, help is needed, as the majority there are enthusiast rather than wiki expert. The treatment also tends to be in more detail. Ace of Risk 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect A small summary about armour on the main RuneScape article would be better, just with a link to the knowledge base article(s) on combat instead of having all the how-to guide information. -- Agentscott00(talk contribs) 23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the best reasoning nominations I've seen in a while. - Mgm|(talk) 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:41Z
  • Delete. Agreed on all points. --203.206.109.178 08:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can't be sent to Wikibooks, this has nowhere to go but stay.J.J.Sagnella 14:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that doesn't explain why you think it should stay. Proto///type 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We have very carefully gone through this article and deleted any references as to how to make armours and advice on which armours to use when. Admitedly, this is a struggle, as people do want to put that stuff back in, but I check it regularly (usually at least once a day) and remove the game guide stuff. The article is on its way to being a concise listing and description of the armours available in RuneScape and a brief discussion of what they do. It is no more game guide-ish than the main article, and it is much too long to incorporate back into the main article. Moving it to WikiBooks would be better than deleting it, but I vote strongly for keeping it where it is. Xela Yrag 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A concise listing and description of the armours available in RuneScape, and a brief discussion of what they do, is exactly what should not be on Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. Proto///type 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer - I disagree. A game strategy guide would tell a player how to obtain the equipment, how much it costs, how much it is worth, and how and when to use it. This article does not do that (except when it is vandalized). It is an encyclopedic description of the equipment available to players when they play the game. Anyone who would use this information as a game strategy guide simply doesn't understand the concept. Xela Yrag 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - but telling you what armour is available, and where you get it from is not game strategy information? Because that is all this article contains. The fact it may not be a complete strategy guide doesn't mean it is not a strategy guide. Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Answer - no, I don't believe it is. It is a summary of what is awailable. A game guide would have to tell you how, when, where, or why to use it. In other words, a game guide would give advice. This article does not give advice, no matter how hard the vandals try to make it do so. It does not have strategy, such as "players should wear this armour or that armour when fighting this or that monster". That is game guide information, to me. Many articles about many subjects have lists of what is available. For instance, an article about a record producing company might list the artists, but it is not giving advice just by that listing. This article is as encyclopedic as any article about a game can be. If it is deleted, then every article about every game on Wikipedia should be deleted, from the main articles to the sub-articles. I mean MapleStory, Diablo, World of WarCraft, Final Fantasy, all of them. Because this one is more encyclopedic that almost all the rest. Xela Yrag 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and adjust to be less "guidey" as required - PS. the Wikibooks link is now BROKEN, as "StrategyWiki" is now the required destination and there does not seem to be a similarly automatic way to link, or RuneScape wiki is also a potential home - I fear linking to it from Wikipedia though, as it may also inherit the vandals. Ace of Risk 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you have not given a single reason for why you believe the article should be kept. Proto///type 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Ok, why keep, because it works - RS attracts a lot of (over) enthusiastic editors, better to have them spread out logically. Personally, the effort WOULD be better spent at the wikia or strategywiki sites, instead of in delete wars here. Ace of Risk 17:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I don't see a reason there why it should be kept. Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is too long to be merged with the main article. The information cannot be summarised. It was summarised when it was transferred from RuneScape items; this is as short as it gets without losing vital information. It is on a notable subject and is a valuable article. It is not a game guide. It provides information about armour, not a guide to it. Any guide-like text should be removed, the whole article does not need to be deleted! - • The Giant Puffin • 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seriously, are you actually saying that it cannot be summarized? That mindset is why I stopped working on those RuneScape articles. Frankly, there's just too much detail here which really can go to the RuneScapeWiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once you summarise it you lose a lot of information, and it would take a lot of work to summarise it enough to fit on the main page, but make sure you keep the vital information - • The Giant Puffin • 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an 'article' detailing the types of armour in a game, and where in the game it can be located is not vital encyclopaedic information. Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not detailed to the extent that it is a game guide. If you bothered to read Xela Yrag's comments above, you'd realise that. It does not give advice, does not tell you how to do stuff, it does not guide you. Simple as. It merely provides information, and I wish you and the people trying to mass-vote "delete per nom" (like that counts anymore than the mass-keep voting you warn the closing admin about) would realise it, and realise it soon. This is far more encyclopediac than many more game articles and is in a series that is being constantly improved - • The Giant Puffin • 13:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is clearly a game guide and therefore clearly against policy. As such, it should be deleted no matter the vote count for this reason as a violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Hardly gets mentioned in main article, as the purpose of this page was to shorten RuneScape and an article on a MAJOR section of the game hardly qualifies as as "Game Guide", therefor, WP:NOT Doesn't apply. Really no problem with it whatsoever, and if you have a problem with this statement, rant on My talk page. p00rleno 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - yet again, 'article' detailing the types of armour in a game, and where in the game it can be located is not vital encyclopaedic information; it is game strategy. Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adjust where necessary to be less like a game guide. I suppose it could be combined into a unified items article aswell. Bear in mind, this cannot go back to the main article, as that is too long already. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - and the reason not to delete it is ...? Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - because it forms an important extension to the RuneScape series of articles. Whilst I don't think it is best keeping it in its own separate article (i'd much prefer a brief, unified, RuneScape equipment article), it is useful further reading for those interested in the subject. Besides, many other videogames have separate articles for equipment without causing any problem. Heck, StarCraft has articles for individual units. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence of a bunch of other articles that violate WP:NOT in the same manner (and I'm going to get around to them, don't worry) is - quite rightly - never a justification people tend to take seriously on AFD. Two wrongs don't make a right. Proto///type 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But why are you going after RuneScape first? This series has 45 articles in total, including the Portal and its subpages. StarCraft has at least 200 (218 by my count). I thought there would be bigger fish to fry. Also, quickly reading WP:NOT, whilst I do see a rule against game guides, I don't see anything specifically against mentioning items in videogames. RuneScape armour doesn't seem especially game-guidedy either: for example, whilst Barrows armour, its requirements and the effects of different types is mentioned (which I admit is on the borderline), it doesn't tell me what I need to do to get it. I happen to know that the procedure is quite complex and demanding, and that procedure is certainly not mentioned here. I say someone should give it a good going over and cut anything too gameguidey, but certainly not delete the whole article. In fact, i'll have a go at that myself right now. CaptainVindaloo t c e 11:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished. How's this? Before, after, diff. A bunch of stuff I cut out from the end lives on in my Sandbox, should anyone wish to remove any gameguide elements and reuse it for something. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Please take into account the reasons voted by RuneScape project members to keep this 'article' - claiming it is not a game strategy guide (when it is - just read the 'article'), it being too long to be merged (when it shouldn't be merged, it should be removed from Wikipedia), and that there's nowhere else for it (so what?) are not valid reasons to keep a game strategy guide on Wikipedia. WP:NOT subsumes all. Proto///type 12:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional note to admin - I agree, please do take into account the reasons for keeping this article. They are well thought out, reasonably argued, and passionate. There is nothing offensive in this article. It is a summary of the armours available in the game of RuneScape. It does not give advice on how to use those armours to "win" the game. It is encyclopedic. Just because this information is not vital does not mean it should be deleted. Wikipedia needs more information, not less. But I strongly believe that if this article is deleted, all articles on games, whether online, sidewalk, board, or other, should be deleted with it. Let's not discriminate against a poor little article about RuneScape just because someone doesn't like or understand the game, or doesn't care for games in general. This article is as encyclopedic as any of the articles about any of those games. Thank you for you time. Xela Yrag 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Proto's nom; this is self-evidently a game guide, and that's one of the things that WP:NOT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic KEEP - Over time (15 hours of battle time), Barrows armours decay to an unusable state. When recovered from the crypts of the brothers, they are fully functional; the description at this point would read, for example, Ahrim's top 100. They degrade in four stages, from 100 to 75, to 50, to 25, to 0, at which point the description would read, for example, Ahrim's top 0. Barrows items do not lose strength as they degrade; however, at 0, they lose all defence bonuses. Degraded Barrows armours can be repaired by Dunstan in Burthorpe, by Bob in Lumbridge, by the smith at the pest control mini-game, or by the Tindel Merchant in Port Khazard. These repairs are rather expensive. The armours can also be repaired in POHs on a repair bench - this is REALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND SHOULD NOT BE DELETED YOU SILLYHEADS, wikipedia is a vital source for this kind of information as it is a nencyclopedia and encyclopedias should tell us about how you can get your Barrows armors from Bob in Lumbridge. Who could think that this is not encyclopedia information, itis vital to the safety of the world. You might laugh but one day you will need ytour barrows armour, or you will need to know just that Mystic boots are an integral part of the mystic robes set. They are restricted to members, with the blue boots available for purchase in the Magic Guild and the white and black boots only available as monster drops, and then you will be screwed like a rabbit if you don't have this information. -- Zamaq 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "itis vital to the safety of the world"? I dont think you get the concept of an encyclopedia. It isnt to save the world, just provide information, which this article does. Although you may not find the information useful, it is useful to many people. Its on a notable subject. If you delete all the articles on stuff you dont need in your life, about 99% of WP wouldnt exist. You are not the only person reading this article. Please note that this user that claims to know so much about WP and how we should use it has less than 10 edits, none of which have been to an actual article. - • The Giant Puffin • 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We seem to be embroiled in a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes a guide and what is merely information. Since the nom has requested that possible vote loading be ignored, I would suggest that the nom's steamrollering also be ignored - are we heading for WP:3o? Ace of Risk 17:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is improtant information about Runescape and needs to be kept. Maybe a cleanup or some pictures would be helpful.--robertvan1 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can write an article called "Runescape armour" and have it be encyclopedic. Recury 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may sound cliche, but DONT JUDGE AN ARTICLE BY ITS COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! p00rleno 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I did read the article (some of it, anyway). What I meant was that the topic is not an encyclopedic one so it doesn't really matter how well-written and sourced it is, it is still an article on runescape armour. Recury 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Runescape game is well covered in Wikipedia so the detail provided here is not completely outrageous. Several other games have articles on items, e.g. Fire Flower, so I don't think this needs to be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 28 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 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnon[edit]

Advertisement, nothing else in history. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly an advertisement with no attempt to make it conform to the standards. -Tom Cowlidge
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StickToons[edit]

this article lacks a sense of notablility --JLJeremiah 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:07, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 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 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Instrell[edit]

I think it is a fake article, I couldn't find his name on Google -- Snailwalker | talk 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part that says "is already dubbed to be a huge success, stay tuned." suggests that if this person is real, he's trying to advertise. --Jonnymoblin 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom I can find no evidence of notability for this person. DrunkenSmurf 00:08, 15 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 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 talk about a long afd! W.marsh 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Cao[edit]

Subject in article appears to be a fictitious creation of the article's original author, since no one of that name and with those achievements is noted in either San Guo Zhi or San Guo Yan Yi. (Random note: For someone to defeat both He Jin and Sima Yi and yet still die young is a pretty impressive feat..) Omdal 10:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:12, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon skin rolls[edit]

Completing a nomination; rationale was: "... salmon skin could be a dish, but there is no such role afaik". - Liberatore(T) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The stub doesn't look bad; however, I don't think much more can be said. WP:NOT a recipe book. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 15 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to sushi, which seems to have more info, unless there is something particularly special about this variety of sushi that warrants its own article. Wickethewok 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on sushi may have more information per se, but it has no information of any kind on this dish, making a redirect kind of silly. --LambiamTalk 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark. This is not a recipe any more than the articles on Chop suey and Gumbo are. I get about 13,900 Google hits for ["salmon skin roll" OR "salmon skin rolls"], including recipes and reviews of restaurants that serve this, so it appears that there is such a thing. But what is the threshold for notability? Is 13,900 hits enough? In any case, it is a lot more than the 194 hits for "Karelian hot pot". But then, "Karjalanpaisti" gets about 18,100 hits. I don't know how to do the search in Japanese. --LambiamTalk 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sushi. There's content in the article that should be somewhere, but I agree that this particular type of sushi doesn't deserve an article by itself. Tevildo 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sushi. I don't think this comes accross as a recipe - there are others that read more like recipes (see Risotto - and article which I will some day get around to cleaning up). Viridae 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sushi. Unless there's something special about this particular variety (like possibly with California roll -- and I'm not convinced there is even there). --Calton | Talk 01:34, 22 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 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Ammending decision to keep --W.marsh 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David aaron clark[edit]

I can find no evidence that this person meets the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. The article alleges that he has received an AVN Award but that's not, in my opinion, a very high bar.

Note: This article has previously been nominated for "prod" deletion. That deletion was disputed by the article's principle author.

Note 2: If kept, this page desperately needs clean-up. It currently reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Right now, despite great efforts by the author, no notability. In addition, the profusion of red dead links really doesn't work; but that's a side issue. Interlingua talk 23:07, 14 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 14:16, 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. W.marsh 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Amalia[edit]

No evidence of notability. Only 37 google hits including wikimirrors and one or two that do not refer to the same structure. Was prodded a while back, but the tag was removed. Indrian 14:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability stated. This might apply to a few of the other squat articles at Category:Squats. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Not notable. Inner Earth 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Notability? it was the first squat in Greece, EVER. Project2501a 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks legit on the surface, but some reliable sources would help a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am also inclined to keep the article. Of course, it does not have a lot of Ghits, but since this is a Greek subject, I think we could give this a shot. I state this since this states some of the squating issues in Greece. In Culture, at least this group was forming from this sqaut. I also think these Greek postings could shed some light. Let some of our Greek editors, who also speak Greek, take a peek at Greek-language websites and see what can be done to expand this topic, or at least, redirect this to the plain Sqauting article or Athens article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was the first squat in greece Thanasis 07:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it is a very known 16 years old squat and still powerfull in the antiauthority movement --paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.30.14 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article as it stands does not assert its notability - it states "one of the first anarchist squats". If it had any sources at all (from reliable sources) I'd change my vote. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am with Stu ’Bout ye! on this one. Right now, there is no indication that this is in any way important from a reliable source. Absent that, this article should go. If someone on this page who voted keep actually put some effort into documenting the importance of this place, then I would agree the article should be kept. Indrian 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the grounds of lack of notability. If it is so important, at least some references should be expected. Porfyrios 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. lack of notability? the first anarchist squat in Greece? :) Project2501a 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not even a current affairs entry. Let us be just a little serious ladies and gentlemen, we really have to draw the line somewhere... Politis 16:29, 28 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 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese bin[edit]

Forum section which isn't notable in itself. Deprodded by User:Sniper mouse without explaination. Matt Eason 15:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete con queso Wow, an article about a "SECTION" of a forum that mainly collects spam. DrunkenSmurf 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a spam with provolone, please... delete NawlinWiki 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and pass the crackers! Eddie.willers 17:19, 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 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X0xb0x[edit]

No vote yet. Bringing here to get some consensus. Prodded because "per the external link, only about 200 kits have been sold of this non-notable program". Never formally deprodded, but anon objected on the talk page as follows: "Objection. This is a useful link to a musician like me. Sounds like a jealous competitor objecting, the company has a long waiting list. This link should not be deleted, it is a very useful addition to the Wiki. Quality should always win over quantity, and the x0xb0x is a notable evolution in the history of a pivotal electronic instrument." Definitely a disputed deletion, so an AfD is appropriate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I am not so sure about the notability since it returns a lot of result in google, though the article definitely needs expanding. --WinHunter (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oups, entered the wrong search term into google, this google search returns just 30 results, fails WP:WEB --WinHunter (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is devoid of content. Expand it and we have a kettle of fish of a very different colour. The anon on the talk page didn't feel strongly enough to expand the article, and s/he seems to know enough to do so. "not notable". Fiddle Faddle 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Fiddle Faddle as above -- MrDolomite 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:47, 27 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 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gail Mangum[edit]

Not notable, at best merge with 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal Kotepho 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; not notable? Her name returns 36,000 hits on Google. This is a very significant situation which revolves around her. --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With quotes gets 347, with quotes -wikipedia you get 264 with 94 unique. Kotepho 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • and "Crystal Gail Mangum Duke -wikipedia" (no quotes on the query itself) nets 22,200. We can ride the Google merry-go-round for quite a while. I don't think there's any question her name is out there, and it's out there a LOT. There's also no question that the alleged rape is big news. The real question is whether she's notable in her own right.--MikeJ9919 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, failing that, keep; let's be honest...outside of the scandal, she really isn't notable. Since all the information about her relates to the scandal or her credibility for making the accusations involved, it should be in that article.--MikeJ9919 15:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to a straight Keep. Though I'm not sure the precedent is a good idea, I am persuaded by the examples below that the prevailing attitude and prior precedent is stand-alone articles for major actors in notable events.--MikeJ9919 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If she's not notable why do I keep hearing about this stupid scandal everytime I turn on the CNN and get to watch Nancy Grace berating everyone.--God Ω War 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipeida's documented other circuses Katelyn Faber, Divine Brown (American prostitute), J. Howard Marshall, Richard Hatch (reality TV), Ralph Cirella and dozens or others who've had 15 minutes of fame.--This unsigned comment was added by Robertkeller
  • Merge and redirect. No notability outside the scandal = no article outside the scandal's. -- GWO
  • keep please she is very notable actually see also comments from robertkeller Yuckfoo 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. article has potential for more expansion. // Gargaj 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have gotten lots of news coverage. bbx 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article with potential. --Myles Long 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this person is obviously notable and a strong precedent exists to retain these articles on Wikipedia. Google "unique" hits are about as worthless as can be, as indicated at Wikipedia:Search engine test#On_.22unique.22_results where Microsoft only receives 552 unique hits. Silensor 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it doesn't appear to be a speedy candidate. Very notable, and if the trial continues the way it's trending, she will be even mroeso. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect The subject of the article is not notable. Abe Froman 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say it's not notable, yet you have posted FORTY ONE comments on the discussion page! Sounds like you feel the subject is worth a lot of your own time and that you have a lot to say about the subject. How can you say that it's not notable?
  • Merge and Redirect Seriously, no notability beyond this scandal, as your supposed 22,000 Google hits amply demonstrate.--BradPatrick 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The people suggesting deletion are trying to force their morals and ethics onto Wikipedia.--This unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.103
  • Merge and Redirect All notability is in relation to the scandal - would be better to keep it there Trödel 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I feel this whole AFD is a little premiture. Her name has only recently become formal public knowage so trying to guess how notable she is will be somewhat tricky.Geni 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The relevant WP:BIO standard is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." My test for this is that if she has received renown/notoriety (as Monica Lewinsky did) then news/blog mentions of her would not need to specify her role in the event. I checked the hits for her name at Google News, and all made it very clear that they still feel the need to say who she is. Thus, I conclude that she has not yet achieved the appropriate level of "renown or notoriety". The article has found a WP:RS for her name. I expected otherwise because most news organizations that have the requisite staff and policies to be reliable sources also have policies against revealing the names of reported victims of rape. GRBerry 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason her name isn't in Google news is because news organizations think they're doing a service by not publishing the names of rape accusers. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Katelyn Faber precedent. Calwatch 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such special incidences are often referenced to in common language by the name and not by the events --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - not notable in her own right, and probably unlikely to be so. --AlisonW 12:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... are you freaking kidding me?!?!?! ESPN still wont shut up about the Duke Lacrosse scandal, its still being talked about by all the major media outlets... she definately is notable, as is her obvious lack of credibility.  ALKIVAR™ 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ESPN still wont shut up about the Duke Lacrosse scandal -- No one is suggesting we delete Duke Lacrosse scandal. Tell me, what facts about Ms Mangum are likely to appear in her article that would not be better in the Duke Lacrosse scandal article? -- GWO
      • Nonsense. Why not just merge everything here into a single article about the universe while we're at it? You do realize that we have, not including those in subcategories, 115 articles in Category:Fraudsters, don't you? Are you implying we merge each of those into an article about the hoaxes they perpetrated? Silensor 20:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the months roll by and the heated rhetoric continues, it should be amply clear that Mangum is in for more than "fifteen minutes of fame."--Snorklefish 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, keep per the Katelyn Faber precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.74 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 June 2006
    • I disagree that this is the proper precedent to use. In the Kobe case, there is no separate scandal article...summary information is merged into Kobe Bryant, while the Faber article is essentially used for the rape allegation. In this case, a scandal article is available for the details of the case, perhaps because the alleged perpetrators are similarly non-notable. In any case, with an article available for the details of the case and the alleged victim questionably (I say questionably because other editors seem to disagree with me, and I respect their right to do so) notable outside of the case, merge and redirect is the appropriate course of action.--MikeJ9919 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no reason to delete this article, it is highly notable and has been verified. Yanksox (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OFFICial - Keep it - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Because MikeJ9919 suggests the Faber case may not be a good precident, here are four others (found in just 30 minutes of cursory research). Though not as sexually titilating or racially charged as Mangum/Faber, they nontheless highlight stand-alone articles for people who are known for one--and only one--scandal, crime, hoax, etc:
Steven Hatfill 2001 anthrax attacks
Bruno Hauptmann Lindbergh kidnapping
Mary Carey California recall
Flick Shagwell Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me --Robertkeller 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An even bigger reason why the Katelyn Faber case is not relevant precedent was that in that case the major, national mainstream media were using her name. For all of these additional precedents the mainstream media is using the person's name. This is not true for this individual - her name appears to be out (I checked Google News again today), only in the blogosphere and local media. Since her name isn't being used, these precedents aren't relevant. And since her name isn't being used in the national media, we shouldn't have an article at her name. GRBerry 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic and irrelevant. The debate whether to keep/delete raged here Talk:Crystal_Gail_Mangum for over four weeks and many editors, including the Wikipedia Foundation, concluded Crystal Gail Mangum stays. Wikipedia need not follow mainsteam media's self-imposed reticence. The topic of this page is whether Mangum's notable enough to have her own page or merge with the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep She is the point around which basically the entire scandal rotates around. Skhatri2005 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, now verifiable. -- Rjm656s 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must agree with the keepers. She warrants a page of her own.
  • Keep should be added to the "Liars" category if we've got one of those too. And as for the person above who said we should have an article about her if the media doesn't use her name....Wikipedia isn't the media, its an encyclopedia, if she didn't want her name to be notable she shouldn't be lying about getting raped. Batman2005 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No reason to remove other than a certain PC censorship impulse. This woman is already a very famous American, and will remain so for many years to come. Regardless of the case outcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.160.134 (talk • contribs)
  • Discussing cases under current judicial process is highly unethical in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.8.98 (talk • contribs)
Ethics isn't a criteria for deleting a page. Wikipedia is not censored nor does it subscribe to specifically one persons ethical code. Do you also think its highly unethical to have a page on the lacrosse case as a whole? Or just the "victim?" Batman2005 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she along with Nifong will be the catalysts to change VAWA and rape sheild laws --- not to mention if they succeed in their scam, they will file the largest civil suits in US history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.158.152 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The "merge" crowd suggests that she is not notable outside of this case. However the precedence has already been set with other subjects. David Koresh is not notable outside of the waco siege, yet he has his own page. Timothy McVeigh is not notable outside of the Oklahoma City Bombing, but he has his own page too. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are not notable outside of their criminal beltway sniper attacks and they have their own pages. It does not matter if Miss Mangum is not notable outside of this scandal, the precedence has been made time and time again here on Wikipedia. To give an exclusion in her case would show some sort of bias. Wikipedia should not be biased.
Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, John Allen Muhammad, and Lee Boyd Malvo are notable as assailants. Crystal Gail Mangum is a completely different situation, because she is the victim, not the assailant. After this case is over, she'll probably be as non-notable as before. That is why the articles should be merged. Her notability flows from the Duke University lacrosse team scandal, and nothing else. Abe Froman 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The cause (victim vs perpetrator) of their notoriety is irrelevant. Cited above are nine stand-alone articles of semi-famous people known for one--and only one--event. Wikipedia evidence doesn’t support your assailant-only argument: within minutes we could find yet more stand-alone articles of accusers, victims, alleged victims and the like, including two cited above: Katelyn Faber and Steven Hatfill, plus four additional single-event, non-assailants Abraham Zapruder, Edwin Walker, Houston McCoy and Thomas Delehanty. --Robertkeller 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with ANON above. I have a hard time believing Brian when he says that she's non-notable given the fact that he's put in over 40 comments on her discussion page. Non-notable to who Brian? Certainly not to you. In fact, I'd say you're rather fixated. Furthermore, I feel that your assertion that "victims are not notable" is rather cold-hearted.

I'd also like to point out that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore...none of the arguments saying "after the case is over, nobody will remember her" isn't a valid argument. She is notable at present as shown through consistent news agency reporting, numerous google hits, publicity, etc. She IS notable at present. Wikipedia is ever changing. Divine Brown was only notable for sucking off one actor, but she's still got a page. This person is notable for her allegations and pending a trial, perhaps for orchestrating a large fabrication, or being the victim of a horrible incident. Batman2005 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with the person above, if victims aren't notable why do we have pages for Natalee Holloway, Matthew Shepard, JonBenét Ramsey, Ronald Goldman, Kitty Genovese, Laci Peterson, Nicole Brown Simpson, Sharon Tate, James Jordan, Jennifer Levin, etc, etc, etc. Should I go on about how victims are notable? Batman2005 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable and verifiable; agree per discussion above; precedent of naming victims already set and wikipedia does not follow the same ethics as mainstream media. -Bluedog423 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as seperate article given the extensive sets of examples presented as precedent. Yamaguchi先生 08:14, 27 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 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ the Logos[edit]

Original research - article whose sole purpose is to argue a theological position. NawlinWiki 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment When I nominated this article, the first thing you saw was an argument: Chalcedonian Christology is not a Syncretism with Platonism. A diligent user has since edited the article so that it's descriptive rather than argumentative. I'm not an expert on this, but it may be that the problem has been solved. NawlinWiki 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I was that "diligent" user. There is still an NPOV issue hidden in the tail that I could not easily massage away, but it is not overwhelming and will hopefully be dealt with in the normal way. --LambiamTalk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR especially. Changing my vote to Keep per GRberry below. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Q- What did the casual observer say when he walked into the graphic design convention? --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. David L Rattigan 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Doesn't argue a theological position; it explains one. It's encyclopedic, NPOV, and educational. (NB: the apparent four delete votes above are duplicates from two editors.) --The Editrix 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only two delete votes above (excluding the nominator). David L Rattigan 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Lambian's edits. hateless 21:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see there is already an article on the Logos, which overlaps with this article considerably. Possible merge? David L Rattigan 21:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the history, it sure looked like OR at first. But the best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article - nice job Lambian. It is now encyclopedic, mostly NPOV, educational, and better verified than most articles here. (In fact it would look more like a Wikipedia article if we lost the non-references from the bibilography.) If merged to Logos it would create an undue weight problem in that article. It might reasonably become a child article of it, however, possibly merging some of the relevant section there into this article. GRBerry 01:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hateless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge with logos, the two are completely un-related. Merge with the myth of Jesus Christ, but not a Greek concept introduced by Heraclitus some 500 years before. Typical Christian attempt to monopolize all original thought that came before it.

--Spective 10:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with congrats to Lambiam for an excellent edit. JChap 02:33, 27 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 A8 - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter G. Weir[edit]

Subject is only marginally notable within the organization he works for. Google returns 45 hits for "Walter G. Weir", and the articles cited in the primary article mention him only in passing. Kuzaar-T-C- 15:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I prodded the article because it reads like an academic biography/CV of a non-notable person, with the only reference being the university website with the original CV. -Fsotrain09 15:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - nn and falls in {{db-bio}}--WinHunter (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copy-vio[41]. Yanksox (talk) 16:10, 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. W.marsh 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Virtuoso[edit]

A Guitar Virtuoso is nothing more than a virtuoso on the guitar. It´s meant to be almost a duplicate article or an excuse to start an article that is a list of guitar virtuosi (which is original research and already happened before, only to be deleted). I propose this article for deletion because it´s pointless. Loudenvier 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to virtuoso. Oldelpaso 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirect is the best answer Loudenvier 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to Guitarists page. Have it be a subsection on that page but have the article redirect to guitar. The information is still valid. I know I don't have a username so this comment shall be unsigned.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back River Catfish[edit]

Non-notable video production company. (Liberatore, 2006) 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not-notable as of yet as a production company. DrunkenSmurf 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only claim of notability is having had their videos shown at one film festival -- not enough, yet. NawlinWiki 17:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete There appears to be enough information to warrant keeping this entry. There are many more entries on Wikipedia with less and often spurious information not up for deletion. justinr74 15:48, 21 June 2006 (ET)
  • Comment - Could you expand on what information you feel makes this film company notable and thus warrants keeping this entry? I'd be happy to change my opinion, but not just because there are other articles on Wikipedia with more "spurious information". DrunkenSmurf 19:11, 22 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 redirects are cheap and obviously someone thought this was the correct title at some point. W.marsh 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taste of Chicago (Festival)[edit]

Duplicate of Taste of Chicago, a much better article that doesn't seem to have anything this could be merged with. Stanfordandson 16:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Taste of Chicago -Markeer 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see a point in a redirect. No pages link here and the other title is the likely search term. (I expect to be there in a few weeks doing my part to reduce the excess pizza and pork products.) Fan1967 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh well, the general idea of a redirect is that it's possible someone might do a search for "Taste of Chicago (Festival)" so now they'd get pointed to a good article on the subject. I admit it's more likely someone would just look for "Taste of Chicago" but ehh...can't really hurt to redirect, can it? =Markeer 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's usually the theory. I just would think this one's pretty unlikely. But, redirects are cheap, and don't hurt anything. Fan1967 22:59, 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 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florpschlogg[edit]

Neologism, zero Google hits [42] (attempted Prod). mtz206 (talk) 17:08, 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 Speedy deleted and #REDIRECT Legion of the Damned —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:33Z

The Legion Of The Damned[edit]

Non-notable group; doesn't show up at all on Google. Delete --Pak21 17:11, 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. W.marsh 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getyourcontent.com[edit]

Alexa rank of 410,875. 343 Google hits, but nearly all of those are links to various pages on the site itself and google only returns 7 hits from unique sites. Fails WP:WEB. Indrian 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 delete. W.marsh 01:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wakaba and Kareha[edit]

Niche forum software, not notable. Sorry Dag. Kotepho 17:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:29Z
  • Delete both not notable -- MrDolomite 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thet may be small but that are still there and deserve a page -- Nekng
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Ignorance of Global Humanitarian Threats[edit]

Prod contested. This is almost the definition of non-notable: a college group founded four months ago that google provides less than ten separate hits. Further, this is a probable vanity/resume-stacking page: the article creator, MSkoglund, is rather similar to the executive director's name. His assertion that the group is "intrinsic to a massive divestment movement" is ludicrous and self-aggrandizing, as well as not proven in the article at all. Deleuze 17:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability beyond the one group at one college. NawlinWiki 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure vanity at the moment, maybe time will tell. Jammo (SM247) 23:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization does not generate an incredible amount of Google hits at the moment because of how new it is. Hmmm, I'd say having fewer than 10 hits makes that claim a bit of an understatement. Delete. --Calton | Talk 23:41, 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 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph E. Barber[edit]

Obscure college basketball player known for one thing: ESPN named him to its 2003 NCAA tournament "All-Hair" team. I don't think that's enough. NawlinWiki 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Has he played as a professional? If so he might be a keep per WP:BIO. Oldelpaso 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Never played in NBA as far as I can determine. NawlinWiki 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then a Weak delete. Plenty of Ghits, but seems to be on the edge of the notability threshold. Could do with some input from people familiar with what is/isn't notable in basketball though. Oldelpaso 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He hasn't played as a professional because he was still in college through the most recent season. [43] The NBA draft in which he could be drafted is still a week away. However, I have not found any evidence that he is a pro prospect, and making the "all-hair" team is not the kind of sports achievement which warrants an encyclopedia article. If he makes it to the NBA, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. agree with Metropolitan90 above. Come back when he makes the NBA -- MrDolomite 21:10, 22 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 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anaxiphales[edit]

Page is a hoax. The only sources on Anaxiphales refer back to this text or earlier versions. Gimme danger 17:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some type of verification can be provided. No google hits apart from Wikipedia mirrors indicates either hoax or non-notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well-perpetrated hoax, but still a hoax. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax -- MrDolomite 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a well done hoax that it seems unfortunate to just delete it. 3 years of existence and an art exhibit aren't bad for a hoax. Gimme danger 00:50, 23 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 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Bullets[edit]

This is so non-notable I can't even find them via Google. I think this means the article is an advertisement.

  • Delete no measure of notability, having a myspace page does not count. DrunkenSmurf 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ikh (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence they meet WP:BAND --Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Edgar181 above -- MrDolomite 21:11, 22 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highbrid Outdoor[edit]

Non-notable Corp. Website states Press as coming soon. Google search shows 2 links. Lsjzl 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Lsjzl 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that this company is notable yet. DrunkenSmurf 18:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If, in the future, they are successful enough to become notable, we can always make a new article. Jumbo Snails 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is now neutral given creator's points.
  • comment See the discussion page here for the creators remarks. Lsjzl 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable -- MrDolomite 21:13, 22 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 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idols South Africa Season 3 voting results[edit]

Not even American Idol (the best watch Idols-series) has these kind of pages, so why should the South African Idols have them? Articles like this one are listcruft and pointless statistics.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 18:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still don't see how these percentages are encyclopedic. Would anybody care for them? I doubt it. What matters in Idols, is knowing who the persons are who pass the round. But do we really need to accompany that with the division of the votes....on its own page, even? I don't really think so.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I didnt realise it wasnt the main page for SA Idols, I just assumed. In that case i would have ot agree that it is of little use as a seperate page. However such information is interesting. I think moving it to a sub-page of the main SA Idols page and reformatting it somewhat may be appropriate
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom WP 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with SoothingR above -- MrDolomite 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with Tmorton166 that the material is worth keeping, but subpages rarely exist in the main article namespace. It would be better to merge it with the main SA Idols article. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 05:18, 24 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 CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anirban maiti[edit]

Nn bio. Speedy tag was removed by unnamed editor MichaelMaggs 18:05, 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. W.marsh 01:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic terrorism[edit]

This looks like a neologism for staged terrorist incidents to serve propaganda goals of whatever government is in charge. The phrase clocks up some 200 unique ghits and appears as the title of one book; apart from that it mostly appears in blogs citing it.

Once the phrase has caught on we can keep it, but delete for now. Dr Zak 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree the examples on the page are very tenuous, we have plenty of other words to cover them!! Also there is very little in the way of sourcing so I don't think it is widely enough used yet -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ikh (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable concept: as stated above, the examples given don't really fit the concept and the article has no sources that suggest the concept is notable --Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a) neologism and b) all terrorism is synthetic, I don't know of any naturally occurring politics other than those we make. Further, I concur with the above, bring back if adopted. Jammo (SM247) 23:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it was cleaned up a bit after it started with some ludicrous claims (such as that all wars started with synthetic terrorism), I don't think it's a notable enough concept. Bring back if it comes into wide use --Varco 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a minor) side mention under Terrorism, then bring back if adopted. Demf 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- MrDolomite 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Docgravel 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete -- just historical information. Atomist
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The General Office[edit]

Seems to just be vanity about the author's company. TomTheHand 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pretty non-notable company and defimitely vanity
  • Delete does not assert notability; reads like an advertisement/vanity. ikh (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement and non-notabilty. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --- MrDolomite 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Brad101 22:12, 23 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. §hanel 18:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Turnip Wars online[edit]

let's talk before we delete please. if wikipedia chess can stay why not this. Turnip Wars 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete with prejudice, this is a serious encylopedia, there are lots of gaming sites where pepole can go play games, at a push userfiy Benon 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also i think tis page should be listed at WP:MFD but meh Benon 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep then let's delete wikipedia:chess too! Turnip Wars 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G1 per WP:BALLS. Obvious hoax/joke article copied from Nintendo Wars. Tevildo 18:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Waste of Wikipedia's space. J.J.Sagnella 18:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep 18:45, 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 Keep. Xoloz 15:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadullah Khan[edit]

A DRV consensus agreed that the deletion of this page was questionable, given new information in a rewrite. Relisting for further evaluation was recommended. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to be notable ikh (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Mr. Khan definitely meets the "author test" for his column "Ask the Imam" that had a readership quite a bit over 5000 (I don't know specifics, but Beliefnet.com is a popular site). He also meets the "professor test" easily for co-founding International Peace University (and serving as department chair). As well, he appears to have hosted two TV shows—it looks like local channels in California—but that viewership could still very easily exceed 5000. LotLE×talk 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LotLe -- Vary | Talk 00:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:BIO Eluchil404 13:30, 27 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 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muezza[edit]

Are pets notable enough to merit own articles or should they be merged into parent article?Neuropean 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pardon my ignorance, but if this cat influenced Islam as the article claims, then I think its notable. ccwaters 19:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - more notable than computer game characters or kiddie sports teams. Robertsteadman 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please measure an article on its own merits and against policy, rather than making apples-and-oranges comparisons by genre. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - I have no problem with pets having their own entry but this one doesn't need it. It can readilly be added to the 'Family Life' section in the main article where it can be read in context and is easier to find. The only time a pet of a notable person need its own article is where there is so much material that it would unbalance the main article - not the case here. TerriersFan 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly one of the more notable of the Historical cats. If this article goes, then the entire category probably should go - there'll only be two or three cats left on it if we restrict it to cats who are famous for reasons unconnected with their owners. Tevildo 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a redirect is set up then this cat can still remain in the category as it were :-) Redirects can remain in their original categories. TerriersFan 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and would that be such a tragedy? All of these cats could be placed in one article if necessary.Neuropean 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per Tevildo. --The Editrix 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Cat with historical significance. NawlinWiki 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reasons as stated above, historical significance, article of interest, etc. I disagree with TerriersFan that it can be added to the family life section, as that section comprises of direct human relations.M2k41 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK; or a new section that can easilly be added without unbalancing the article. TerriersFan 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, may I ask? The article doesn't even provide a citation that the cat even existed! --Ragib 00:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Muezza is one of the more famous cats. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual cats are notable per se :-P But seriously, this article clearly asserts notability, it just needs some sources. Eluchil404 13:34, 27 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 00:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kritarchy[edit]

not notable, unsourced bar forum and personal essay. Possible result of trolling organisation activity max rspct leave a message 18:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is used in anthropology, in reference to many traditional cultures including biblical ones, on up to the Xeer in Somalia today. It is also used in political science.WickedWanda 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs to be cleaned up and more closely sourced but encyclopaedic and should stay. TerriersFan 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The User:max rspct has been perpetuating edit wars over at Anarchism and has quite of history of push POV all over the political spectrum. Two-Bit Sprite 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's difficult to imagine why this was even nominated. (That said, it does need categorization.) --The Editrix 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just looking at Google results for "kritarchy" [44] (of which there are 48,400) one can see its use in wide variety of sources. So the term clearly deserves its own article. Hence, I'd say the article needs work, not deletion. ikh (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Lemonsawdust 08:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:max rspct has been trying to get a number of political articles and templates deleted lately. Cwolfsheep 13:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not.. and why would that be illegal? --maxrspct in the mud 14:08, 25 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 00:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Everett Heibein[edit]

Not notable via Google. Vanity. Brad101 18:33, 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 userfy. W.marsh 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Johnson[edit]

This page is far to brief and is likely a vanity page Wootonius 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I restored the article to a pre-vandalized version which has more information about the subject, but I think he still doesn't reach encyclopedia-level notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we could reclassify as a stub I suppose --Wootonius 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, on the condition the word "Keir" is replaced throughout with "Johnson." --The Editrix 20:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just for the rape of bolding too much text. =D --mboverload@ 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:24Z
  • Userfy, just doesn't seem to be notable yet. feydey 08:02, 28 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; please discuss a merge instead. Articles tagged accordingly.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moortje[edit]

Does notability extend to pets and relatives?Neuropean 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep probably one of the most famous cats in history and mentioned in one of the most famous and widely read books of all time. If video game characters warrant space then so does an extremely famous feline. There are pages about Bill Clinton's cat Socks, exist and Samuel Johnson's Hodge the Cat and, of course, Mohammed's cat Muezza.
NOTE Neuropean is a brand new user (?) and their second edit (first was setting up their user page) is to nominate this page for deletion. This seems highly unlikely (plus their knowledge of such things as AGF - I wonder if an admin could look into this? Robertsteadman 17:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 3 other examples cited actually influenced culture in some form, be it popular/literary/religious. ccwaters 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Please.Neuropean 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we allow this, then we have to also allow each child of a notable person to have their own article. The cat 'may' be famous but merge this into the Ann Franke page please.Neuropean 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speedy close - So why have you AfDed this if you want to merge? I suggest a speedy close and the debate to be opened on the talk page about how t merge and its effect. If the nominator has changed his mind in ten minutes between nominating and adding the above there seems no point in an AfD.... Robertsteadman 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment - and for further information Anne Frank's family all have separate articles as do others mentioned in the diary... so why not the cat? Robertsteadman 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - I am happy that this is encyclopaedic but there is insufficient material for it to be worthy of its own entry. A Merge/redirect to the main Anne Frank article will preserve the reference whilst allowing it to be read in context. It would also be easier for the less informed reader to find. TerriersFan 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muezza below. Tevildo 19:48, 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. W.marsh 00:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krytocracy[edit]

Not notable. original research max rspct leave a message 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - though rarely used, it is notable. Just needs cleanup. The word has been used by US Supreme Court justices. Google gives 9,350 hits [45]. ikh (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not OR; it is sourced and referenced. Mind, I am not sure that the Politics panel on the right is helpful; really just more clutter. TerriersFan 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ikh. --The Editrix 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ikh. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:23Z
  • Keep, per ikh. Lemonsawdust 08:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:max rspct has been trying to get a number of political articles and templates deleted lately. Cwolfsheep 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AND?? --maxrspct in the mud 14:01, 25 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Deerhorn[edit]

  • Originally considered a speedy, but I've nominated for AFD to let the community decide on whether or not this is worthy of inclusion. No vote on my part. Roy A.A. 18:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hit it. Delete, non-notable business. Lord Bob 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm of the opinion that any real camp (ie, not a church camp, not an after school program) that has been around since 1930 is probably notable. My concern is that there is not very much non-self-generated information out there from which to construct an article. [46] was the only one I found in the first few pages of g-hits. BigDT 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with BigDT: a camp that's been around for 75 years has to be at least somewhat notable... at least for its age. This may sound silly, but seeing some camps here on AfD recetly, maybe better to establish some policy on camp notability? ikh (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the one nominating the article for speedy delete. I looked for some info to check for notability but can't found any. As of now, this is an advertisment page. I m not sure age is enough to warrant this camp an article but I can understand the logic. I wouldn't oppose the article being re-created if it include other factors of notability than age alone Riadlem 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree with the age test. The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910, and many BSA camps were founded in the 1910s and 1920s, making them over 75 years old today. I even worked at one myself, and I worked at exactly one camp. As a family run camp, I think the relevant test is WP:CORP and this article contains neither an assertion of meeting those standards nor links to the required number of reliable sources. GRBerry 01:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - With regards to the BSA comparison, I would think that BSA council camps would certainly be notable and there are several that have articles ... see Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America). But even though BSA camps are notable, that's not a useful comparison to this camp, IMO. If WP:CORP is the only standard, then you're probably right about notability. As a corporation, they aren't notable ... but really, I look at something like a camp or school - even ones that are for-profit (I have no idea if this one is - I'm just assuming) as more than just WP:CORP. I look at them more like WP:ORG, even though they may be for profit. If sufficient non-self-generated sources can be found to write an article (the WP:ORG standard), I'm not overly opposed to keeping the article. BigDT 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Comment It is easy to overbroaden the scope of WP:CORP - after all, most organizations (camps, non-profits, the BSA, the Association for Left-Handed Tiddlywink Players in Poduck, etc...) are of the same legal forms as things that WP:CORP was intended to cover. If we had a standard for schools, camps could easily be fit with it. They both impact the same demographic. Unfortunately, this article version doesn't contribute to meeting the WP:ORG standard, as no third party sources are referenced. (And most of the article is made up of schedue minutiae that I'd be surprised to see in a third party source.) GRBerry 03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Again, this is a case lacking clearly applicable standards, but unless there is some evidence that the camp stands out by its particular history or historical importance, by its particular nature, by its unexpected location, by its activities or anything of that sort, there is no reason to keep this as the content then clearly has zero encyclopaedic value. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 24 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 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodrum Real Estate[edit]

Just one big ad for real estate. —Khoikhoi 19:02, 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 22:13Z

Shakim[edit]

Also nominating The Kid In Me. Prods contested by creator, User:Shakim67, without comment. Google hasn't heard of this bestselling R&B prodigy/movie star. [47]. Clear case of the hoax. Eivindt@c 19:06, 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 —Whouk (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Satir[edit]

Non-notable; reads like a vanity page Devious Viper 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly reads like a vanity page, but there may be some assertion of notability here. Plenty of google hits, including journal articles. Abstain from me for now. BillC 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Peter Satir who is very notable (albeit in a somewhat specialised field) - see e.g. [48]. If necessary a separate article on Birgit Satir can be created but I wouldn't want to prejudge its possible notability. Dlyons493 Talk 12:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Peter Satir looks notable, but this article is terrible. it sounds like a vanity page or a newspaper article, and has no sources. Peter and Birgit should have seperate articles. -Samael775 20:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've Moved it to Peter Satir and edited Birgit's independent career out. The article still needs improvement but I think there's now a basis to work from. Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton 19:46, 21 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Now that Peter and Birgit Satir has been moved to Peter Satir, I am changing the heading of this AfD, though the name of it will still remain the same. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF by a substantial margin - not even a list of publications, let alone an assertion of notability. Might even scrape an A7. Tevildo 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons493's reference, and expand to include proof of his notability, which apparently exists. My apologies for being too quick off the mark earlier. Tevildo 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least, 'til someone comes through and writes an actual article. The existing article is little more than a Huh? --The Editrix 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's now more like an article, could still use some work. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Delete — Still reads like a vanity and fails WP:BIO. Article has been up for over four months, so there's been plenty of time to prove notability and it's not there. --Satori Son 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has 117 PubMed hits and 60 Google Scholar hits. Links are in the article. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that he's substantially more than an average academic. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:50, 26 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 00:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MonstersGame[edit]

Blatant spam for an online RPG game. The Alexa rank of game website is 13,508, for the creators' website it is 394,303. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reads like an avert, I can find no reviews of the game and a majority of webhits are from various forums. Not-notable as far as I can tell. DrunkenSmurf 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Spam - This is not an advert. This entry's creation was approved by the game owners at RedMoon Studios. English is not the main language supported by the game, which might account for the difference in Alexa values (main servers are German-based). There are no inappropriate links or content, so what other justification is there for deletion? - Nitallica 14:36, 18 June 2006 (CST)
  • Weak Keep — I've rewrote the article so it doesn't sound so much an ad or user guide. I agree that it still needs work however. The game is very community based and it's expected IMHO to find most of hits coming from various forums. - Ðra 07:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This entry's creation was approved by the game owners at RedMoon Studios." <-- that usually makes it an advert. ILovePlankton 19:43, 21 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:20, 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 00:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vercetti's Comrades[edit]

The group in this article gets exactly 23 google hits including mirrors. I think it probably should be speedied under criteria A7, but since this article has already been listed on AfD once, that is obviously not appropriate now. I am, quite frankly, shocked that this article survived the first AfD (located here). The admin closed it as no consensus, but the only vote other than the nominator was made by a user who has not made an edit other than on that AfD page before or since and should therefore have been discounted. Indrian 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN. ILovePlankton 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not a single hit on Google that does not originate from Wikipedia. There is no way one can prove they even exist. fails notability, vanity, verifiability, bio. Take your pick. Resolute 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence on Google that this exists, never mind that it's notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:45, 26 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 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.M. "Moot" Truluck III[edit]

Midlevel US government official; no apparent notability NawlinWiki 15:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep on further consideration. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, plenty of room for this, thresholds should be plenty lower for Wikipedia. Snugspout 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A threshold higher than "carbon-based lifeform" would probably be more appropriate. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 22 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mid-level bureaucrat. This isn't the Federal Directory. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 22 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 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabling and Connections[edit]

Nothing links here. Page is given no context. Articles already exist on all the subjects. I would understand if someone was trying to compile all the ways in which we can connect etc. However, I feel this falls short of doing so. Lsjzl 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The info seems clear enough, just not terribly important. Lsjzl, you mention you'd support keeping if the article tried to compile all the ways to connect, and I agree. My "weak" delete comes from the feeling that maybe this article needs more time? Right now, though, it sounds like notes someone has taken on a topic being studied in school. To the author: 1) add a 1-2 sentence intro about the topic in general an its importance. 2) Introduce sections that show the range of possible connections. That might change me to a keep.Interlingua talk 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This needs a better title and I believe all the information exists on other pages. Ace of Sevens 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Interlingua. ILovePlankton 19:38, 21 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a hotch-potch of concepts that are better covered elsewhere in WP. For example Electromagnetic interference deals with RFI etc. Anything useful can be extracted and added to the appropriate article. TerriersFan 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Anyone new to the subject would find this article educational. It could use expansion, but it's certainly better than most stubs out there. The Editrix 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Could be improved. --JJay 03:03, 25 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 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian G. Wilson[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable vanity. The user has recently been banned. mjb 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various claims of notability were removed from the article on June 26.[50]

  • Delete Upon Googling "Sir Alan Wilson" + Hanover, I found a single, brief passage talking about a Brian A. G. Wilson-Hanover, allegedly the illegitimate son of Sir Alan Wilson and HRH Princess Marie of Hanover, a sister to The Prince of Hanover (husband of Monaco's Princess Caroline). Such a thing is false and absurd. As one who studies royalty, in particular, German royal houses, I have never heard of such an illegitimate son nor cna I find one. Charles 19:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. ILovePlankton 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable, banned user/vanity basically per above.--Andeh 21:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Noel S McFerran 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, User:Sky-surfer, who I believe is User:Brian G. Wilson, posted an apology on this AfD entry's talk page and in several other places. However, he remains sarcastic, continues to say things like "Please remember just that I will never believe to this pathetic theatre", and still appears to have contempt for other editors. I half expect Talk:Ambient music (of all places) to be the site of his next meltdown.

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

The result of the debate was delete taking into account possible sock-puppetry and the new-ness of the accounts/IPs that wanted to keep. W.marsh 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tipsy (soap opera)[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (from the article: "It started in 2003 as an ongoing joke between several students about how their lives were similar to the plotlines of a soap opera"). Article previously prod'ed; tag removed by anon with comment "This page is not an advertisment for Tipsy. The factual detail is accurate, and it is not 'non-notable' as Tipsy has a significant following due to being a regular feature in a popular publication." ... discospinster talk 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability, appears the huge article was copy and pasted from a website due to the mutated formatting.--Andeh 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'not for things made up in school' principle has been taken out of context. Tipsy should not be compared to yo-yo crazes and the like. Simply, some aspects of school life provided the creative inspiration for Tipsy, but it was no more 'made up in school' than Harry Potter or Malory Towers. Admittedly, the wording of the article is misleading, suggesting that the actual soap opera began as a joke, rather than the concept behind it. There could be case for reducing the size of the article as it is certainly quite lengthy, but not for its deletion as Tipsy is a fairly well-known and significant soap opera. A recent edit does assert its notability. The 'episode guide' was in all likelihood copy and pasted, as Andypandy suggests - not, however, from a website, but from Tom Lane's original notes that he wrote while planning plot outlines and subsequently sent to various local media establishments for their use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.80.113 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong delete, article is horribly written and fails WP:WEB. Fails the Google test miserably (no relevant hits). Furthermore, this DOES fail WP:NFT: "It started in 2003 as an ongoing joke between several students about how their lives were similar to the plotlines of a soap opera." Sounds like something made up in school one day to me. --Coredesat 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that as Tipsy is an INTERNET BASED soap-opera, it quite clearly will come up with relevant hits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.80.113 (talk • contribs)

Comment Well, it didn't. Only relevant hit was the article. The article doesn't even include a link to where this series may be found, either. --Coredesat 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete In regard to the notability of the soap, I can confirm, as a resident of west London, that 'Tipsy' has caused a large stir locally, through word of mouth more than anything else. The gung-ho deletists need to remember that it is difficult to determine the notability of local matters from afar, and as most wikipedia regulars know, the google test is not foolproof. The 'made up in school' debate seems irrelevant - the Beatles originated from a group of school friends, but I'm sure we all agree they deserve an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.80.113 (talk • contribs)
Comment. The preceding user's only contribution is to this AfD. ... discospinster talk 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/keep It does have a link for the series. Other internet sites confirm the information. Article should perhaps be tidied up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiddd (talk • contribs)
Comment. The preceding user's only contributions are to this AfD and to Newland house school. ... discospinster talk 18:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Correct information. Just about passes WP:WEB. It is not 'horribly written'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagerback999 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep The need for consistancy demands the inclusion of this article - other lesser known fictional series have large articles. Moreover, DiscoSpinster is renowned for hasty deletion suggestions. --User:Bobyeh
Comment. Really? I had no idea I was known for anything. P.S.: Bobyeh's other edits are suspiciously similar to those of Lagerback999 (i.e. short sentences - usually non-sequiturs - added to random articles). ... discospinster talk 23:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its fairly clear that a soap with 500 episodes of information this does exist. I can understand why someone in Canada might not be able to appreciate quite how popular a soap is within a certain region of the Uk but it has certainly progressed beyond any notion of being just a school joke. I beleive that most episodes of the soap were viewed via a direct line to the host server which was only available for short periods of time. It was notoriously difficult to watch episodes at the time and it is unsurprising that they are hard to come across now. However, I noticed that the article actually now has a link to the a site withe several transcripts with almost 40,000 words which provides pretty good evidence. (The Next Biggish Thing 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete "tom-lane tipsy soap-opera" gets one ghit, this article,so it misses WP:WEB by miles but not WP:NFT. Paint me cynical, but I reckon it's a hoax. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tipsy's success continues to grow and, as a recent edit shows, it is currently in negotiations with a national network for screening. Even if it didn't pass WP:WEB before, it certainly does now.

Comment I'm new to Wikipedia so can someone explain to me why you would delete an entry on a soap. I thought they were going to make it into a podcast.--Foofer Monkey 14:32, 27 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 per WP:SNOW Eluchil404 06:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Smith[edit]

Vanity page, not notable The Editrix 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Speedy keep if there is such a thing. Vanity? No way. Chuck Smith is one of the most significant figures in the last three decades of American evangelicalism. He was a key figure in the Jesus Movement, and founded the Calvary Chapel denomination. This AfD is rather like someone who never watched Star Trek nominating Leonard Nimoy for being non-notable. David L Rattigan 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep per David R above. To choose a more appropriate simile, this is like a non-Methodist AfDing John Wesley. :) Tevildo 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - he's the founder of a major denomination BigDT 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd love to see this fleshed out a bit. From the article as it stands, he doesn't look terribly notable. Fan1967 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THIS ARTICLE. His denomination includes over a thousand churches worldwide, from Jerusalem, Israel to Tokyo, Japan, and in betweeen. He is most certainly notable, both regionally, in the evangelical movement, nationally, and internationally. --Jacob ladder 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep undoubtedly notable Johnmarkh 15:37, 23 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. I should have read this properly... Petros471 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicket Web Application Framework[edit]

I have created a new article without having checked that an article on the Wicket framework already existed. Snooper77 07:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:18, 15 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, Petros471 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7. AfD added by article's original author Snooper77. Just a procedural error. Tevildo 20:35, 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 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthism[edit]

nn neologism Gnewf 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a new word and a revolution in thought. SAVE! Look at the credibility of these "pro-deleters": We have an Australian abstinent atheist in SM247; a depressed, gay, smoker in Tevildo; and very un-notable fellow in Quarl. In other words, you have a brilliant creative mind participating on Wikipedia, and a bunch of clowns wanting to deny my article. View http://groups.myspace.com/earthian and/or http://www.spectivepro.com ; My ideas will change the world for the better --Spective 09:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment watch WP:NPA, attacking the personal credentials of others does not reduce the validity of their arguments, especially given that nothing you have said about our attributes indicates that we are more or less intelligent than yourself. You have yet to deal with anything we have said. Per the verification policy, a personal website and a Myspace group are insufficient, no matter how refulgent your intellect or revolutionary your ideals. By your own admission, it is a neologism and appears to have no popular acceptance. Jammo (SM247) 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not matter whether Wikipedia accepts the entry or not. What matters is people will eventually recognize what Earthism is all about as briefly described here in my entry and will be written in length in my thesis and book: Spective Earthian Treatise, Spective Earthian Manifesto. I am not insulting the wanna-deleters, you should just take in account and be more respectful of original, innovative, and gifted individuals; we are the ones that shape the world when it comes down to it. Not "nay-sayers” that only get joy from trying to shoot down an idea, or smear it like all those Christian web-sites that are trying to vandalize Earthism by linking it to so-called "Flat-Earthism" or young Earthism. How lame! Try thinking a little. --Spective 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am all for new and creative ideas. However, I am not at all for vanity articles about subjects which are not yet notable. This is not yet notable and your assertions of world-shaping are far from evident, although your condescension is glaringly apparent. Do you understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox? Jammo (SM247) 04:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One who listens not to me but the Earth will say: All is one.--Spective 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Individual and Communal Spective Earthian Constitution

I came from the Earth, and the Earth created me. I am a Spective Earthian; my soul is Earthism.

. . .

The Earth is in me. The Earth is who I am. The Earth supplies me food; the Earth nourishes me. The Earth gives me shelter, and therefore protects me. The Earth provides me air; the Earth provides me breath. The Earth grants me spirit; the Earth inspires my kindred soul. The Earth is my guardian, and I am a guardian of the Earth.

. . .

The only four Elements that I truly need are: The Earth, its Air, its Water, and its Fire. The Earth feeds me. My thirst is quenched by the Earth's fresh, pure water. My lungs are filled by the Earth's clean, oxygen filled air. The heat produced in the hearth warms the fire in my heart.

. . .

The Earth recognizes my spirit and my soul. The Earth is a living being. . . the Earth is a life form. I exist only because the Earth granted me the privilege to live, and when I die, I will return to the Earth. When I die, the Earth will recognize and regenerate my soul. The Earth will welcome me back with open arms. I am a Guardian of the Earth. It is my duty and responsibility to do everything in my conscious power And ability to protect the Earth, our environment, and our biosphere's existence. It is a goal to continually become more environmentally conscious. As a citizen of the Earth, it is important to strive to maintain The Earth's fragile ecosystem. It is my responsibility to minimize the pollution and destruction that I [or anyone else] inhibit onto our planet. It is my responsibility, as a citizen of the Earth, to minimize the destruction that I exert upon myself or onto any other life form (including the Earth). I am a Spective Earthian, and I belong to the Spective Earthian way of thinking, and an Earthian way of life. I am human. I will make mistakes. Yet the Earth has always been forgiving. When I sincerely repent, the Earth recognizes my sincerity. Sacred is the Earth to forgive my vices, and reinforce my virtues. My spirituality is an Earthism. My mind and my body, my psyche and my flesh are redeemed by the grace of the Earth. I seek redemption. I am a disciple of the Earth. By the grace, the power, and the life generating force of the Earth, I pledge my deepest gratitude and my most sincere respects.

. . .

I am a Spective Earthian Guardian. I am a Spective Earthian Warrior. I pledge my life to the Earth.

. . .

We came from the Earth, and the Earth created us. We are Spective Earthians; our souls are Earthisms.

. . .

The Earth is in us. The Earth is who we are. The Earth supplies us food; the Earth nourishes us. The Earth gives us shelter, and therefore protects us. The Earth provides us air; the Earth provides us breath. The Earth grants us spirit; the Earth inspires our kindred souls. The Earth is our guardian, and we are guardians of the Earth.

. . .

The only four Elements that we truly need are: The Earth, its Air, its Water, and its Fire. The Earth feeds us. Our thirst is quenched by the Earth's fresh, pure water. Our lungs are filled by the Earth's clean, oxygen filled air. The heat produced in the hearth warms the fire in our hearts.

. . .

The Earth recognizes our spirit and our soul. The Earth is a living being. . . the Earth is a life form. We exist only because the Earth granted us the privilege to live, and when we die, we will return to the Earth. When we die, the Earth will recognize and regenerate our soul. The Earth will welcome us back with open arms. We are Spective Guardians of the Earth. It is our duty and responsibility to do everything in our conscious power and ability to protect the Earth, our environment, and our biosphere's existence. It is a goal to continually become more environmentally conscious. As citizens of the Earth, it is important to strive to maintain The Earth's fragile ecosystem. It is our responsibility to minimize the pollution and destruction that We inhibit onto our planet. It is our responsibility, as citizens of the Earth, to minimize the destruction that we exert upon ourselves or onto any other life form (including the Earth). We are Spective Earthians, and We belong to the Spective Earthian way of thinking, and an Earthian way of life. We are human. We will make mistakes. Yet the Earth has always been forgiving. When we sincerely repent, the Earth recognizes our sincerity. Sacred is the Earth to forgive our vices, and reinforce our virtues. Our spirituality is an Earthism. Our mind and our body, our psyche and our flesh are redeemed by the grace of the Earth. We seek redemption. We are disciples of the Earth. By the grace, the power, and the life generating force of the Earth, We pledge our deepest gratitude and our most sincere respects.

. . .

We are Spective Earthian Guardians. We are Spective Earthian Warriors.

(written originally by T§, TABS Golden in 2002, perpetually refined)

  • Comment: Earthism has nothing to do with vanity or ego and everything to do with what is sacred. You should not touch this or delete it. If you do, you suck. Plain and simple!--Spective 16:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again, you add nothing to the consensus. Wikipedia is not about preserving what is sacred. Once again, watch WP:NPA. Jammo (SM247) 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Actually, you are mistaken. You add nothing to the consensus. Deleting is the opposite of adding, so don't tell me about "adding to the consensus." Have you ever done anything original or note-worthy? Have you ever presented research to a room full of scholars and experts in a particular field. I have. Your reasons for deletion are weak. --Spective 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am only going to say this once again - this article is about a non-notable neologism that lacks credible verification. That is a pretty cogent reason for deletion. Nothing you have said indicates why according to official Wikipedia policies and more than a score of other guidelines, this page should be kept. Your effete intellectual elitism and personal outrage at being challenged seems to have obscured from you this basic truth. Consensus in this context relates to the general opinion of the community about whether this page merits inclusion or deletion, and not to the validity or development of your ideas. At the moment, all the users who have commented are in favour of deletion, except you, the article's creator. As I have stated before, my credentials are quite irrelevant and despite your purported laudable achievements and dubious claims to mental lordship, you have not addressed the core reason why this was listed on AfD, instead invoking puny, small-minded and thus ultimately ineffective ad hominem attacks.
Have a nice day! Jammo (SM247) 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jammo, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you have been equally or more than pompous. You tell me not to personally attack and then you follow suit. You are a complete hypocrite and disgraceful. I have demonstrated no outrage, since you can not accurately determine tone in inflectionless prose, so don't assume. I have remained calm, and if anything, I have been baffled by people not being open minded to a wonderful concept. You have attacked me personally on several occasions as well, so maybe you should read the rules you so slavishly follow once again before you go preaching them to others. How dare you call me small-minded. Wanting to remove ideas so others cannot see them is "small-minded." I do not claim "mental-lordship," but I have been recognized for scholarship and artistic ability, which merrits respect. You need to read your comments again and see what a contradiction you are. And thank you, I am having a nice day! --Spective 09:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is fun! (and you still haven't addressed the issue, are you a parliamentarian)? Jammo (SM247) 10:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Like I said before, it does not matter whether you save or delete (I’ve supplied enough reading for you to take to mind and heart). Wikipedia has a silly reputation anyhow. This whole process has been a joke. I can't stop laughing. If Wikipedia wants to continue to get contribution like yours, the mundane (e.g., list of local railway stations, list of bus stations, etc.), well, it should keep its same practices, but if it wants contributions from innovative, creative people, there is a serious level of refinement needed. Don't try to pretend that this website has an extraordinary level of credibility, because you would be one of the few that believes it. Also, you cannot just rely on what has been published on the web, your research ends with a google search like a freshman in college. Once again, silly Wikipedia-folk protecting their silly artificial wall... Have a good one. --Spective 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Mundane is a matter of perspective. I find your readings mundane and uninspiring despite your assertions of personal creativity, but that is not the reason they must go. They go, as I have said many times throughout the above, because they lack either credible verification or real notability. The reason the internet is relied upon is because it is more universal than research journals or other sources, which are time-consuming to access and are unlikely to contain your writings (unless you can show that they do and exactly where they do). Wikipedia's credibility problems are caused, inter alia, by articles that do not cite credible sources - this ones falls into that category. Jammo (SM247) 23:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable movement (as of now, anyway), whether or not it's "right" -- where would we be if we had to judge the philosophical truth of articles? NawlinWiki 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Academically, I first introduced the concept of Earthism to describe the source of spiritual inspiration of such artists, philosophers, and geniuses as Leonardo da Vinci, Alberti, Aristotle, and others who primarily were inspired by Nature (and not a concretized god) as documented in their personal journals, artwork, treatises on art, painting, and philosophy. My graduate level course thesis was completed in 1999 while an undergraduate at the University of Washington entitled “The Renaissance, the Elements, and the Consciousness of Western Mankind.” In May of 2004, I presented the same researched material (refined) to the Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society Conference at Western Washington University in a presentation entitled “The Elements of the Renaissance,” documenting the profound influence on the Italian Renaissance masters of the primary elements (water, fire, air, and Earth), and a spirituality that had never been appropriately denoted, Earthism and Earthian belief system, which has inspired geniuses throughout the ages - often referenced as a sort of Nature mysticism.

The 2004 PNRS conference website has since expired, but it did contain my name and an abstract of the thesis. The current home page is http://www.stmu.ab.ca/PNRS/conferences_NEW.html , but that does not have detailed information of the 2004 conference where I presented my research. I’ve published my thesis on various websites, but websites come and go, and only elite sites have a budget to remain, or ones that have been spoiled by an abundance of advertising. So if Wikipedia only publishes works that have privileged access, you are instituting an elite class structure that seems contrary to the true goal of intelligent investigation. --Spective 05:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Wikipedia community is not ready for Earthism, but many around the world have been longing for such a symbol. May Earthism free minds around the world. Especially atheists (Australian or other), who force themselves to believe in nothing. Believe in the Earth; the Earth produced you. Namaste --Spective 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief Once again, nothing added except elitist views. If your sources are unavailable, far from us instituting an elitist structure, you are publishing independently unverifiable information that doesn't belong here for that reason. Jammo (SM247) 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You sure seem overly interested to return over and over, Jammo, do we have an awakening Earthian down-under? Is there Earthism in your atheist soul? Cheers, Jammo, you must have spotted something notable to return over and over... or why would you bother? Thanks for taking the time. I have a vested interest; I care about the potential, positive shift in perspective of those that sincerely contemplate on a cognitive and emotive level the Earthism concept. And you? --Spective 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, no interest in the concept, I'm just arguing for its own sake at the moment. I've never seen someone so willing to post comments in support of an article at AfD, which is disappointing as it will be going soon. Jammo (SM247) 04:47, 27 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 could be recreated if verification is found. W.marsh 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaukau veld[edit]

Extremely non-notable. Only 143 Google results, most are WP mirrors. Kookykman|(t)e 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMO, there's no notability standard for geographical locations. If it exists, and is real, people should be able to look it up. Fan1967 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we have no tangible information about this other than, as you say, it exists. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll see what I can find on it. At the very least, we should be able to come up with a more specific location, and latitude and longitude. Fan1967 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I can find on it so far is that it's a vaguely defined region more or less centered on 20° E, 20° S. I've also fixed the article's description, which had it "in Botswana and north-western Namibia". Since Namibia is west of Botswana, and northwestern Namibia is on the coast, that would have been a little difficult. Seems to be kind of the middle of nowhere, not near any major population centers in either country. Fan1967 14:40, 16 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources and information can be found. Places need to assert more than is currently here, IMO. Eluchil404 13:39, 27 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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles whose topics' importance is unclear[edit]

Finished the cleanup on the page. Ste4k 19:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow! Thanks very much, Ste4k. Your hard work is appreciated! I'll talk to WP:CfD about it. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:16, 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 00:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bavarian Druglords[edit]

BRING BACK THE BAVARIAN DRUGLORDS!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!

Do Not Delete Hello. My name is Syed Druglord, leader of so called band in question. The article does not consist of namedropping and/or rubbing shoulders with notable bands. We are releasing records alongside those "notable" bands. The Kill Art Movement is a NEW publishing and promoting company under which the songs are written and released. The Bavarian Druglords are currently releasing music through Northern Star Records. This entry is not a bid to do anything other than supply a short concise introduction and summary to a notable band who are releasing music and are impacting the underground music scene. I suggest you shouldn't pass judgement and/or make generalisations so easily. Take time to learn about the music scene being discussed first. Thank you.


DO NOT DELETEI am a fan of this page and the page is quite valid. TBD have alot of admirers and fans around Detroit and beyond. Their music is quite unique and recently a friend of mine in the UK told me that he heard the music being played on BBC radio as well.


BRING BACK THE BAVARIAN DRUGLORDS!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BRING BACK THE BAVARIAN DRUGLORDS!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!

Comment: I'd like to get more consensus before discounting invalid votes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Appears to fail WP:BAND. First few pages on Google are web-forum reviews of local gigs, sampler EP's, etc - no evidence of commercial success or general notability. Maybe in a year or two? Tevildo 20:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable yet -- try again after we see how that first LP does. NawlinWiki 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; according to this page, they're the "founding band" of the Kill Art Movement.BRING BACK THE BAVARIAN DRUGLORDS!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!


BRING BACK THE BAVARIAN DRUGLORDS!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!! KILL ART MOVEMENT!!!!!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 g7--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PokeMap Editer[edit]

Contested prod by author, seems to be a NN Pokemon hack. Big Smooth 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In this edit, the author asks that the page be deleted, so maybe we can speedy this one. -Big Smooth 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete tag {{db-author}} added.--Andeh 21:28, 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 Merge with Raj Comics. Same result as a whole bunch of other such pages.. ImpuMozhi 00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thodanga[edit]

Delete, as is this article does not meet WP:FICT. Not notable Vijrams 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:03, 15 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, Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:02, 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 Rename Eluchil404 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Thomlinson[edit]

Non-notable, smells of copyvio. Kookykman|(t)e 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it is a copyvio, it's not from the net, since Google doesn't really get any hits with the same phrases. Also, apparently this is the same person as Theresa Tomlinson -- without the "h" in her surname -- and under that name, she gets about 18,000 Google hits. I found an interview with her, a review on Guardian Unlimited, and various other things in a similar vein, including a couple of awards. She's not mega famous, but she certainly appears to meet the requirements set in WP:BIO ("Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"). -- Captain Disdain 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Theresa Tomlinson. This is a pretty bad article, but the subject is notable. --djrobgordon 20:17, 15 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per djrobgordon. Seems to pass WP:BIO comfortably. Tevildo 22:56, 22 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 Withdrawn. Must do more research before nominating.--GraemeL (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwire[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable news source. Text was added (when removing my prod of the article) claiming TV and Whitehouse as following them, but Google claims only 110 inbound links. The article provides no independent references to the notability of its subject.-- GraemeL (talk) 20:05, 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. W.marsh 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Gow[edit]

While I'm sure he's a very admirable chap, there seems no particular reason why Mr Gow should have an article on Wikipedia. It looks like a page from someone's family history. His war service, although no doubt solid, doesn't seem to have been particularly different from that of hundreds of thousands of others. -- Necrothesp 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable. Perhaps some information from the SOE section of his autobiography might push this chap in to notable status?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:06, 15 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, W.marsh 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna have to vote delete here in the absence of anything unusual about Mr. Gow's service. NawlinWiki 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A memorial to a good person, undoubtedly, but Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. Tevildo 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His service with the Special Operations Executive is unusual, and his status as a published author helps as well. TruthbringerToronto 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sorry, TruthbringerToronto, Wikipedia is not a memorial. ---CH 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, have to agree with 'Delete because we don't have a transwiki target for ordinary heroes - the basic everyday people who do good things and are worth remembering their stories because they are good examples. GRBerry 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears this 83-year-old war hero is only going to get in Wikipedia by appearing in a porn film, or a homemade Star Wars movie. Sad. -- GWO
  • Delete as per nom. I'm all for deleting porncruft and fancruft too, but Wikipedia isn't a place for obituaries. This article sounds like a newspaper obituary and most newspaper obituaries cover people who are not encyclopedic. Also, most special intelligence/commando operatives are not automatically notable. Bwithh 01:59, 25 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 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centerpoint Mall[edit]

There is nothing unique about this mall, nothing that architecturally, socially, or economically seperates it from any other mall. Violates WP:NOT, speicifically: promotion. Delete Yanksox (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am generally in favour of keeping shopping centres - if they show some notability (generally, this means they at least are quite large or form the central activity centre of a town or sometihng similar). I lean towards the keeping of schools nowadays, but there is a difference between a (usually) perpetually operating school, and a non-notable shopping centre which is at the whim of market forces. If it is very large or heritage-listed for example, it is less likely to have notability problems. Nothing of the like is given here. Jammo (SM247) 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:BIAS. Good Lord, it's bad enough that we let schools slip in, but shopping malls? ~ trialsanderrors 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Actually shopping malls are notable. They're good indicators of a region's economic status and the consumer purchasing behavriour. Some malls, like the Mills, Mall of America, or West Edmonton Mall are major tourist attractions, drawing millions of customers each year. For example, the Toronto Eaton Centre is the biggest tourist draw in Toronto and has helped reshape the cultural and retail landscape of Toronto's downtown for some 25 years. --Madchester 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that there are notable shopping malls doesn't imply that shopping malls are notable. Just because we have an entry on the Rolling Stones doesn't make any stoner band notable. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per [51] - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live 10 mins. away from this mall, but it's not a particularly large or important one in the Greater Toronto Area. Smaller malls like Don Mills Centre are notable, since it was among the first of its kind in a planned community in North America during the 1950s. As an aside, the mall should be spelt "CentrePoint Mall", per Canadian English spelling. --Madchester 00:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I give up on my hyper-inclusionist view of very mall ever as socio-economic blahblah, as it was not worth the wiki headache (CrazyRussian and Yanksox know what I am talking about :) ). I agree with Madchester, however, that malls that show some notability/superlative should be kept. This one just merely exists. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live next door to this one and its not notable nor very big or useful, all of the people I know who work in it make fun of it and call it crappy, which it is. Highlandlord 00:54, 24 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 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Side Effects[edit]

This article contains no valuable information and obviously is not impartial judging by this sentence: "The Side Effects was a groovy band that was awesome." WNTTM 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 21:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the major bands from Athens around the time R.E.M. came out (Love Tractor, Pylon, The B-52s) are fairly notable by association. Beyond that, I can tell you that they were at least mentioned, if not featured, in the documentary Athens, GA: Inside Out, and get some mention in books such as It Crawled From the South by Marcus Gray and R.E.M.: Fiction by David Buckley. As a huge R.E.M. fan, this band leapt right out at me when I saw the page. It needs work, and I'll be glad to work on it sometime tonight or later this weekend if I get a shot, but nobility isn't in question here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten this with a bunch of different sources, it hopefully meets muster. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff Computerjoe's talk 18:52, 17 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, Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Parsssseltongue 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff, deletion is not a substitution for removing NPOV. It seems Jeff did a good job. Yanksox (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established by bdjeff, even though the other bands he mentioned are notable on their own, not by jumping on the R.E.M. bandwagon. trialsanderrors 23:21, 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. W.marsh 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Powers[edit]

All this short article says, essentially, is that the nations of Europe were powerful in the 19th and 20th centuries. This point is adequately made in other articles and I don't see the purpose of this one. NawlinWiki 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completely redundant. Jammo (SM247)
  • Redirect to Great power. That article is in much better shape than this stub (which verges on being a dictionary definition), even though it needs improvement also. GRBerry 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per GRBerry. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:11Z
  • Redirect per above, possible search term. Eluchil404 13:49, 27 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 typo version, keep other one. W.marsh 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addtional moog[edit]

Band on the verge of notability, but definately not there yet. Actually from the new version it seems this may be a keeper. Would it be wrong to unilaterally remove the afd or do we need to speedy keep? ScottNestle 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Needs cleanup, but there is info there that convinces me of notability. Parsssseltongue 20:21, 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. W.marsh 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India (cat)[edit]

Notability of pets

  • Strong oppose. Merging would unbalance the Bush article, and deleting would, without justification, cause it to fall out of the Historical cats category, where it clearly belongs. --The Editrix 20:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are separate articles on just about all of the presidential pets, who are notable just for being presidential pets. I'd hate to lose Misty Malarky Ying Yang. NawlinWiki 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, none of these articles can ever grow beyond the 2 lines, such as "<inser animal name> was a cat/dog/goat/whatever owned by <insert president name.". As such, these should be all merged to List of United States Presidential pets. --Ragib 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Socks (cat) and Buddy (dog) are much longer than two lines. On my browser, India (cat) has three. hateless 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in that case, those may deserve articles. But, I don't see what is there to write about *this* cat. I've nominated it for deletion before, but even after it got a reprieve, the article's contents has remained a puny 2/3 lines, with no information that cannot be merged into the List of United States Presidential pets. --Ragib 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per User:Ragib Matthew Fenton [t/c] 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being a presidential pet is notable, as demonstrated by the fact that people would buy a book written by Millie the Dog. Article length is never a criteria for deletion. hateless 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maybe not, but it is a sign that this article has little to offer which could not be accommodated within another article?Neuropean 21:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of United States Presidential pets per WP:BIAS ~ trialsanderrors 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. Presidential pets would appear to be inherently notable, and even if the article never grows beyond a stub, it is potentially useful. bikeable (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this ios one of a series of anti-cat AFDs put out in bad faith. Robertsteadman 21:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please strikeout last comment: AGF (also NPOV - editor is creator of a similar cat article which resulted in a merge vote and is looking to strengthen own case).Neuropean 18:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks harmless and unbiased. It may need some more references but keep it.--Ageo020 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of United States Presidential pets. It doesn't need a separate article as it will not be expanded. --Musicpvm 04:01, 27 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 Aside from suspected/possible sockpuppets and multi-voters, there are a few wanting to delete, but really there seems to be a consensus to keep overall. W.marsh 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight[edit]

This article should be kept for numerious reasons. Not only is it only controversal because it is a sexual stimulator, but taking it down would be precident for complainers to ask for the deletion of other "obscene material." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims at increasing knowledge, and I managed to get to this page by reading and following links. The educational value is there, proven that it is more than just an advertisment, but more importantly, the free speech value is there as well. Furthermore, the fleshlight IS the best known product in that category, and deleting the article just takes away from wikipedia as a whole. The best arguments for keeping IMHO are that it is like the ipod vs. a mp3 player (as stated below) and also, if this is deleted, then precident will follow and people will demand other objects deleted as well (like the sybian, mentioned below) Just my two cents. This page should stay.


This is a product design, this is not a term , or a word or anything other than an advertise for a spesific product. Leaving this page alive is just like leaving a page for "Sony TV" rather than a page for the term TV or a page for Sony company.

furthermore, the "official site" for that product is nothing but a store an affiliate program for selling that specific product.

i don't see any educational value to that page, or any value whatsoever to that page other than advertising the maker of that product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs) .

Note to admin: Nominator has tried voting 3 times without signing the vote and there appears to be multiple sockpuppets being used.

  • Keep Sigh Anyways, this article just needs massive cleanup. Apparently, it's a popular product that has struck itself into mainstream conversation. Unique Google Hits test[52], it gets over a million regualar g-hits. Yanksox (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (From that web page, as viewed about a minute ago): Results 601 - 603 of about 2,050,000 for Fleshlight. And who knows how many of the 603 are affiliates or resellers? But that just provides a reason why Ghits are particularly inappropriate for products of any sort. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep. I might say it's a bit more like having iPod instead of Mp3 player; sure, there are probably other brands, but Fleshlight is by far the most notable and well-known, in my experience. Educational? It answers a very basic question: "What is this thing?" Advertisement? There might actually be your best point, though that may be more of a case for significant copyediting, than deletion, if the product/brand is notable. If the article is deleted, I'd suggest a redirect to a suitable main article; in the event there is no suitable article to redirect to, I'd say that should tell us something. Luna Santin 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CORP if we take "published works in all forms" to include on-line publication, and definitely well-known in certain sections of society. See Realdoll for an equivalent case. Tevildo 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a product is chosen i don't think it should be the "Fleshlight" everybody knows that the most popular sex toy ever is the "Jack Rabbit" and that's a fact. if any product should receive a seperated page it should be the "Jack rabbit".The only reason that the "Fleshlight" became popular so fast is because of their good SEO and marketing peaple tha among other activities also getting their product into directories like this one. 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per above... does appear to be notable. No educational value? That would depend on... ahem.. kind of education one is looking for. ikh (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That product is not that notable. the market share of that product is reasonable, and it has no educational value, no revolutionary idea, and no outstanding changes to the concept of sex toys. It's just a product, one of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.161.107 (talk • contribs)
Comment So we should delete any and all food/clothing/electronic, etc. products/manufacturers because there are alot of them? I understand your point, however, there may be many but some stick out and become notable. And according to the presentable facts, it is. Yanksox (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this item should be removed. I'm also in this industry for years, and there are many products that should be here before that one. for example : Jack Rabbit, Pocket Rocket, iVibe products, Kama Sutra product, and more. I agree that this product is on Wikipedia only because of the good marketing strategy they got, by spreading their product to every blog, forum , free content site, purchasing banners and text ads, and basically spamming the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe43 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above is users first edit, there may be sockpuppetry afoot. Yanksox (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, yes, that's rather the point of advertising. Fleshlight have a good marketing strategy, which has lead to their product becoming well-known (which is what we, at Wikipedia, should base our decision on), and (presumably) to increased sales. Should we delete Ford Motor Company because Henry had a good marketing strategy, too? Tevildo 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No i wouldn't remove Ford, but I wouldn't let them add "Explorer" as an Wikipedia term. And that company didn't do to their field what Ford did to theirs. You can't just let every company list every product they have, in that case "Doc Johnson" will list 10,000 products that has a unique design, and "California exotics" will add another 15,000, there should be starndards and whatever standard you will make that specific product will not cut it . 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, yes, I agree with you there. We should only list products that are notable. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other contributors to this discussion, Fleshlight is a notable product. There are other brands of latex sex-doll, but Realdoll is notable. I don't see how this case differs from it. Tevildo 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison doesn't quite work, though -- Ford Motor Company has an article, but Interactive Life Forms does not appear to. In this case, the product is not only notable, but is in fact even more notable than the company which makes it. Luna Santin 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep There's no generic name for a device like the Fleshlight, it's unique. . As long as the informaiton presented doesn't advocate use of it because of how good it is, etc. and remains neutral, it's as good as any other entry for a branded device. I also agree that it's a slipperly slope once you get into individual products. I know of no generic equivalent. --Cfeyrer 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No I don't suggest to remove all products and companies. I suggest that you leave notable companies, in sex toys i would add Doc Johnson, Fun Factory (Because they are extremely uniqe), California Exotics(or Swedish Erotica) , but i wouldn't include ILF Inc. or whatever their name, since they are just another company in that market, and they only have one hit, and that due to aggressive marketing methods. And about the product, you can't compare it to iPod that became a fashion statement and a huge trend. And furthermore you can't add Fleshlight - a product just like you wouldn't add "Explorer" (Ford's SUV) as a term for a car, even though it's way more popular, notable and worthy for a page then that product.21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs)
A-hem - "Jeep"? Tevildo 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please only vote once. You've already listed a vote to delete. Luna Santin 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Artificial vagina. Note that while "Fleshlight" is a brand name, the Fleshlight is a unique design type of artificial vagina incorporating suction and increased manipulability. (More than you want to know, I'm sure.) As stated above, there is no generic equivalent, since no other company makes this design. The content of the article needs cleanup whether it ends up standing on its own or is incorporated into "Artificial vagina". Iamcuriousblue 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there we go. If we do end up merging, definitely redirect. The Fleshlight brand would probably be worth a section on that article, but if consensus is that it doesn't deserve its own article, so be it. Luna Santin 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could (Personal View) be possible to improve this article with concerns to it's history and how it a breakthough design that has influence the 'sex toy' market to avoid the advertising feel it currently has. For example although the iPod is a individual product (part of a music player group,) it's release has a historical value in that it made a huge impact on both music players and futher increased music downloads, plus restored Apples furtunes. It is quite possible that the Fleshlight can be proven to of increased sex toy sales, and maybe improved other sex toy materials, but in this article that isnt clearly shown. Getting the article changed as a historical article and not a statistical would require a request for improvement and not deletion? I suspect that the fleshlight was more a mould of excising technology and ideas then a complete breakthough. Unless someone can improve this article, it would (Personal View) seem far better to simply merge it with the empty looking Artificial vagina and forward the Fleshlight article to it. It would still be possible to keep most of the information, and even include a link to a Fleshlight related site.

Percz 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The arguments in favour just do not convince me over the blatant advertising that the article really is. It is a notable product, but the article is way below standard. The device is emulated in the psycho-sexual counselling field for male orgasm training. But the article itself is insufficiently general - generic? - to be considered encyclopaedic. This is trade puffery, not notability. BTW to merge with Artifical vagina is interesting, but what about ...mouth, ...anus, and ...nondescript opening? Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how this product is notable, artificial vagina are already in the market for many years, and they even looks just the same, the only difference is that they put it inside of a flashlight look like body. Notable progresses in that category (artificial vagina) are the making of CyberSkin and UR3 etc... , but putting it into a new tube is not that notable, or original.User:JonJon64 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is JonJon64's (contribs) first edit too; sockpuppetry? ikh (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, the flashlight look is not the only difference – a fleshlight also can be adjusted in such a way that it creates a partial vacuum. Hence, its an artificial vagina crossed with a penis pump. Iamcuriousblue 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and REWRITE Honestly, I can't help but think this nomination is in bad faith. Like it or not, it's part of our lexicon now. Danny Lilithborne 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably put the submission down to overzealousness rather than bad faith. The submitter was pulled up by me for spamming and after some discussion saw the problems that we have with advertising. He pointed the article out to me and I directed him to AfD, then completed the nomination when he made some errors with it. However, I don't feel enough conviction to voice my opinion one way or another in the debate here. The apparent sock-puppetry in the discussion is disturbing though. --GraemeL (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (there's nothing to be merged which isn't advertising). Still a brand name, and not part of the porn lexicon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 1 I don't think the product, itself, is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 2 The last time I checked, the US distributor and UK distributor were both claiming world-wide rights. That might be interesting, but probably not encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP products criteria "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." It has. [53], [54], and various others. Tom k&e 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Our standards for porn actors, actresses, and films are stricter than the standards for other actors, actresses, and films, because the products are so spammed across the net. Shouldn't the same restrictions apply for products? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But ... even if it does meet WP:CORP, it's a copy of the advertising brocure. I actually wouldn't assert {{db-copyvio}}, because advertising brocures are meant to be copied, but there's nothing encyclopedic there. The first sentence is about all that should remain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet WP:CORP and everyone that has stated they believe the article should remain has agreed that this needs to be drastically rewritten. I recommend, looking at the nom's contribs and the highly possible sockpuppetry occuring both here and on the talk page. Yanksox (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it does meet WP:CORP. Are those sources known in the field, and are the reviews contributed (possibly by the manufacturer) or by (quasi-)employees of the web site? As I was going to point out, epinions.com-like sites should be disregarded, even if the reviews are apparently non-trivial, because there's no way to determine whether the reviews really are submitted by someone other than the manufacturer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORP, the sources need not be known in the field, only "non-trivial," which seems to leave a fair amount of wiggle room -- while, of course, a source known very well in a given field is more likely to be notable, that's hardly the only route to take. Sites like Nerve and AskMen are hardly trivial, and both have posted Fleshlight reviews ([55], [56]). Babeland.com lists the Fleshlight as one of its most popular items ([57]). There's a few other points remaining -- it's my belief that the "Fleshlight" brand is by far more notable than the company which makes it; how many people can remember "Fleshlight" off the top of their head, compared to the number who would even recognize "Interactive Life Forms, Inc."? Going back to the earlier Ford Explorer example, would now be a good time to point out that the Explorer does in fact have an article? Is it worthwhile to note that everyone who's entered this debate has apparently done so with prior knowledge of the product, indicating they've heard of it before? I think I can see where you're coming from, but at this point I have to disagree. Regards, Luna Santin 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd heard of it because they'd also spammed the Open Directory Project, and I noticed that multiple retailers for the same product were listed. That's not evidence of WP:Notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I made quite a few other points, and I can't help but notice that WP:Notability is neither a guideline nor a policy. Not to say we can't explore that, I'm just not sure if it brings in anything new that WP:CORP wouldn't have already established. Regards, Luna Santin 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading arguments for delete and arguments for keeping this article, it's pretty obvious that my vote goes for delete, i saw number of arguments to delete this page, but i didn't see any argument to keep it other than "notable product"- argument that got shuttered by the arguments for deletion. --68.7.151.192 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me second that question, what exactly is the argument of leaving that product online? I can see why people want to remove it, but I can't see why anyone would want to leave it. Wikipedia should refurbish it's guidelines to prevent companies to use it as a free advertisement like in this case.--Mikespike 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
users first edit. Yanksox (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if this is deleted, let's get rid of Sybian, too. --Philo 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Philo, we should also remove Sybian, we should be objective, but sensitive to trends and for that reason i think that the same judgement should go for both sybian and fleshlight, they both should be deleted. However since I am working in that field for so long, let me state the difference between those two : the sybian has a unique mechanism! and unique functions, on the other hand the Fleshlight took vagina mold, not different from what every other manufacturer selling, and placed it in a flashlight body. So I will refresh a question that was asked here before, what is so notable and what is so special about this product that it should be include as a term in an encyclopedia ?, did it make a difference, did it invovled any kind of invension? if that product goes online, than you should be objective and every product designer should upload all of his / hers unique designs.And if I nerrow it to that field, just imagine what will happend to the integrity of that encyclopedia if DocJohnson will decide to upload tomorrow 5,000 products, each unique in the combination of looks, materials and fanctionality. --Bigsexyguide 08:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least the second or third time that you've put your opinion down, just put comment next time. Yanksox (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please stop logging multiple votes; it's not that you can't talk, or that we don't want you to, but since bolding a "delete" is similar to ticking your choice on a voter's ballot, it's better to only do it once, if that's alright with you. Also, you may wish to read WP:CORP, a guideline for notability as regards corporations and related topics, which includes questions of product notability here; there've been a few arguments using the guideline, above. In this case, the Fleshlight has been the subject of both non-trivial reviews, and has experienced some degree of trademark genericization. While I can appreciate your arguments, to be sure, my understanding is that notability is more important than uniqueness when it comes to articles (it's not like we'll run out of paper, after all) -- further, attempts by editors to judge the unique merits of a product are unfortunately pretty likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. Regards, Luna Santin 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is as notable as the Sybian. --Neverborn 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep come on, its been seen Shotime —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.117.248 (talk • contribs) 04:36, June 27, 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultra Keep If you delete this, you have to get rid of the Sybian article, too. The fleshlight is the equivilent "tool" for men. --mboverload@ 21:46, 27 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. Renaming or merging won't require AfD Eluchil404 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eupen-Malmedy[edit]

Not sure what the point of this article is; there are already separate articles on Eupen and Malmedy. NawlinWiki 20:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Withdrawing nomination thanks to excellent work by trialsanderrors. I have cleaned up the article a bit more and removed the "Rulers" subsection, which is pretty much POV. It is now useful and informative. NawlinWiki 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - very poor article, of course, but Eupen and Malmedy together form the German section of Belgium, and were therefore a political issue during the 20th century. The article seems to want to trace the common political history of that border region. Just a thought: Maybe just redirect to German-speaking Community of Belgium? No vote at this moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the crap that's in there, redirect to German-speaking Community of Belgium. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Such a redirect will be rather strange, as Malmedy is officially part of the French Community of Belgium. Annexionism per Wikipedia? There is a large difference between the areas called Eupen and Malmedy that were Prussian counties and annexed by Belgium (on which the English Wikipedia does not have separate articles; see the redlinks in the article German-speaking Community of Belgium) and the present Belgium municipalities of Eupen and Malmedy, on which we do have articles. This article is about the counties. It is not a very good article, but contains information that is not present elsewhere and that does not clearly belong in any existing article. --LambiamTalk 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, after putting my foot in my mouth I found two entries in the German WP: de:Eupen-Malmedy-St.Vith and de:Ostkantone, which seem to exist independent of each other. S-M-St is short and easy to translate, Ost is far more elaborate. I could translate the S-M-St entry to replace the stuff that's there, and post the Ost article at articles for translation. ~ trialsanderrors 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done translating. I have no opinion on how to deal with this article from now on (Move? Translate Ostkantone?), but I guess the addition might keep it from deletion. Unless there is another article covering the same material. ~ trialsanderrors 04:43, 22 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 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Direct3D and OpenGL[edit]

This article is original research, since there are no primary sources on the topic of "Comparison of Direct3D and OpenGL". If there is a primary source on this topic, please cite it, and write an encyclopedic description of the topic, but do not actually treat Wikipedia as a primary source. See WP:NOT. Flayked 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself here: If this article is to stay, it must not be a comparison of these two things. Instead, it must be a description of the comparison; e.g. what a comparison involves, how this particular comparison differs from other comparisons, etc. Actual comparison articles belong either in external links, references, and/or other Wikis, not Wikipedia itself. Flayked 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I think this is a useful article.
  • keep. This topic is an important issue for graphics programmers. Due to the nature of its subject, there are going to be few paper-published articles on it; most of this is borne out in newsgroups and the like. Most articles that could be linked to will only compare the two in terms of a particular feature, rather than as a comprehensive overview, and also most of them will be considerably POV. This article is an attempt to introduce an overview of the topic, and when I first came upon it I was impressed at how NPOV is actually managed to be. To summarize, I am saying that there may not be primary sources to draw from, but the information presented here is not a single person's original research; it is a collection of commentary from a variety of incomplete sources, and for being that is has value to wikipedia. (Flayked: What other wiki should this belong to?) - Rainwarrior 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that a "collection of commentary from a variety of incomplete sources" is really Wikipedia's goal. However, since the consensus seems to be to keep the article, then I will stand by your decision. As for a suitable Wiki for non-encyclopedic material, see "Further reading" under Wikipedia:NOR. 4.242.147.193 (Flayked, forgot to sign in :() 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should merge it with the 3D computer graphics or similar article and clean it up there. IMO that would be an improvement over the current situation. Flayked 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Although the API wars has greatly calmed down, reworking this article to reflect real facts would probably need more effort than starting it from scratch, which should be encouraged. I have some doubts on the usefulness of this comparison and defining what to compare seems to be non-trivial to me: many points shall be taken in consideration with context-specific issues. MaxDZ8 talk 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apples vs. Pears, No need to have an article comparing two API's. Lets leave that to GD.net/Gamesutra. --Mincetro 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Rainwarrior, and per thinking I don't understand how Flayked's suggestion doesn't wind up making the article less useful, as a description of possible comparisons instead of showing what the actual differences are. Perhaps it would help if the contribs could link to the references used. Also, we have articles comparing OSes and such, and those (to me at least) are useful. SterlingNorth 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Flayked's objection seems to be to the article title, not the contents - that it implies an article about the act of comparing Direct3D and OpenGL, rather than an article which itself does so. I doubt that this is a likely source of genuine confusion (articles on the subject of the act of comparing Direct3D with OpenGL are likely to be dull and not useful to anyone). Maybe "Differences between Direct3D and OpenGL" would be less ambiguous, but also less accurate, since the article mentions similarities as well as differences (the "features list" suggestion is equally inaccurate, since it's far from mentioning most of the features of either API); I'd be happy with a title change if a genuinely better title can be conceived, but most obvious changes seem to have problems of their own. This article does not perform research on the APIs in question - there are no novel timing measurements, no proposed changes, and no suggestions about circumstances in which either API might be superior; it merely provides a summary of some publicly known differences and similarities between them, and does so in a commendably unbiased manner - as Rainwarrior says. It's hard to quote public knowledge as a verifiable source, but nobody could interpret this page as a research paper. MaxDZ8: The article is no more or less exhaustive on the subject than other Wikipedia pages; there's more to say, but that's usually the case. The lack of bias distinguishes this from most other treatments, and is fitting with its place in Wikipedia; it is of value over comparisons elsewhere. Removing a useful article, named sensibly at least for search criteria (even if slightly ambiguously as a title), just because of its name would be detrimental. I was looking for specific information on how something was handled in OpenGL when I knew how it was handled in DirectX, and the fact that I found this page (via Google) and that it was useful is a recommendation in itself. Fluppeteer 17:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if this isn't merely an example of the difference between Wikipedia and a real encyclopedia. Obviously, real encyclopedias do not have "Comparison of ..." pages, but perhaps this is something that Wikipedia should pursue. I personally don't find the idea very encyclopedic or useful (if I wanted to know the similarites/differences of two items, I would look each one up, or use a different book, and not expect the encyclopedia to have a comparison page for everything that might conceivably be comparable). Flayked 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus so far seems to be "keep", so unless anyone else speaks up within a day or two, I will move the deletion notice per the Wikipedia Deletion guidelines. Flayked 22:23, 24 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 Artech Entertainment, Ltd.. Johntex\talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wanamaker[edit]

There is no assertion of notability. The link provided just gives the credits in a few videfo games. Delete as per nn. Tony Bruguier 20:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable and possibly vanity. --Scott 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The guy was a lead designer, which is pretty notable. But the article is so weak--and incomplete--that it doesn't really make him look all that hot. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Admittedly a pretty poor article but probably notable enough. Hopefully someone will expand it further. Deleuze 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Perhaps if it is kept for no longer than a month (inital deletionist keeps in watch page) and nothing is added or changed to this article to expand it, then it should come back for a deletion (also put this text in the discussion of the article).--Zandarx talk 00:52, 16 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, Kotepho 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete designer for some marginally-notable games. Also note that he was A lead game designer. One of many. I just can't see his name up with John on the disambig page. Also, the external links section brings up a website that does not have a bio or any information at all for this man. AdamBiswanger1 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite notable enough. --Coredesat 08:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that he passes WP:BIO Kevin 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Artech Entertainment, Ltd., the video game company he founded--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Artech Entertainment, Ltd.. From what I can see, the games were designed by a handful of people. He was the graphic designer in a small operation. Kudos, but not enough for notability. Ted 14:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Info on Brian Wanamaker can be merged into the Artech Entertainment, Ltd. article. Then leave a redirect. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done most of the merge. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Uncle Ed. JChap 01:19, 17 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 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all the above. Tevildo 21:04, 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, taking into account the "biased" commenters even. W.marsh 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serebii.net[edit]

Advertising, not notable enough Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Fails WP:WEB as it stands. An important fansite, but just a fansite, by the look of things - and there's considerable precedent for their deletion here. Tevildo 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Call me biased, but considering this site has more visitors than even the main Pokemon site I daresay it has something to its name that merits its inclusion in Wikipedia. eszetttalk 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BIASED ESZETT! Okay, admittedly, so am I. --zuloon
  • Keep. I agree that the site is notable, and if its article is cleaned up, I think it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. Pacaman 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, Wikipedia has articles on other fansites, such as HrWiki, so why not one on Serebii? Pacaman 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Yes, the site does have a lot of information, but it's just another fansite. -- Steel 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete changed to delete per ArrEmmDee's comment. -- Steel 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most certainly a fansite. It may have a lot of visitors, but more for the community than the lackluster and poorly written site, full of grammatical errors and nothing really unique to the site. Not only that, you let this one stay, other sites will start lining up demanding equal presentation on the wiki. --ArrEmmDee 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not Notable Aeon 00:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, they are plenty notable. Almost every Pokéfan would know about this site. It is somewhat of a fansite, yes, but considering this should make it pretty notable.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how this isn't "notable" enough to be kept. Wikipedia regularly updates to include flightly 4chan memes, so why not this? MonsPubis 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. MonsPubis - account created this morning. Only edits are to this VfD. -- Steel 17:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up With the proper adjustments and such, this article should be kept. In it's current state, it should obviously be deleted, due to many false statements. One with experience in and/or on the site should be allowed to edit the page, and only allow that person and perhaps a selection of members of his/her choice to edit the page. I don't mean to segregate Wikipedia, however.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Locke Yggdrasill (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep and clean up greatly IMO it has the potential to become a good article, but as it stands right now it fails to live up to the criteria. And as a side note...SPPf members here? O_o Blue Mirage 06:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While the site itself is definitely qualified in terms of content, it's still a fansite, and brings no real contribution to us all. User:ArrEmmDee summed it up nicely. Shigaiko 11:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my mind, I want to keep the page, but I want the vandals banned!
  • Comment. Srsly, stop ranting about how your page went bad. It'll be deleted soon enough. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 23:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per eszett. Will (message me!) 19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per eszett and Acfan. Alexa rank of 11k is plenty notable imho. ~Chris | e@ 00:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete single is a pokémon website. It does not include videogame or it anime in general. --K4zem 09:04, 27 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 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globaltribe[edit]

Fails WP:CORP --Gnewf 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Advertisment. Tevildo 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy per nom, not notable/vanity. I'll userfy it now.--Andeh 21:21, 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 deleted, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trifox Knights[edit]

Not notable. Google hits are only to this article. Brad101 20:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Non-notable organization (CSD A7). --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Anyone tempted to add {{db-bio}} tag?--Andeh 21:19, 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. W.marsh 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers[edit]

Having looked through the debate on previous list AfDs the concensus seems to be that a list is justified when it contains additional information or does something that a category cannot. Here, the list simply duplicates the category and therefore is redundant. BlueValour 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No end in sight for this article. Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rather useful list, needs to be breaked apart to subpages though Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remake identical content as category if required. I peered into Category:Lists of hip hop musicians - it's crammed full of nothing but frighteningly long lists too. Gulp. --DaveG12345 11:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No reason to delete this that I can see. --JJay 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am sure that you gave this 'keep' comment deep thought. Since this is a discussion not a vote please share with us what added value you discerned, from your analysis of this AfD, that this list has over a category? BlueValour 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists are better for tons of reasons discussed over and over. Changing to strong keep. --JJay 10:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that there are other lists that should also be deleted is no argument to keep this one. WP is now moving over to categories. A reason to delete is not needed; what is required is a reason to keep. Some lists have added value over a category; this one does not unless you can spot one I have missed. BlueValour 23:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide the policy reference where list usage has been deprecated in instances such as this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK take a look at the Afd for "List of cemeteries in Union County, South Dakota". BlueValour 23:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment or 'A list of Hong Kong Fire Stations' recent AFD. BlueValour 23:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't we have categories for this? Dr Zak 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why this list should be treated any differently than all the lists in Category:Lists of musicians. Also, there is not one category that displays all this information, as Category:Rappers is split into many subcategories. This article is a much more organized listing of ALL rappers. --Musicpvm 18:58, 27 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 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Robin[edit]

This is quite obviously some fan work, and the creator (User:Hitomi Kanazaki) has uploaded many images for his/her work, ignoring my remarks to the talk page that this is not the place for fandom as such. I would also appreciate if other people would go keep an eye on the Robin (comics) page, as they seem intent on editing this page as well. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obviously fancruft. BJK 21:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy not notable, but looks like the author has put a lot of effort in to the article.--Andeh 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfied.--Andeh 21:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now if we could get them to stop puting it into the main Robin article. BJK 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR (to stretch a point). I believe Userfy is for biographical entries, which I don't think this is. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research. The User should find a webhost, which Wiki is not, to upload this kind of fancruft. doktorb | words 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We keep having to delete this editor-created character from the Robin (comics) article. --Chris Griswold 23:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So just delete it already.And stop calling it fancruft. It seems insulting like I'm a ruffian of some sort. Don't be too harsh on it. It's not like it's an article promoting the Ku Klux clan or the benefits of slavery in America.(User:Hitomi Kanazaki)
We're following a process here, out of politeness. Also, check Wikipedia:Fancruft for an explanation as to the term. We're not accusing your work of being anything than what it is - Fandom. And that has no real place on Wikipedia. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Superfancruft. - CNichols 02:44, 27 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 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sellstate[edit]

  • Keep This article has been changed to have a more opinionated feel and no longer has any mention form the CEO
  • Strong Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original reason for deletion was Spam - edited out by current first voter User:Sellstate Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sorry about being confused on how to change the topic. I have recently edited the article to help what others did and turn it into an unbiased article about Sellstate. Which I recently learned a lot about as it apparnetly is stationed in the same town as my old college. I don't think it should be deleted as the offenses mentioned are no longer there. I beleieve that if it changes again then yes delete but right now it looks pretty factoid and unbiased. User:DaveOMac 18:15, 22 June 2006
  • Delete as an ad (the following are things to keep in mind - if the page contains contact details, a signature block of a CEO or manager, full of value-laden happy adjectives or clichés such as 'revolutionary', 'dynamic' &c, a list of products or services or a menu, an operating history that is described in anyway as being 'proud' or all American/suitable nationality-owned, &c). Basically see WP:NOT and WP:NPOV (is there a specific advertising guideline/proposal?) Jammo (SM247) 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable corporation. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:07Z
  • Delete - Not notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn. Inner Earth 19:10, 26 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 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lavway[edit]

This is unsourced and therefore must constitute OR. It is also non-notable. BlueValour 21:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think deleting on the sole basis for lack of sources on an article that is referenced in another wiki article and that is a song style really doesn't make it non-notable or deletable. Other links that mention this this[58][59]. Yanksox (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Genuine musical genre, as significant as any other. [60] for reference. Tevildo 21:41, 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. W.marsh 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redstockings Manifesto[edit]

There is now an article on Redstockings, the group that wrote the manifesto. "The Redstockings Manifesto" has little notability, except in reference to the group that produced it. It should also be noted that the article itself is of low quality, consisting of vague generalities. There has been a previous AfD for this article with a resulting vote of "Keep", however, arguments for notability were mainly about the group Redstockings (which did not have its own Wikipedia article at the time). Peter G Werner 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Merge any salvageable material into Redstockings. Peter G Werner 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should be a redirect to Redstockings. This article could be re-created later if someone wanted to write a detailed article about specifically the Manifesto, but as of now it's best handled within the main Redstockings article. JamesMLane t c 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems the obvious answer. It is conceivable that it could be used as a search term so deletion is pointless. Keresaspa 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (I'd like to change my vote, but I don't know how to do a strikethrough on my old vote) – you're right; it makes more sense to do this than to formally delete the page. Peter G Werner 04:14, 26 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 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-mocracy[edit]

Not notable term, google search doesn't really show any references. ~ Falls End (T, C) 21:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. I suspect that the editor thought Jimbo's name was spelled "Whale" (it's James/Jimmy/Jimbo Wales). The person's username is Jlwhale, but there is very little chance of the account being mistaken for Jimbo. -- Kjkolb 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikineologism. Jammo (SM247) 23:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's dumb and I don't like it. :D Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify (Move to Wikipedia:Wiki-mocracy, and delete the resulting redirect.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How could such a concept ever work in reality? --Alex S 06:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder. Punkmorten 16:03, 22 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 A3 —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:06Z

Noyona.com[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable website. Haakon 21:38, 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. W.marsh 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Crash[edit]

Article is original research by someone who wants to propose an alternative to the Big Bang. --ScienceApologist 21:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case we should redirect this article to the Ekpyrotic model since that is what the reporter for the Dallas Morning News was writing about. I have yet to meet someone who studies the ekpyrotic model speak of it as the "Big Crash" though (and technically, it still is a Big Bang model). I'm still going to leave this AfD up, though, because I'm not sure that this synonym is notable enough to warrant a redirect keep. It may be that the reporter who wrote the article referenced was just being clever. --ScienceApologist 21:59, 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 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sculpture Parks[edit]

Redundant with "Category:Sculpture gardens, trails and parks", adds no new information to the list present in the Category page. Also is currently unreferenced and has no incoming links. Suggest deleting the list page unless it can be expanded to contain information not available in the Category listing. Dugwiki 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but it needs expanding. I'm going to add {{Incomplete-list}} to it in order that its nature can be better seen, and hope this also inspires the creator. In an ideal world the category and the list would be congruent, but this doesn't happen. We often have the issue of a list and a category being intersecting sets. Having said this, a "pure list" is no advance on a category, hence the need for expansion. I understand your "no incoming links" comment. I see no harm in revisiting this article in a few months. No change by then means delete, in my view Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a little work on this page including linking it from the parks it lists, and added a park. Fg2, below, has also added a park location. I can see it starting to build into a really useful list, and being so much better than a just a category in that brief descriptions can be included. I don't really fancy going to town on it until this discussion reaches consensus, however, though I may well add a park or two over the next couple of days. I've removed the {{linkless}} tag because it isn't. Not any more. I've also sent a message to the creator asking him to stop by and have a look, though it is not his "responsibility" to do anything. Fiddle Faddle 06:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure, it needs expanding, but lists can be so much more than categories. Fg2 04:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs expansion. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like the format of the page has expanded a bit since I flagged it for review. Fiddle Faddle has started adding brief descriptions of the park to the list, which is information that wouldn't appear directly on the category page. Since lack of additional information compared to a category was my main concern, I'm voting to keep the page on the assumption that other summaries and info will be added moving forward. Dugwiki
  • Question re process: Now the nominator has suggested we keep the article, and seeing no current dissenting voices, may we close this AfD discussion early to allow editing of the article with confidence that it will not go? I am unsure of procedure here, but believe this article need take up no more community time. Editing time woudl be well spent, though :) Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 23 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 23:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greengate Mall[edit]

No assertion of notability. There are several of these n-n closed malls with articles in List of defunct shopping malls and in Category:Defunct shopping malls. I'm bringing this one here alone at first to check on general consensus before I nominate more, as I can't see that just being closed makes a mall notable. Inner Earth 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, part of the "Dead Malls" project by Wikipedia and for consistency, Moreau36, 2208, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but really doesn't connect to me, just because it's of a large link doesn't necessarily make it notable. Maybe there are some malls that are notable within that list, but being listed there doesn't create notability. There is nothing in that article to indicate that anything in terms of architecture, news, or anything else, made this mall noteworthy. Yanksox (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you will have to be consistent, look at the list and delete most of the articles because ther are many malls in the list that are "very minor" and non-notable. --Moreau36; 2215, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The nominator indicated that he was nominating this particular mall to obtain a conseus of this cat. If this article is deleted, then alot of articles will probably be thrown in. If not, well, things stay normal. Yanksox (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Yanksox said, I'm just testing the waters with this one. I'm sure that some defunct malls may be notable, but I think that this one, as well as others I would afd/prod if appropriate, is not. Don't worry too much about consistency, I'll address it if necessary after this afd. This nom is just for Greengate Mall, though I'd welcome comments on whether others think that more of the group of defunt malls may need to be discussed/nominated/prod'd/afd'd. Inner Earth 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query and Comment A) Is there actually a Wikiproject relating to dead malls? B) If so, it should be based on malls which were notable. Existing malls may be different as they are existing large geographical features, but the defunct ones in the category seem to assert no notability, with several having very little content or scope for expansion that will not amount to pointless cruft. Jammo (SM247) 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord! Delete NNE (Notability not established). What's next, an entry for every single Wal-mart? Comment Btw, that Pittsburgh mall navbox must be the ugliest and most useless I've ever seen. ~ trialsanderrors 23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your comment, but please make it less POVish. We're not talking about how ugly the mall is, we're talikning about whether the articles should be kept or not. Thank you. --Moreau36; 2316, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Separated opinion on topic at hand from idle observation per your request. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice despite and in spite of and to spite prior precedent. All individual retail outlets are NN unless they either occupy notable/historic structures (e.g. The Passage) or are of monumental significance (e.g. same, or Mall of America). Otherwise, they are to be listed in the articles of the corporations operating them, if such corporations meet WP:CORP etc. - and we do have some of those. Can't point off hand, but I can research the subject. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So the new guideline for inclusion is now "monumental" significance? Thats news to me. But yea, this one is quite flushable. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dead Malls has established that dead malls are notable in general. The stores at Greengate Mall were collectively a major employer in Hempfield Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. TruthbringerToronto 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the "Dead malls" WikiProject, and expand. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Yanksox and CrazyRussian. Does not meet the standards of WP:5P and WP:NOT. If a dead mall is inherently encyclopedic for no reason other than it's a mall and it's closed, I may never question the encyclopedic value of an article on an elementary school or mytube film ever again. I also am unable to find a policy that the creation of a wikiproject automatically confers encyclopedic value on any given article within that project. Wikipedia:WikiProject contains no statement that the creation of a wikiproject conveys notability, significance, or encyclopedic value. Agent 86 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I think there should be a presumption against articles that are sourced only from a single website. If it's so important, why isn't it in a book? This mall is covered adequately by deadmalls.com. Wikipedia is not archive.org. Well, actually, it is mentioned in some books. No change of opinion. None of the books suggest that this mall ever was particularly important. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a project doesn't make something encyclopedic. Projects should be formed to work on articles on the topic, and one of the things the project should do is filter out non-encyclopedic content in the projects area of interest. There is nothing in this article to make it seem notable. It certainly fails WP:CORP in the current form, and that is the relevant standard to use - malls are businesses themselves, they just rent space to retail tenants instead of office tenants the way office towers do. GRBerry 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worth the fight. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 03:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. I'm sorry, but having a WikiProject does not automatically confer notability. (Now I wish someone would invoke that in all these school AFDs...) Stifle (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Yanksox and CrazyRussian. --Strothra 01:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the fact that it is part of a Wikiproject does not prevent the rest of the community from rejecting it as NN. Pascal.Tesson 07:23, 24 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 by Fang Aili. W.marsh 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWA E-Fed[edit]

Also nominated are NWA E-Fed Clash of the Champions, NWA E-Fed One Night Stand, and NWA E-Fed Insurrextion. All of the articles are about a non-notable e-fed whose website cannot be found on Google and is out of the Alexa rankings. The articles have also been cut-and-pasted from various World Wrestling Entertainment related articles. Oakster (Talk) 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Another e-fed thus none notable, verified etc, there's actually an e-fed wikia where you can put your e-feds. [62]. I'll trans-wiki it. Englishrose 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - E-feds are not notable by any stretch. --- Lid 10:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. McPhail 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, specific e-feds shouldn't be listed here. RobJ1981 21:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, going to the pages now it seems Sundogs has deleted them with the exception of the AfD notice at the top of the pages. --- Lid 14:06, 26 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 MeBee (talk · contribs) is yet another now-blocked reincarnation of Melissadolbeer pushing Authentic Matthew despite prior consensus on the matter. I've uncovered a socknest in CheckUser-ing the account, and am speedying this as a creation by a banned user. Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is divided up by Keep, Merge, Delete and Comment. Please keep comments short. Only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page.

Constantine Conspiracy[edit]

This appears to be a recreation of Authentic Matthew by a suspiciously acting "new user". I am alleging that most of the voters in the previous afd were sockpuppets of User:MeBee. User:MeBee's whose User:MeBee/Matthaei Authenticum appears to be a recreation of another previously new user's article that was redirected (without merging). Among the similar points that shout "sockpuppet" are the highly unusual use of boldface text where it wouldn't ordinarily be suspected, and the fact that most of the content is the same. Since I have grounds for suspecting that most of the previous votes were due to sockpuppets, I am re-opening the afd, and requesting a sterner test of sufference (ability to vote).

The article in question, Constantine Conspiracy, appears to be trying to assert the same original research, to wit that the original version of the Gospel of Matthew was the Gospel of the Hebrews and that the latter was historically called Authentic Matthew. This position is, as far as I can tell from reading the talk page Talk:Authentic Matthew total original research with no academic merit whatsoever, that has been supported by an extraordinary large number of sockpuppets in the past.

I also suspect that the previous afd was an incident of gaming the system. The proposer, User:Anikk appears to be a straw man; they have made absolutely no edits to any article other than those related to Constantine Conspiracy. In effect, I suspect that MeBee created the article, created Anikk to afd it, so that MeBee could game the system by claiming that the article was kept after afd, when in fact the only people voting, or who knew about the article, were sockpuppets of MeBee.

Due to the likelihood of sockpuppet votes, I would like to ask the closing admin to discount votes from any editor with less than 200 edits on 1st April 2006. Clinkophonist 22:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

  • Keep and send to cleanup. Pardon me. I've actually done research on this; an entire half of my graduating thesis from high school was on Constantine's role as leader of Sol Invictus and his motives for convoking the Council of Nicaea. That aside, the article as it exists right now can't be properly described with civil diction. It is, to say the least, terribly off-topic, and in need of a major rewrite.
On a side note, I would like to remind Redvers that Articles for Deletion behaves dialectically and meritocratically. People voice their opinion here with a vote and an argument. Consensus here is rare. - Corbin Be excellent 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep In this article I have used no original research. Every fact can be backed by at least two sources. Nor am I trying to put forward a point of view. From my study of the sources, Constantine seems to be trying to do what is right. However, Jerome, Epiphanius and other Church Fathers state clearly that the Gospel of the Hebrews was written by the Apostle Matthew. Its disappearance has affected the Christian faith. Indeed the sources show that 'The Way' was changed from a Jewish Faith to a Christian Faith!
  • "They (the Apostles) were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. Matthew, who had first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going to other nations, committed the Gospel to writing in his native language. Therefore he supplied the written word to make up for the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent." (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.24.6)
  • "They too accept the Gospel of Matthew, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. "(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7)
  • "In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew " (Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2)
  • " Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. " (Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3)
  • "The Constantine Conspiracy: Another remarkable claim in The Da Vinci Code is that the Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, (231). Brown lifted this idea straight from Holy Blood, Holy Grail: It was at this point that most of the crucial alterations in the New Testament were probably made and Jesus assumed the unique status he has enjoyed ever since. The importance of Constantine’s commission must not be underestimated.7"

--MeBee 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Merge[edit]

Delete[edit]

  • Delete per nom. Any non-OR material in this article is already covered adequately in Gospel of the Hebrews, Synoptic problem, etc, and the article title is an unlikely search term. Tevildo 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tinfoil hat OR --Aoratos 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per original research. The article fairly sites a number of books on the subject as sources, but the lack of specific citations in the article attached to statements implies that this is an individual's theory, not an encyclopedia entry regarding a historical subject. -Markeer 23:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Scented Guano 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment[edit]

CommentI seem to have entered theAuthentic Matthew mess! I used http://pedia.nodeworks.com/A/AU/AUT/Authentic_Matthew/ (a big mistake)! I am not able to defend myself against DocUser:-Ril- etc! Would an admin please look into this very bad situation --MeBee 02:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this isn't a vote, there are no votes to discount. Anyone "voting" will be discounted immediately. There are no qualifications on who can express an opinion here in this discussion, although new and anonymous users will be weighted accordingly. Nevertheless, reasoned discussion based on existing Wikipedia policy and AfD precident are welcomed from everybody. "Votes" from anybody will be discounted automatically; "opinion" will not without good reason. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser:-Ril- hasn't posted on Wikipedia since March. In the last three weeks, Doc has a total of one post of one sentence. What are you talking about? Fan1967 03:35, 22 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 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry reid[edit]

Don't think he is notable enough to warrant a page on wiki. Prod was removed without adding anything to the article,so I am listing it here. (side note: that picture won't be there too much longer, copyright issues) Viridae 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google can be misleading, because there's a country guitarist (and a guitar named for him) of the same same. I also found a hockey player, a racing writer, some minor local politicians. After sorting though those, it seems what's left on this kid is a lot of hype, but not much concrete like, say, actual albums. Fan1967 23:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak on the requirements of WP:BIO (if meets them at all) and smacks a bit of crystal ball gazing. (Besides, it looks like this guy is no Jerry Reed!). Agent 86 00:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - highly questionable notability, smacks of vanity... that beeing said, there is a remote chance that he's actually notable, hence "weak delete". I'd like to see some sources though before I'll change my mind. ikh (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:22, 26 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 Boldy Redirected by No1lakersfan. Eluchil404 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent provacateur[edit]

Mispelling of Agent provocateur, which already exists Hertzsprung 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as likely misspelling. Tevildo 22:43, 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 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Earth Performing Arts[edit]

Sounds like a nice place, but it's not notable, and Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's notable enough as the "oldest professional Native theatre company in Canada". Its site notes the company won a few awards too. Plus, there is no such rule in WP:NOT. hateless 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. I categorized it. -- Usgnus 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hateless. I added a link to The Canadian Encyclopedia's article as well. --YUL89YYZ 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, this is plenty notable. Does the significance of Tomson Highway and Drew Hayden Taylor as associated artists escape you somehow? Keep. Bearcat 00:34, 22 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 - nonsense ad for non-notable person/blog —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:04Z

Transbuttah[edit]

All you need to do is Google "Trans Buttah" and something will come up. Non notable, no sources Lewispb 23:18, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chapman (co-Founder of 521 Skateboards)[edit]

Non-notable TigerShark 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As above. -- Steel 23:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as neither 521 Skateboards nor beeing an atheist are notable. ikh (talk) 01:22, 22 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

521 Skateboards[edit]

Non-notable TigerShark 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As above. -- Steel 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jammo (SM247) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable: Google gives only 24 hits on "521 Skateboards" [63], most of which are "omitted". Two of the displayed hits come from some leftist forum postings, and remaining three are from Myspace.com. Hence, clearly does not satisfy WP:CORP, and should be deleted. ikh (talk) 01:20, 22 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 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-Reset[edit]

Delete current content and redirect to Hard reboot. I know that if I searched wikipedia for Hard-Reset, I would be looking for the content found on Hard reboot concerning a hard reboot of an electronic device, not some obscure company. --Danielrocks123 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Entirely NN. I don't think a redirect is necessary, few people are going to put the hyphen in a search. Tevildo 23:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:38, 27 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of St. Martin[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy from me as a ad/essay. Changed to prod, but prod tag was removed by User:USM. I believe the page should be deleted. Kept and rewritten. deleted and replaced with a non-copyvio article.Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep. Article needs a lot of work - at the moment, it's basically just a prospectus for the college - but the institution itself is potentially notable, if appropriate references can be found. Tevildo 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Universities are always notable. TruthbringerToronto 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fix it not delete it. Universities are notable. --Bduke 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up. Jumbo Snails 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks like a copyvio to me. ~ trialsanderrors 03:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So then we should delete it, then create a new article.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the protocol, yes. But I'm not sold on the idea that all universities are notable. There's a lot of educruft out there. ~ trialsanderrors 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've already voted in favor of keeping the article. I made some further edits, and I think the article is now free of copyright problems. If someone could look at the article, fix the awkwardly-positioned photos, and make any further edits that seem appropriate, that would be good. TruthbringerToronto 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find any info on accreditation, either in the article or on the school webpage. That's info that should be on there. Also, two of the images are not tagged, and the third one is tagged by User:USM. Not sure whether we can keep them under those conditions. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 23 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 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Kingdom Hearts Installment[edit]

Delete was nominated for CSD and prod repeatedly :) with "very little content, not enough context to expand, mostly speculation". I agree.- CrazyRussian talk/email 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the one who nominated it and made it go through 3 different types of deletion, I'm voting delete, for the above reasons. - Zero1328 Talk? 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A crystal-bally, highly vague and speculative article that links to please-don't-gaze-into-that-crystal-ball-again page? Yay! Sourced facts (as in "press release regarding upcoming game") belong to series article. This is just a bad article and needs to go. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, crystal ball. Yanksox (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article's almost entirely speculation. Geg 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jienum: So what if it's all speculation? That's why it's called "Untitled KH Installment". I've said this before: It is a page like "Untitled Batman Begins Sequel" which is also nothing but speculation. But will someone delete that? Oh no, not in a million years! "Let's delete the pages that Jienum created! Let's make a pisshead out of Jienum! Yeah!" You guys don't know what you're speaking about, and you still go ahead and vote for deletion. Why don't you just look at my contributions and delete them all. That'll save you time. Besides, only the rumours are speculation. The parts above are fact, but still it was I who made the page, so it has to go, of course.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhapsody in Drew[edit]

Tagged with prod by me, prod tag removed by User:Your log in name. Delete it, we're not serebii or bulbapedia. Actually, I am rethinking this. Keep, rewrite, and wikify. After all, if there are other pokemon episodes articles out there, then I guess this one can stay. Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments by new users[edit]

(this should also include replys to there comments)

  • Dont delete it i am A freind of Erica my name is Marsha and I think whoever this is deserves to keep what they wrote besides who eve reads this pokemon stuff anyway and its not like they copied ive read the articles plus as Erica said earlier I will recreate it thats not fair to delete someones hard work when know one else is contributing to this its not like there editing the whole story someone else wrote. Luv ya wikipedia dont delete
    Marsha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
  • Dont delete it this is a hard worked article besides no affence but who reads this anyway besides upsests May and Drew fans which I am so its cool but dont you agree its good they decided to create this instead of just sitting there waitng for someone to complete this job for them and I think they did it very well.sicerely, Erica— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotg (talk • contribs)
  • Hey I love this dont delete it I couldnt think of this stuff myself let alone do the pictures I love May and Drew and although ive only watched 4 episodes i saw Rhapsody in drew and it was exactly like that although your actually right May and Drew do like each other i guess i never knew what Rhapsody meant until I read this thanks your log in name you helped me understand May and Drew more i even want to watch pokemon because of you maybe ill see May and Drew again. signed Maria s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlepuke42k (talk • contribs)
  • Speak up why I think this is very good but im sorry tell your complaints and we'll change it in any way you like please user log in name actually ive met her and she just wants to help she loves pokemon ,but we dont talk much now that were older. I know she works hard and would be very upset if you deleted it dont delete it this is real good info.sincerelyCarlia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewso (talk • contribs)
  • And this means yu know what dont delete this is wonderful work and otherwise ill complain about all of your work and my father is in a high business where he could have you yourself delete your files.Marsha ive tried to be nice— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
  • This is your log in name i wrote Rhapsody in Drew but if you want it deleted you'll have nothing its for the good of pokemon talk to me about your ideas.-Aurora— Preceding unsigned comment added by Your log in name (talk • contribs)
  • This is Marsha I love your idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
  • Wow your a real knock out Aurora I love this dont delete it that is hard work would you want someone deleting your work Danny because i could and so could my sister Marsha

signedMichael— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry in (talk • contribs)

  • Hey kid you rock dont deleteRachel— Preceding unsigned comment added by letsee (talk • contribs)
    • Comment made by confirmed sockpuppet as established by the checkuser.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, give it up. It doesn't matter how many different names you invent. Fan1967 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shove it Ive tried to be nice to you but you really dont have a life and know one cares about how you dislike a page someone worked hard on while you do nothing why dont you step up.marsha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
  • Sorry but case closedMarsha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
  • Im so sorry for what i said if you want this file to be deleted and have nothing but emptiness like the feeling Shadow the hedgehog had when his heart was broken or the feeling I had when my dad died 3 years ago but you probably wouldnt believe me or just joke im sorry about the deletion it was my younger sister who did it while i was in the rest room. Anyway I dont feel like talking anymore.If you want nothing but emptiness then go ahead I thought I could make people happy by writing the article but I thought wrong.MarshaMarsha— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyloves (talk • contribs)
    • Twenty minutes ago your dad was "is in a high business where he could have you yourself delete your files.". Now he's been dead for three years? Try to keep your stories straight. Fan1967 03:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys be mature this is about Pokermon please I dont want anyone of you introuble of personal attacks this is not a forum and Marsha I dont even know you what the heck anyway start over please this is not a furum dont delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your log in name (talk • contribs) .
    • Look. We are beign mature, you and your meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets aren't. We aren't saying to delete it because it's about pokemon, hell, if we did, then all the articles in this category would be deleted. We are saying "delete it" because we simply don't need articles on every pokemon episode. If you would like to write articles about them all, why don't you go to [bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net Bulbapedia], A wiki (like wikipedia) that only has stuff about pokemon.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont delete Please if you delete I want one of you to rewrite it because I know you dont believe Marsha but really why do you want nothing at all people need to know about pokemon and really stop laughing and look deep inside yourself no effence because i know its funny but what do you get out of this if you delete it what if everyone deleted someones article then we wouldnt have wikipedia.So please if I dont delete your article what makes you think its wright to delete mine please vote dont delete.Aurora—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your log in name (talk • contribs) .
    • And in case you're wondering how we know who is making all these votes, click the history tab on the top of the page.Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and comments by existing users[edit]

  • Userfy to the beautifully evocative User:Your log in name ~ trialsanderrors 01:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny. Fan1967 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is quickly becoming the funniest page on the web... Danny Lilithborne 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and all the unsigned comments above certainly doesn't help the case for keeping it. Wolfsbane Kane 09:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ouuuuch. I was about to say CSD A1 (no context), but then the morning coffee kicked in and I got inspired to research a bit. Good that I'm not an overly hasty person, especially before the morning coffee. =) So it's a Pokemon series episode. Why didn't you say so before? Anyway, individual episodes of the series aren't automatically notable, unless there's something remarkable to say about it, and even then they are often best merged to bigger articles. So either delete the thing, or perhaps merge to an article about the season (or whatever). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Weak keep, only weak because the content is likely to get rewritten anyway if this is kept. We can always clean up, or and merge and redirect, later. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. BoojiBoy 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Edit conflict Comment I just created User:Ac1983fan/Your log in name. Do you guys think that's enough evidence to pursue a checkuser? (i'm putting this here because it is heavily related to this AFD)--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm listing it on RFCU; I think you have enough evidence, and the sooner it's listed, the better. Use of sockpuppetry to disrupt the deletion process is serious, and exactly the kind of thing WP:RFCU is there for. Mangojuicetalk 19:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify, we have original episode article, why not Advanced Generation? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope it gets to feature article status. If there is other pages of Pokemon episodes why does this have to be deleted? Thief Lord 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. It shouldn't be a page for now, but the content should be preserved to give the supporters a chance to come up with additional content. Kickaha Ota 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as pokecruft, and this AfD really does deserve a BJAODN mention. -Mask 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is NOT an episoide guide. --WinHunter (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are pages for many other episodes, so why single out this one for deletion? Dsreyn 17:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformat as per Pokémon, I Choose You!, Ash Catches a Pokémon, and other existing episode articles.The Raven's Apprentice (Call) 11:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are episode guides and pages for many other episodes, so why delete this one? In fact it looks good. Thief Lord 16:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the aforementioned articles has been revealed to be copyright violation, and probably almost every Pokémon episode article here is. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to Delete.
  • Delete, but it'll probably stay anyway. Since it will most likely stay I will also recommend cleanup per above. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we've become wikipokia. Also, as it stands, not until the middle of the article does it tell you that the article is about pokemon. If I had Special:random onto this, I'd have spent a minute going 'huh??', trying to discern the context of the contents. Inner Earth 19:07, 26 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-month Rule[edit]

Not Notable and {{unencyclopedic}} was added in April '06. Brad101 05:55, 22 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_21&oldid=1081096248"