Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 7 March 9 >

Purge server cache

March 8[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:SNOW

Polymorphing dll[edit]

This was originally listed for speedy as patent nonsense, which it is not. It is, however, an unreferenced conspiracy theory about how the US government is using highly encrypted malware to spy on everyone in the world. Was tagged for {{prod}} but the tag was removed. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable WP:OR. --Rory096 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless reliable sources turn up making reference to this theory. The source given is not reliable enough. --Allen 00:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified, the one newsgroup article given as a reference is not authoritative. -- Mithent 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference listed on the page has a followup article: "It is a shame to see that this form of mental illness continues to persist." Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and/or original research. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Complete bollocks. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-08 02:09Z
  • Delete as yet another tedious conspiracy theory. dbtfztalk 02:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable conspiracruft. Fan1967 02:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entertaining, but unverifiable. --die Baumfabrik 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Krashlandon (e) 02:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the others. I add that it seems original research. Bucketsofg 05:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom -- Samir T C 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and stupid --Colin 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable allegations, conspiracy theory and probably false --SJMurdoch 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attempt to propagate FUD --Steve 09:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unverifiable and mostly ridiculous conspiracy theory --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreliable source for otherwise patent nonsense. It's not even slightly convincing, it did make me laugh though that anyone might fall for something this patently silly Sfnhltb 12:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Staxringold 12:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's one and only reference is a newsgroup posting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, original research, lunatic rant, unverifiable ➥the Epopt 14:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a convoluted joke on the recent NSA wiretapping revelations. And, I wanna see how many votes we can pile on ;-) Grandmasterka 15:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -- Alpha269 15:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aequitas Albion[edit]

no citations, probably a hoax Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily userfied per WP:SNOW and WP:BITE. Just zis Guy you know? 19:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Enfants D'ombre[edit]

Seems like a school project, or a NN play. Poorly written, although that is no criteria for deletion. No directs hits on google, and it is not a copyvio. Similar to nonsense, although it must make sense to the author. One contributor. Listed on AFD as contributor may wish to comment. Kareeser|Talk! 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*cocks head* Come again? ;x — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Kalachakra[edit]

I have refactored some of the long comments from this page to the talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than the others here, merely that the discussion was too long and hard to scroll through. Stifle 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Stifle, and I've moved the rest for the sake of consistency. The discussion page is the best place for that. Jonas Silk 18:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am ignorant of the dispute from which this article arose. That said, it's a fork. Melchoir 00:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pov fork of Kalachakra, or smerge the differences. Metta Bubble 00:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Green Giant 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pork --Grocer 06:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork; I fail to see why the article must "be preserved pending an inquiry for Crimes against Humanity concerning the banning of the Jonangpas in the 17th century, under the auspices of the ICC in The Hague, and with the help of Amnesty International and the UN human rights". Surely the history of Kalachakra would suffice if this were the case. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. --Terence Ong 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Good find, Melchoir. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as POV fork --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fork. Staxringold 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Alpha269 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shoulda just used {{prod}} on this one. Cyde Weys 22:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sylvain1972 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV forking is not an acceptable means to deal with content disputes. Stifle 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The point being made,- and that can be developped on the page, - is that the content is NPOV. And it provides links to other articles that also outline that NPOV.Geir Smith 09:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qui Nguyen[edit]

Prodded, deprodded, prod restored in violation of prod guidelines. Moving here as contested. He's "the first Vietnamese American playwright to be produced Off-Broadway". NickelShoe 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big on talk, short on details. Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Monkeyman(talk) 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Mushroom (Talk) 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article started out as a copyvio, but the author has been working on it steadily for the past day. Previous versions show greater notability, as does Google. He appears to be relatively active in the NYC theatre scene and has won at least one award and received at least one fellowship. Although the article needs a little help, its subject appears to be notable. Seqsea (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per this book; the article itself remains less than convincing. If the details in the old article were verified, that would be much better. Melchoir 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough references in NYC theatrical press, over several years, to suggest notability. Monicasdude 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Enough indications that quite possibly notable. Author is in process of working on article, let's give him/her a chance to improve it. Martinp 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough verifiable evidence to make him notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Seqsea. Google provides some interesting sources which could be cited in the article. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. -- Samir T C 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks notable and verifiable. --Terence Ong 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a verifiable claim to notability. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable playwright, though as mentioned above the sources found on google should be added --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Alpha269 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per above. --AaronS 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References in Samurai Jack[edit]

Delete trivia and Cartoon Cruft which does not make much sense as a stand alone article--Porturology 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, helps users to understand the cultural background of Samurai Jack. Kappa 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fanpage somewhere is missing all of this information. Monkeyman(talk) 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia /fancruft. I don't see it's encyclopedic value. Fetofs Hello! 00:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Samurai Jack. Content should at least stay. Royboycrashfan 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- The content, however, seems problematic; a lot of it being to the effect of "such-and-such on Samurai Jack resembles something else on some other show." And a lot of the such-and-suches seem to be pretty stock characters for action cartoons. To count as an encyclopedia-worthy reference, it should have to take more than a mere suggestion of plausibility. As it stands now, the article is more like "Things I've Been Reminded of While Watching Samurai Jack," hardly suitable for inclusion. Pop Secret 06:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said, could probably be considered as original research - this does not apply to the other two lists which are at least based on fact even if they are nn. trivia--Porturology 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we have List of neologisms on The Simpsons and List of planets in Futurama, I don't see why we should get rid of this list. --djrobgordon 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's get rid of List of neologisms on The Simpsons and List of planets in Futurama too. This article is a Samurai Jack redlink farm. · rodii · 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only red links are episode names. If that's your only objection, then unlink them. --djrobgordon 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- Concurring with both the deletion of the nominated article (non-notable/list of trivia for the sake of trivia) and the other two lists named. Pop Secret 05:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Samurai Jack. That article is not overlong. Martinp 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa, unlink the redlinks per djrob, and wouldn't the name Cultural references in Samurai Jack be"""" more accurate? Ziggurat 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, we have a history of some element of cartoon cruft. I'd cut the redlinks as suggested earlier, and the content needs streamlining. As an aside, List of neologisms on The Simpsons is a perfectly cromulent article, in my opinion. -- Samir T C 08:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently original research, also listcruft, fancruft, a mass of redlinks we don't need filled and various other problems. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of things have reference lists. Maybe a rename. Staxringold 12:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Kappa, though I'm not too sure about it since it might be original research --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. I don't think that this article will be read by anyone but Samurai Jack fans, which would be okay if this were a fansite and not an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 13:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable subject for an article, doesn't meet my definition of original research: the show itself, and other shows mentioned, are the sources. See WP:NOR, especially the part about "source-based research". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve per Pop Secret Percy Snoodle 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Eivind 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. - Wezzo 16:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (and fancruft) per Pop Secret above. Fagstein 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and organized JohnRussell 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JzG. Mallocks 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Samurai Jack is a highly notable show by the Stephen Spielberg of American cartoon making. The references and influences of this work are very important. Cyde Weys 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smell of WP:NOR being violated. --DV8 2XL 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR is a guideline on the content of articles, not whether articles should be deleted. There are valid, notable, and verifiable references from Samurai Jack. Thus the article should exist. --Cyde Weys 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-encylopaediodic Richard cocks 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Definately helps contextualize Samurai Jack with references back to Japanese folklore and Japanese film but also modern references. I would have thought the page was entirely original research as there was nowhere to find information like this. (why I started the article in the first place). Also other cartoons have similar pages Pop culture references in Family Guy and References to Star Trek in Futurama for example. Jack 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops I think I made a boo-boo with the original research! I meant that a list of references hadn't been written down. These references are fact, and were created with purpose. I would also like to agree with User:djrobgordon about removing the links to individual episodes and propose that all episodes are listed, with episode information, on Samurai Jack episode guide. There aren't enough people to create/maintain seperate pages for each episode. Jack 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge and delete. Merge to Samurai Jack episode guide (or individual episodes linked from there) and to Samarai Jack, as appropriate. There is something "useful" here, but it is still fancruft that doesn't warrant an article. --Karnesky 06:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, tending to merge. bainer (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Trudeau[edit]

no evidence of individual notability except as father of son. Wikipedia is not genealogy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porturology (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 01:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have been minimally notable entrepeneur seen as having played role of some significance to amusement park enthusiasts, who deserve no less respect that Pokemon devotees and porn collectors. Monicasdude 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. --Rockpocket 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My unverified personal opinion re Monicasdude's remark above is that the significance is minimal. Martinp 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pierre Trudeau and info abouthis early years.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to PET's article -- Samir T C 08:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pirre Trudeau. --Terence Ong 08:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pierre Trudeau. Info is notable enough for that article. Unfortunately, the subject is not notable enough for a separate article. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per several above. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge just following the crowd. -- Alpha269 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per B1nguyen. Fagstein 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per all of the above. Jude(talk,contribs) 01:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He was an important entrepreneur in Montreal in his day, but the article needs more. Luigizanasi 06:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sufficiently notable. Peter Grey 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: there are many separate articles for historical figures about whom we don't know anything besides their name and who they were related to. Peter Grey 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point some out. I'll nominate them for deletion as well. Fagstein 18:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington. Peter Grey 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those can be expanded. I've added an external link to Mary Ball. Feel free to point out others on my talk page. We shouldn't keep non-notable people just because other non-notable people are out there too. Fagstein 18:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course they can be expanded. Almost every article can be expanded. But their notability is the same as Charles Trudeau. Peter Grey 19:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • How many museums are named after Charles Trudeau? Fagstein 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with son’s article, as above. Not sufficiently notable to warrant an independent article. —GrantNeufeld 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude Jcuk 22:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude, and enhance. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. The article fails WP:MUSIC, it was a copyvio, cut and pasted from www.ubl.com/artists/nfg/profile (the only google hit for the band name) and there were no votes to keep. - Bobet 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.f.g.[edit]

Delete-Of poor quality, likely unsalvagable in current form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduddy (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Catherine Doherty. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mandate[edit]

if anything, it might make a box or side-bar for the article about the person referred to in it. But really it is not encyclopedic. DeleteMidgley 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Redirect to Catherine Doherty. Not notable enough for its own article. dbtfztalk 02:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Catherine Doherty. The material is all there, word-for-word. Fan1967 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the verbatim text in Catherine Doherty --die Baumfabrik 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Catherine Doherty and expand the section on it there. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Samir ∙ T C 08:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (history not required as all encyclopaedic content already in Catherine Doherty); anyone who wants to boldly create a redirect thereafter is welcome to do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal That I or anyone Delete this now and simultaneously create that redirect. Or would that be more bad than bold? Midgley 14:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Baumfrabrik -- Alpha269 15:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. Chairman S. Talk 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly Deleted (and redirected) by unanimous decision. Mecandes 15:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above was neither a decission nor unanimous, but a more or less clear consensus that the article should not stay as it was. I'm properly closing this, since Mecandes (talk · contribs) has taken the matter into their own hands. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robomilk[edit]

Non-notable website. -- RHaworth 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Capitalistroadster

Xacrox[edit]

- I think we should Delete - Only 8 Google results, fails WP:MUSIC notability test. --Viridian {Talk} 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Day[edit]

Delete nn poetry by nn poet and adventurer. No obvious Google matches. Gimboid13 01:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphicerotica[edit]

Was prodded as a nn website. Let's just say that I've heard of it. Alexa gives it a traffic rank of 3 346. —Ruud 01:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn, unless evidence of notability (e.g. discussion of site in major media) is added to the article. dbtfztalk 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that Google returns 8 million results for "lesbian porn" and 230K hits for this site, how do you determine what is a notable lesbian porn site? Just curious. Fan1967 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal experience I'd guess :) —Ruud 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Neutral. I've added the site's review from Janesguide.com... I'm not sure it's the kind of "major media" Dbtfz is thinking of, but I think it's kind of major within the world of internet porn. Other reviews are here and here, but I don't know anything about those sites. (Ruud, it sounds like you're arguing for a keep... why did you decide to AfD it?) --Allen 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:WEB, I would like to see evidence that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." One minor review on what seems to be a fairly obscure web site doesn't quite cut it. dbtfztalk 04:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page lists reviews at nine sites, but I'm changing my vote to neutral anyway. You make a good argument for deletion, but these reviews seem well beyond what's considered "trivial" at WP:WEB, yet short of the When I Am King examples. I dunno. --Allen 04:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I don't mean to be a party-pooper, but I fear that if we set the bar too low for porn sites we'll be flooded with even more porn-related vanispamcruftisement than we already are. dbtfztalk 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe I wasted time doing this, but a google search for porn site ratings turned up these: [1], [2], [3], [4]. They all give extremely high ratings to this site. I have no idea what constitutes a significant reviewer in online porn, but they all gave Sapphicerotica very high ratings compared to the other sites reviewed. So, lacking some authoritative contradiction, I'll vote Keep. Fan1967 04:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this mean we have to include Ass Traffic, Pantyhose Addict, and College Fuck Fest, all of which got the same ranking as this one (according to one of your references)? Heaven help us.  :-) dbtfztalk 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: Ass Traffic got a higher ranking. dbtfztalk 05:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I certainly understand your concern, but I have to go back to my earlier question. If it is accepted to list porn sites in WP, how do you determine which ones are worthy of listing? You don't like any of the references presented. Do you have some alternatives? Fan1967 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO, websites should have articles only if they satisfy the criteria specified at WP:WEB. IMO, no one has given evidence that this one satisfies those criteria. It's as simple as that. dbtfztalk 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • IMO you ducked the question. What would you consider as a specific qualification for a porn site to be considered notable? Fan1967 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • IMO somebody should get moving on that Ass Traffic stub. :-) --Allen 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm on it. ;-) But seriously, see SuicideGirls for an example of a porn site article with suitable references. dbtfztalk 06:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've withdrawn my keep vote. I certainly have no stake in keeping a lesporn site listed. Maybe I was playing devil's advocate a bit. One might be able to argue that this site is more notable than some of the sfcruft or gamecruft sites that are well represented on WP, but that's another story. Fan1967 15:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:WEB with high Alexa rating and some evidence of third party significance. Capitalistroadster 05:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With not even a sniff of a credible third party refence, this is currently not satisfying the website notability guidelines.
    • WP:WEB specificly excludes "a brief summary of the nature of the content". Most "reviews" would fall into this category.
    • Porn review sites are not reliable sources. Even if they were reliable sources, they list more sites than you can shake your stick at, and we're clearly not going to have them all. Hence the exclusion above.
    • Attempting to set some hurdle that only "good" sites based upon these reviews is certainly a novel concept, but a flawed one. Leaving aside the question of if we set the bar above or below Ass Traffic, the possability exists that only those sites that have click-though kickbacks are given high ratings. Reputable and unbiased are what we look for in sources, after all.
If this is actually a notable lesbian porn website, it will have gotten a real write up, probably more than a few. There's no reason at all to weaken the guidelines for porn sites, and a damn good reason to insure that they are maintained. We have enough trouble with amatuers trying to leech bandwidth for bucks, we don't want to encourage the proffesionals. Delete unless evidence that is satisfies the guideline is placed in the article.
brenneman{T}{L} 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No hits in Lexis/Nexis. Thatcher131 12:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Traffic alone isn't notable. Sidewalks see thousands of feet, but aren't written about. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything dbtfz has said so far. It's a shame about the Alexa ranking, but only slightly. Melchoir 08:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:RS; no significant coverage in reliable external sources. And it's porncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as non-notable website --TBC??? ??? ??? 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the traffic. The sidewalk analogy is good. This topic isn't verifiable, and thus cannot be included. Ned Wilbury 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:V and WP:RS. In fact this is one of the most notable sites (and spreader of teaser pages to promote the subscription website) in its niche, but until sources meeting WP standards provide some feature coverage, it's just another not-noted-enough special-interest thingy. At some point perhaps we should agree on Adult Video News or some other source to be considered "authoritative" since no formal peer review is likely to evolve in that field. The verifiability standards do recognize that some areas of encyclopedic knowledge are open to more formal rigor than others. As Dbtfz and others have noted, there are particularly unreliable sources and traffic statistics in the field of online, uh, figure art. Barno 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article doesn't establish this porn site as any more notable than any other. JIP | Talk 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, delete the article already. It's just another porn site. JIP | Talk 21:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sapphice it to say, no indication this is any different from another porn site, high traffic notwithstanding. Fagstein 18:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Anyone voting 'delete' on this one doesn't know much about porn. This is a huge, highly-notable site. Cyde Weys 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must admit that my knowledge of porn does not extend beyond the extensive collection of nazi midget clown fetish gear that I keep under my bed. - brenneman{T}{L} 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone done a google image search and seen how many hits come up on that? (given that porn is a visual/image kinda thing, then obviously its main searches will be on google image search, this is not just trying to get you all to look at some lesbian action) --Midnighttonight 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did some searches. As noted above, what matters is whether this is notable as a pr0n site - I see no indication that it is, and there are any number of them. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a directory of porn sites. Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I asked myself, what does this encyclopedia entry say that would not be readily apparent to users of the site, and the answer is nothing. To use a lopsided example, the article on Google has lots of information about history, controversy, etc. that is not readily available to google users. Someone who knows about Sapphicerotica will not find anything here they don't already know; and while someone looking for lesbian erotica might find it by searching here, WP is not an internet search engine. Thatcher131 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep One of the more notable porn sites, if Abby Winters has an article, this is on a similar level of success/notability Richard cocks 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They may be a well known lesbian porn site I fail to see what is encyclopedic about it. The same goes for Abby Winters. kotepho 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist rhetoric in the United States[edit]

Text of a lecture by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. Possibly copyvio, certainly original research. -- RHaworth 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as OR, possible copyvio. dbtfztalk 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious OR and POV. Not sure about the copyvio, as I can't find any reference anywhere to this speech, so it might not be copyrighted. But still needs deleting. Fan1967 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR -- Samir ∙ T C 08:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have suggested renaming and a massive cleanup but this isn't even close. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Terence Ong 09:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as orginal research --TBC??? ??? ??? 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as OR. Fagstein 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shoulda just used {{prod}} on this one. Cyde Weys 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 02:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Leathem[edit]

Was prodded with the reason The subject is not notable with one mention as the sixth name on a single patent in 1980 and a unverifiable claim to have received a Purple Heart. Zoology links here, however. So either he's notable or the reference to him should be removed from zoology. Couldn't find anything on Google. —Ruud 02:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the prod reason. I prodded the article originally and left a message on the user-talk page but got no reply from the editor Hml13. The name William D. Leathem was added on 28th January 2006 to the Zoology page by anonymous editor 68.77.23.156 followed five minutes later by an update from Hml13. I didn't want to remove the name from Zoology until there was some certainty about the subject. Green Giant 02:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also, sadly, Purple Hearts are too common to increase notability. Melchoir 08:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a very impressive man, but the notability doesn't pan out as the article claims. The claim about inventing the TPN lipid emulsion is a stretch, the patent I found [5] is from 1992 and describes one of a few designer TPN lipid solutions. He may have worked on others though. The glucose polymer patent is impressive but the application never seemed to pan out. I think his grandson was just proud enough of him to make the article -- Samir ∙ T C 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Though he seems to have done a lot in his life, its not enough to count for him to count as notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if deleted, I suggest his name be removed from the zoology page so it is accurate and this article is not recreated. -- Kjkolb 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CYNY[edit]

Acronym for Communist Youth of New York, non-notable org that claims 35 members. No links to the Young Communist League as far as I can tell. 0 unique Google hits. Delete. DMG413 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{db-club}} and thus tagged. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've just read the talk page, and the cheeky buggers practically admit they're advertising. --die Baumfabrik 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Woohookitty — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)Medicins Sans Frontieres[edit]

Delete MSF article already exists, this article seems to be a mistake by creator. Jpeguero


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan_Daniels[edit]

Delete: Subject no longer noteworthy die Baumfabrik 02:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but I don't think he ever really was all that noteworthy, maybe worth a mention in an article on independant wineries. Gotta feel for the guy, having his ISP display his bankruptcy notice. :) -Dawson 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Were they ever notable? Notability doesn't really go away imho, but Google has nothing on this name. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I agree with Adrian, but this article offers nothing. Melchoir 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability doesn't go away, but he never had it. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 09:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable wine maker --TBC??? ??? ??? 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody else. --AaronS 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as everybody else. --Chachu207 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni Patriots[edit]

About a non-notable Yahoo group, written pretending that the world of the Myst computer games is real. Prod'ed before with the reason "Based on the submitter Cha'Rehls's contributions, I expect he is watching how long we let this article exist." but tag was removed. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, by the way Kusma, because you were the one who nominated the article, its already assumed that you want it to be deleted so it isn't necessary for you to vote --TBC??? ??? ??? 13:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is a little fuzzy as to what is creative thought and non-notable on the part of a ametuer and what is accepted fiction on the part of a professional. I have seen countless articles on fictional characters that are not deleted, while this character, being invented (presumably) by the author or a close friend, is not accepted due to its lack of fame. Of course, I am not sure of all of Wikipedia's guidlines on the subject, although it appears as though they are just made up by the users anyway. It looks to me as though this guy is trying to create a famous character from scratch, which is kind of interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.218.108.5 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --AaronS 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivind 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment was correct. It would be kind of hypocritical for this article to be deleted merely on the basis that the subject matter is not well known. It's not as though Wikipedia has a lack of memory to keep this article as one of it's over 1,000,000. I think it is pretty interesting myself.

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  00:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OneCone International[edit]

Completely non-notable faux "company" with forum/Web site hosted by Freewebs. Prodded but contested by article creator, who claims to be the "CEO" of the company. FCYTravis 02:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company does exsist, in Melbourne, Australia. Has indeed been around since 2001. Thefourdotelipsis 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The act of existing doesn't automatically guarantee anything a Wikipedia article. I'm sorry for any confusion on that note. Deletion is not a personal indictment of you or your company, and should not be viewed as such. You can be a fantastic person/company/whatever, but still not be right for an encyclopedia, yanno?
— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself describes it as a "minor company" and reports that at one time they had as many as twenty people, but not anymore. Sounds awfully nn to me. Fan1967 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It managed to completely avoid Google all these years? Amazing. non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Royboycrashfan 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Seems perfectly harmless, I've heard of it. 61.69.12.12 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Talk page bleats that the company means something to people in Melbourne; not according to google.com.au. --die Baumfabrik 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is one of those times userboxes might be helpful. Can we find some Melbourne wikipedians to comment on notability apart from the one person on the article talk page? Martinp 03:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 04:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI apologize profusely. Some B**tard was using my "Fourdotelipsis" name. I've changed my password now, but anyway: OneCone is actually a small community that has grown since it's inception in 2001, and has ranged from the production of e-books (which were scrapped), Internet communities, and now, film production and release. The "OneCone International" name is just a doppleganger created by some idiots who though it would be a good name for a company. In truth, it's more like a creative forum that has no real home. May I suggest that I recreate the more accurate content under the name of "OneCone" or no? Thefourdotelipsis 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious question would be, is this organization or creative forum in fact notable? From your description it sounds not. Fan1967 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it may well be. The most notable part would have to be the involvemnent with film production, as well as the major internet societies made in early 2005 (until May). There are plans to begin script writing for feature length films, time will only tell. Fact of the matter is, I do hear "What the hell is OneCone" so often, that an article may well be useful. Thefourdotelipsis 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I have to say, I do not, in fact, ever hear that question ;-) Fan1967 05:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in fact, the odds are strong that you wouldn't have. But I would also say that you had never heard of Maarek Stele Thefourdotelipsis 06:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the eloquent arguments made in the article itself, apart from anything else. Just zis Guy you know? 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I was impressed to read that "A web page is currently in development, with completion expected in late 2006", I think I'm gonna have to go with Delete as well. --Xyzzyplugh 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN advertising. --AaronS 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shoulda just used {{prod}} on this one. Cyde Weys 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As my nomination notes, article was prodded and contested. FCYTravis 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Caparoso[edit]

Delete nn. vanity, advertising--Porturology 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity is bad enough, but this is a really lazy Scissors-n-PrittStick job --die Baumfabrik 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first version of "Randy Caparoso" was a vanity piece. Please chalk this up to inexperience. The piece has been totally revised to focus on its primary purpose: to pose the subject as a virtually the only wine writer today known for knowledge of Asian and fusion food and wine matching. This is of great value because this is what people eat today, and wine is often their chosen beverage. Please reconsider deleting the revision.

    • Comment The problem is the self reference - if you had a third party, authorative reference concurring with what you have written about yourself - it may be more acceptable. However, it is not a good thing to write about yourself - firstly because you can not be subjective and secondly because it implies that you are not notable enough for someone else to create the article--Porturology 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP is not a resume server.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is wine a non-trivial field? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with chainsaw. Santé looks legit, and if it named him for an annual award, that makes him notable. Also, it might be a reliable source for biographical information. Melchoir 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "keep with chainsaw" mean? -- Kjkolb 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for starters delete the two "sections". Then NPOVify with extreme prejudice, and if no source is found, slap an OR tag on the remainder. Sound good? Melchoir 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have an opinion on the article. I was just curious. :-) Kjkolb 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO as content is already duplicated at User:RCaparoso; if someone wants to write a neutral biography they can do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. If he got the award, that makes him notable, as others said. I think all it needs is a CleanUp, and a bit of a copyedit. It also could be good for people wanting to find out about his work, as they may be genuinely interested. --Chachu207 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Masturbation. Moe Aboulkheir 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

Tyoism[edit]

Describes the political philosophy of one person or a small group of people. Not a significant political movement. Also, Google turns up nothing. FreplySpang (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the article seems to me to be WP:OR. Mind you, the ideas remind me of the NSDAP. --die Baumfabrik 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "With roots going back to as early as 1998 ... Tyoism as a movement didn't begin in earnest until 2006". *-ismcruft. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Royboycrashfan 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research DaGizzaChat © 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject to deletism, the philosophy of rouge admins dating back to 1998 but didn't begin in earnest until 2006. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - article has been blanked by original author, all other edits were various forms of deletion, so I'm going to speedy it. FreplySpang (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Fraser[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable grammar school principal. Basically the entire text of the article is copied from part of his school's page, so merging isn't necessary. --Rory096 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Rory096 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE OUR ROD!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.63.37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete: WP:NN and WP:NFT. Prefects should note that such articles will not help their Uni applications. --die Baumfabrik 03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable beyond mention in school article, per WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like a student wrote it. Royboycrashfan 05:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above, and the nomination. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "[THEIR] ROD" savidan(talk) (e@) 09:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I appreciate the efforts of the kids to support their principal. We used to TP my principal's office. -- Samir ∙ T C 10:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ban schoolkids from editing Wikipedia too, if practicable --Aim Here 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THEIR ROD!!!! JIP | Talk 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable school principal. Sliggy 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --AaronS 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD BIO guidelines. Cyde Weys 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography, even if it's Rod. -- Mithent 00:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. Article just a hobby horse for vandals.Dlohcierekim 02:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ROD WILL NEVER FALL! HE IS ETERNAL, IN OUR MEMORIES AND OUR HEARTS. WE SHALL FIGHT FOR YOU ROD THEY CAN NOT POSSIBLY PUT AN END TO YOUR REIGN—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.63.37 (talk • contribs) .
  • You do know that your Rod won't die, or even lose his job, even if the Wikipedia article about him is deleted, don't you? JIP | Talk 15:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sunken nuclear submarines[edit]

This unmaintained list, which is largely redundant with the List of lost United States submarines and the List of lost Russian or Soviet submarines, should be a category has been replaced by Category:Lost nuclear submarines. ➥the Epopt 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transfer to category namespace. Royboycrashfan 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How much maintenence does a list like this take? It's not like nuclear submarines are frequently sinking. Night Gyr 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with nuclear submarine. Sure, it takes no maintenance - because it is a very small list which does not change much. In other words, it can be covered encyclopaedically in the main article. When there are a dozen or more it might be a bit too much, but the current content, when converted to prose, makes up one or at most two short paragraphs. Alternatively, make it a list of all nucmear submarines with current status (decommissioned, sunk, still in service, sold to a South American dictator etc). A list of eight items which is unlikely to change much does not seem to me to be a significant topic. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this it useful as a list. I would not say that it is redundant because of the other lists, as it includes subs from both countries and nuclear is not a trivial distinction. Also, keeping it as a list allows for notes and an extended introduction. I do not see a problem with having a category as well, but my preference would be a list. -- Kjkolb 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems useful. Eivind 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kjkolb; list adds some structure and background information useful for reference, especially given the obscurity of the designations of the vessels themselves. Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Kjkolb Hawkestone 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise There is no information on this page that would not be provided by a category page. It would be an efficient option to categorise the sunken submarines as such rather than to list them on this page. If the article could be expanded to include some encyclopædic content then there might be a case for retention but not if it remains as-is.  (aeropagitica)  17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The list has nations, and now causes and dates. Categories can't have anything but titles of articles. Night Gyr 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly merge. --AaronS 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is valid, verifiable encyclopedic content that provides more information than a category alone could possibly provide. Cyde Weys 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy close. AfD is not the appropriate place to propose merging; if you'd like to make a merge, talk about it on the talk page in question, and see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for hints and tips. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting number paradox[edit]

This article treats an obscure mathematical joke as a serious principle. Merge it with Mathematical jokes. Dfranke 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Clarkson[edit]

Non-notable biography. William Clarkson is apparently a President of The Westminster Schools and a former headmaster. I don't think this is sufficiently notable. I recognise that schools are considered notable but I don't think that their leaders necessarily are. Two pages link here, St. Mark's School of Texas and General Theological Seminary both of which list him as a notable alum. MLA 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable or significant. There is no evidence or sources in this article that demonstrate his significance, independent of his function at the The Westminster Schools. He might warrant a mention within the Schools' article at most. Sliggy 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisting 08/03/06, which in your star-time is ... 08/03/06. Bonza! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Baggs[edit]

This was put up for prod by L33tminion, but I thought that it deserved more discussion/attention than it was likely to receive through that process, so I'm listing it here instead. I think that Ms. Baggs is sufficiently notable to merit a biography (though it's not entirely clear-cut), and I'm not sure exactly how heavily to weight her stated preference not to have an article (cited on the article's talk page). For tallying purposes, treat this as a No Vote, with the hope that some constructive discussion can work things out. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a vote + Not voting = All Good? -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sounds beaut! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete unless more significance is established. Many many people write for magazines, few of them should have articles. This magazine doesn't even have an article, so maybe it's not a major one. At any rate, it makes no sense to go creating articles on individual contributors before having one on thge magazine itself. However, if she's sufficiently verifiable as an activist, this could be a reason to keep. Google does turn her up here and there on the internet, but that's not really enough. Friday (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added the magazine because it was the only print media citation turned up by a casual search. She's supposedly much more notable for her online work (on blogs and autism sites), but I didn't add that because it's not something I'm really familiar with and I didn't want to accidentally add more errors to the article when she's already unhappy about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. If her "activism" just consists of internet posts and she's not discussed in any proper sources, then I'd say it's a definite delete. Friday (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, her columns on autistics.org have been cited as required reading in at least one college course (at the University of Wisconsin)[6], and she does get a hit as a reference on Google Scholar[7](.pdf), and another in this text on Google books. -Colin Kimbrell 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One possible solution is to create an article like Autism rights movement activists for respective activists who might not be noteworthy enough to have articles in Wikipedia, but still play an important role in the autism rights movement. Q0 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just read the blog entry by Amanda Baggs. Since she doesn't talk about her life in public, there will be no way to find references for an article, which means that the only way to have something more developed than a stub is to do original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Delete either as original research or something that has no potential to be more than a stub. Q0 01:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisting 08/03/06, which in your time is still 08/03/06. Bonza! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Goose Players[edit]

Delete... non-notable, unencyclopedic entry for a high school club Masonpatriot 03:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coliberation[edit]

In the referenced article written by Bernie DeKoven it states A word I actually made up. A word I coined so I could describe to people what a "good meeting" is like: CoLiberation. I believe this, then, qualifies as neologism James084 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2-cents here: though I coined the term, it has had some significant usage outside of my direct sphere of influence. Most people have found the word very useful in describing something that has hitherto not been described - namely the experience of "shared flow" - flow being a term Csikszentmihalyi made up, in a similar manner. He is familar with my terh and has endorsed it. Please let me know what I need to do to correct any "neologistic" concerns. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybernie (talk • contribs)

Note: relisting 08/03/06, for great justice. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO. The concept already exists: it's called 'harmony.' --die Baumfabrik 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. A google search seems mainly to turn up entries by the creator himself, with no indication that the word is really catching on with anyone else. Fan1967 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NEO applies, per above admission. Unverifiable as being in widespread use. --Kinu t/c 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn neologism. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 250 Googles, no reliable sources, and even the unreliable ones don't seem to agree. Just zis Guy you know? 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nnn Computerjoe 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stout Irish Rock[edit]

Delete. A genre for just one band? ("stout irish rock" -blaggards produces like 2 or 3 unique hits on google.) Non-notable "Blaggard-cruft"; undeserving of an article. EdGl 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was copyvio, recreation of previously deleted content, created by serial copyright violator. Chick Bowen 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mindanao Network[edit]

This page seems to be entirely written to advertise, isn't wiki-ed at all (suspected copyvio), and overall just reads as a radio promo. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but article must conform with WP:STYLE. --die Baumfabrik 04:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Royboycrashfan 06:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. (See this and this) Jude(talk,contribs) 08:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 10:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright violation. It is usually better to just list such articles on Copyright Problems, if the source can be found, because it is deleted without discussion after seven days, unless someone contests its status as a copyvio. -- Kjkolb 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable subject despite inappropriate article. So fix it. Monicasdude 14:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Monicasdude. Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through and reworded most of the paragraphs, got rid of some of the promotion-speak, and wikified most of the place names. Smerdis of Tlön 15:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Clark[edit]

Delete: Only notable for role in Colbert Report/truthiness controversy. Otherwise non-notable field reporter in small AP bureau. Do not redirect because there are literally tens of thousands of Heather Clarks out there, some of whom may be more notable than AP reporter Clark (per Google search). (Note I am original creator of article, from a red link.) Calwatch 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical Keep Journalists are presumptively notable, and she meets WP:BIO by writing for a publication/outlet with a circulation of (much more than) 5000+. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep writes for AP, has some evidence of coverage as a subject. This article, however, is pants, focusing on one very small thing that happened once. Just zis Guy you know? 13:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets standard for inclusion as participant in newsworthy event. Monicasdude 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to truthiness or where ever else is relevant. Since all we have on her is related to one incident, she should be discussed as part of that incident. Ned Wilbury 14:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ned, not very notable journo. Eivind 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Adrian and JzG. Hall Monitor 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Mar. 15, '06 [17:06] <freakofnurxture|talk>

North Carolina Tigers[edit]

My first reaction when I saw this thing on Newpages was - this is very, very non-notable, possibly a speedy, but then I looked around in the stub categories which were all in the same boat, so this may be a litmus-test for similar AFL related teams - WP:AFL.

Australian Rules Football (Australian Football League) is a sport which basically exclusive to Australia. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "world cup" for this sport - but if there is, perhaps Australia does not participate due to an exemption (because it would turn into a monumental mismatch). There is no International Competition in this sport that Australia takes part in. Australia is the only country with a professional league, and even though there are roughly (16 teams * 40 players in a squad = 640 players). In the whole history of AFL competition, there have only been 5-10 non-Australians (all from Ireland) who have reached the AFL - "top 600" (in the 100+ years of the sport existing) so to speak. Thus I feel that an amateur club in the United States domestic competition, a country which has NOT produced ANY players who have reached a professional level is not notable. Similar articles for many domestic AMATEUR teams in the Canadian league have also been created. Generally speaking, AFL is only known in Canada and the United States due to Australian expatriates who play recreationally on weekends.

This is similar toPortal:Cricket where the Canadian cricket team competed in the 2003 Cricket World Cup with a team of mostly dual citizens from Australia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, who did not even live in Canada, was lead by John Davison who spent most of his time sitting on the bench in Australia for the domestic team, Southern Redbacks. As domestic Canadian cricket teams basically consist of a few expats having a social game on Sundays followed by a beer, thereby not warranting an article, I feel that Canadian and American based AFL teams should also not warrant an article, as the lack of international competition (no world cup) indicates that the level of AFL is very, very, very non-notable outside of Australia (much more so than cricket). I think the necessary information should be in "AFL in Canada" and "AFL in USA".Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Syn[edit]

NN porncruft - has 250 google hits, some of which are unrelated.Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Her website has no alexa ranking, and there are only 35 unique google hits, most of which are nearly identical pages. Not even notable in the porn world, apparently. --Xyzzyplugh 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-advertising. Kusma (討論) 04:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Up and coming" in the article apparently means basically unknown. Non-notable. Fan1967 05:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no sources. Ned Wilbury 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete porn-cruft. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete porncruft, ad. --Terence Ong 10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all up and coming porn "stars". Anyway, doesn't that temr only really apply to male ones? No, wait, let's not go there... Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Maniaci[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. The article claims that this guy is an Israeli militant of some note, leadership of Jewish lobby groups, and claims activity in the 1980s, which is suspicious because it only gives 44 google hits, apparently unrelated to Jewish affairs. It is also written with a rather subtle attack-POV tone, which also heightens my suspicion as to whether this is a hoax, or even then, perhaps nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, also because the article is (no offense) poorly written. So even if one could argue in favor of it, the article would need to be cleaned up a bit. -EdGl 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this article is so badly written it's hard to tell whether its author is anti-semitic or anti-didactic. In any case, it's very POV and adds nothing reliable to the existing article on the Jewish Defence League, and I doubt a redraft would improve it. --die Baumfabrik 05:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; the article is crap but this is no hoax. This proves he's connected, and this proves he's visible. Melchoir 09:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neither a hoax nor non-notable [9]. So fix it. Monicasdude 14:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & clean Screams POV, but notable. Eivind 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Melchoir. Hall Monitor 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riohcat Music[edit]

Page was initially set for {{db}} speedy for advertising, then retagged as a {{prod}} with no reason or justification. Thus, I'm bringing it here. advertising. Most pages on Google search are either mirrors of sales pages or this article. み使い Mitsukai 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert. [10]. PJM 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisted 08/03/06. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danonacid[edit]

Delete. Non-notable musician. Google search shows 2 references to his album, both on myspace pages, and about a dozen references to him on myspace pages. Xyzzyplugh 04:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ItI vote to keep this because I have actually heard talk of this guy, and he seems to be growing rapidly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.115.231 (talk • contribs) 09:21, March 8, 2006

  • Delete so is he a kid or just getting fat? Defunkier 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the intersection of notable musicians and musicians with m yspace pages is the null set. Just zis Guy you know? 13:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Having a myspace page isn't much of an accomplishment. Ned Wilbury 16:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as band A7. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montez[edit]

Delete. Non-notable musician. Can't find anything which seems to be about him from a google search. Xyzzyplugh 04:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack. Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gray[edit]

It's a neologism in the UK about cheating. This was prodded as a possible hoax, but the prod tag was removed without explanation. There is a discussion on the talk page requesting references which hasn't been answered. I haven't been able to find anything on Google about this guy, or the book School Slang. I can't tell if it's true, but so far it looks unverifiable. NickelShoe 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a hoax. At best, protologism. -- Vary | Talk 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've never heard of it, and the concept has had many names. This particular reference is neither verifiable nor noteworthy. I reckon it's a piss-take targetting some poor kid called Adam Gray, but that is, of course, POV. --die Baumfabrik 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent hoax, likely attack page against classmate, with an opportunity for a couple kids to get their names in an article. One of the kids mentioned is apparently the author. Fan1967 05:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... made up in school one day, unverifiable, probably an attack page, neologism at best. --Kinu t/c 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Royboycrashfan 06:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism, hoax, attack. --Terence Ong 10:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted since a Google for the "Adam Gray" +plagiarism scores 20 Googles, of which none appear to substantiate this article; this is about a living person and cannot be readily substantiated, so I am going to kill it as an attack page. I will also lock it since it was speedied two days ago also as an attack. Feel free to take to DRV if you find evidence to substantiate it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlee Yarrow[edit]

Biography of a nonnotable politcal figure. Claims to be an officer in the Socialist Party of Florida and candidate for governor but has never held elected office, so fails WP:BIO. Possibly autobiography (the major contributors have only worked on articles relating to the Florida Socialist party). Also fails WP:V and the external links are to personal or campaign sites. A search in Lexis/Nexis finds no articles about him in national or Florida newspapers so he fails WP:BIO and WP:V even if he is a candidate for governor (in Florida you can run for any office by paying a fee equal to 6% of the salary). Delete Thatcher131 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just to reward Thatcher for his/her diligence. Kappa 03:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ridiculous vote! Not a vote on the article itself, but to reward "Thatcher's" diligence. --Revolución hablar ver 18:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it is a silly reason to vote. I wanted to do a Lexis/Nexis search because I thought coverage in Flordia newspapers would be a better gauge of political notability of a possibly fringe candidate than google hits, then I just got curious about how hard it was to run for governor. Thatcher131 12:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is completely non-notable. I put this up on cleanup a while back. In any case, it seems to me that it must be either autobiographical or copied from an autobiographical source, since the thoughts and feelings of a twelve-year-old are rarely documented in a verifiable fashion. --Deville (Talk) 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Atlee is 39 years old. the article is biographical, so I don't see how his early political awakening might not be relevant. --Revolución hablar ver 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue isn't relevance, as much as it is verifiability. There is only one person on earth who knows whether or not the first paragraph under Background is true or not, and that is Yarrow himself. And how would he document it? --Deville (Talk) 04:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Yarrow is the elected Secretary of the Socialist Party of Florida. In the past, he ran for the mayorship of Auburn, Georgia unsuccessfully. He is currently the elected Chairman of the Socialist Party of Jacksonville, Florida. Obviously notable whether you find him in your precious Lexis/Nexis or not. --Revolución hablar ver 18:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not obviously notable. He's not a political figure holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. So searches (like LexisNexis, precious or not) come into play to determine if he is a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. If not, he fails WP:BIO -- Samir ∙ T C 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: relisting 08/03/06. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete an advertisement for a member of a political party which DOES NOT EVEN HAVE single-digit popularity ratings, and has not remotely even influenced the results of any elections.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirements for candidates nor verifiability in terms of third party sources. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V applies, at the least. --Kinu t/c 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The man couldn't get elected mayor of a town of ~7000. non-notable politicruft. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable with no external references. Melchoir 09:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet criteria for notability -- Samir ∙ T C 10:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dysconscious audism[edit]

PROD removed by author (author's only other edit). Neologism not in wide use, apparently based entirely on one unpublished dissertation. 59 raw Google hits, most referring to a single paper. Article itself is POV/soapbox. MCB 04:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is unfair. The Deaf community is trying to get this term into wider public usage. This is going to prevent that. It can be merged into the audism entry, but please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDEagles (talk • contribs)

  • I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is for things that are already notable and is not a tool for creating notability. Please see the policies on notability and original research. Delete Thatcher131 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete...this is a new term and we're trying hard to get this new info out to the public. This is a critical time for the deaf community in regard to gaining equal access to everything and we are not even halfway there yet! Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.186.87.40 (talk • contribs) Moved below the line by Thatcher131

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Village Apartments[edit]

Non-notable college housing unit, nothing of apparent encyclopedic merit. PROD tag removed. Delete. MCB 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's relevance is tied to the Auraria Campus and it's main student housing community, The Regency, which has historical significance to the downtown Denver, Colorado area. Jgarc122 2:26, 8 March 2006
  • Keep Auraria Campus housing is an expansion that affects the Denver merto area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.57.94 (talk • contribs) (User's first edit)
  • Delete: advertising directed at the lazier freshman. --die Baumfabrik 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have putting the case for keep on many Hall of Residence AfD discussions, but this one really has nothing to recommend it. --Bduke 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a shame that prod tags get removed for this. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 10:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable locally, generic globally (and still non-notable then). Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:JzG. JIP | Talk 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, tending towards merge, but no agreement on a merge target. bainer (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Yuri[edit]

I'm still new to this: what's the official offence for non-notable slang? "Original Research"? --Grocer 04:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure that this could be classified as 'non-notable' slang. Having read the article and dug around the web, this seems to be a useful name for a real crime. Mind you, I've only been searching references for five minutes, so half a dozen citations from forum posts up to two years old might not meet the verifiability guidelines. --die Baumfabrik 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Perhaps merge into Online dating, but I can't see where. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Internet fraud, which has a section on online dating fraud. Term gets a fair number of web hits, but I couldn't find any that could be regarded as reliable sources. dbtfztalk 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete term gets about the same number of web hits as I do. Compare with scams like 419 which score hundreds of thousands, or millions of hits. This looks like a minor neologism on certain web forums (which are not reliable sources). Any citations from dead-tree media? Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into online dating. JIP | Talk 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.--csloat 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested by Dbtfz.Pop Secret 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would merge his into mail order bride. I know they say online dating in the article, but the context to me that this belongs to that subject. I am surprised frankly that the mail order bride article has no section on scams since they are quite prevalent.Montco 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet fraud. Snargle 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by me, per your choice of CSD:G1, G3, or A7. Stifle 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kilmain[edit]

Apparent hoax. Some guy from the 18th century who supposedly founded freeloading. Prod tag removed without explanation.

  • Delete as unverifiable. NickelShoe 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hoax. G1, A1, and A7. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax, unless someone has actually heard of Yetis in 18th century Boston. Fan1967 05:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. dbtfztalk 05:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But what was the significance of this much forgotten figure?" None. Delete as hoax. --Kinu t/c 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Luntz[edit]

A political staffer for a political patry (Australian Greens in Victoria) which has had never won any parliamentary seats in the Victorian state election. A minor political party is also usually short on money, so I think the level of "political research" would be very primitive.

The article is written by DarrenRay, who is one the student union leaders mentioned in University of Melbourne student services, which links to Stephen Luntz. Judging by DarrenRay's sentiments expressed on his userpage and the controversy on his talk page (and his large quantity of engaging other editors) - I feel that he has a conflict of interest as he appears to have had political dealings with Mr Stephen Luntz, and also that Mr Darren Ray has been stridently involved in edit conflicts over the UniMelb union issues, while he is the subject of some of the activities described in the article, and is currently involved in legal battles over the matter.

Darren can probably speeak for himself but I personally strongly object to the personal vilifying going on here, as per Blbguyen's comments. I think he will object strongest to being call a "left-wing" anything. Either way stop the personal abuse please. --2006BC 06:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am not impressed. I would appreciate its immediate withdrawal. See WP:RPA DarrenRay 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 36 year old student activist and holder of a behind the scenes job with the Victorian Greens. A search of an Australian newspaper index shows five mentions related to the Victorian election in 2002. Capitalistroadster 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable, as a senior Greens party official. --2006BC 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Above user is a past president of the MUSU, and is a political ally of DarrenRay, both of whom have political dealings with the subject of the article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - I make no secret of who I am. Check my user page. --2006BC 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable, involved in the Greens likely to be successful state election campaign as its electoral analyst, go do a Google search and you'll see several listings of his role in Greens campaigns. Seems notable enough. And unlike other contributors I am not anonymous/pseudonymous. DarrenRay 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT a crystal ball wrt whether Greens will win a seat, they haven't. Also, the author of the article, who.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove your personal attacks if you expect any response from me. DarrenRay 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you act this way if your identity was known, calling people hacks and other insults? I doubt it. Don't take the bait Darren. This nomination was the result of stalking through your edits by someone who is acting like he has some personal gripe with you. Very sad. --2006BC 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited your conflicts of interest because you have declared them. If you did not reveal your identity, this would not matter, because very many similar pages about yet-to-be-elected aspiring politicians are deleted on a consistent basis. You are welcome to look through my edit history and fix up any conflicts of interest and POV that I may have. If I was a famous sportsperson, I would probably be trying to make money, not be writing articles on wikipedia. If you would like to know who I am, look at my userpage and follow the links Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The point is I don't want to know who you are. I'd just like you to stop the personal attacks and insults and throwing your weight around. It's just completely unnecessary. --2006BC 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable. --Roisterer 08:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 10:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Failed candidates are not generally considered notable, yet-to-be candidates very obviously even less so. Author's comments lead to valid concenrs about POV, and it is extremely hard to verify this subject from reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --kingboyk 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-F)[edit]

Non-canon Star Trek ship, though it has been used in a Trek novel, as presented on the page. However, Memory Alpha does not have a page on it; thus, it probably isn't notable enough for Wikipedia.

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Grev 05:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn fancruft. Fan1967 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Trekcruft. --Kinu t/c 05:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Off with its head! WP:STUPID --die Baumfabrik 06:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Specifically mentioned in WP:BAI! Шизомби 08:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. --Terence Ong 11:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mr. Sulu, lock photon torpedoes on target and fire when ready! Just zis Guy you know? 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scuttle as above ➥the Epopt 14:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beam up. Not notable. --Optichan 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-canon Computerjoe 16:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's dead, Jim. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Starship Enterprise. I'm usually inclusionist when it comes to Star Trek, but if it has only been used in one novel, it doesn't deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TRANS to Memory Alpha 132.205.45.148 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is about the 3rd time someone has tried doing an article on the Enterprise-F. Keep an eye out for similarly unnecessary articles on the -G, -H, and -I (however the Enterprise-J is fair game as it was featured in an episode). 23skidoo 18:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "In official canon, nothing is, as yet, known about this vessel and its crew." How, then, can this be notable if the vessel is merely conjectured? This is fanon rather than canon and should be offered to Memory Alpha for a first refusal as more ST researchers will search for obscure data such as this on that site rather than WP.  (aeropagitica)  23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Starship Enterprise. This article can also be copied to the Non-Canon Star Trek Wiki. Carioca 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Johnson[edit]

Delete. NN member of NN band, vanity. Gets 5 unique ghits. Microtonal 05:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Teixeira[edit]

WP:NOT a place to post your résumé. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Contested prod, so here we go. Sandstein 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 07:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backstreet Boys Are Gay[edit]

Non-notable flash movie and alleged internet fad. Possibly even speediable as attack page. Sandstein 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can confirm that it indeed was an internet fad about five years ago, but only from memory, not from reliable sources. Kusma (討論) 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic, this song (titled "Which Backstreet Boy is Gay?") is misattributed to Weird Al but really by "The Morning Show at Z100 Portland". "Which Backstreet Boy is gay" gets 107,000 Google hits, which is more than what "The last page of the Internet" has, which has a Wikipedia entry. I would still like to see some sources. Kusma (討論) 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to internet phenomenon. The more notable Miko Miko Nurse does. Royboycrashfan 06:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very famous in Oxford, London, Belfast, Leicester and many other places on my email list of 2000, but I don't expect you youngsters remember 56kbps modems and 4GB hard drives, when Flash 3.0 was the pinnacle of compressed animation. I still have a copy of the file, and it is still amusing. I might post it somewhere for all to see. Some of the fads I've heard of, some I haven't; I'd never heard of Miko Miko Nurse and for some reason, still know nothing about it. Keep the Which Back Street Boy is Gay article and I'll tidy it up myself. --die Baumfabrik 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Baumfabrik and their excellent memory. Furthermore, get off my lawn :o . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 09:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Roy. Eivind 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and/or redirect. The fad-of-the-week is not encyclopedia material. Ned Wilbury 16:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable at the time and memorable now. Carlossuarez46 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  12:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Franke[edit]

Possible hoax/attack page; person exists but only has two Google hits as HS girls' basketball coach and computer science teacher; therefore nn.Daniel Case 05:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped after I put a "last warning" on his talk page. I have a note on VIP to keep an eye on him. Daniel Case 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but see notes below. bainer (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Superpowers—India, Potential Superpowers—China, Potential Superpowers - European Union, Potential Superpowers - Japan, Potential Superpowers - Brazil, Potential Superpowers - Russia, Potential superpowers[edit]

Closer's notes
There were nearly fifty participants in this deletion debate, and opinion was widely divided between the various options presented. As such, no single option gained a sufficient consensus to be implemented. However, the following trends were evident:

  • About half of the participants supported deletion, most on the grounds of original research.
  • A further ten percent supported keeping the articles on China and the EU, and deleting the rest.
  • About thirteen percent supported merging any verifiable, sourced content into other articles.

Thus although no single option recieved consensus, there is a consensus that the content should not remain in its present form. I suggest that any relevant content be added to the relevant country articles, and only once that is done should the articles be re-nominated for deletion. Re-nominators may cite the result of this debate as:

No consensus for a single option, but a general consensus that the articles not remain in their present form.

--bainer (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research with no references, topic is non-encyclopedic, POV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would just like to say this to the users of wikipedia. The main reason for deleting these articles are that they do not provide references. Well, now the Indian article has got 5 references and I have created a section on it's Talk Page outlining the sections we need to find references to. Hopefully, this article will no longer have any issues by the end of this week.Nobleeagle 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - Fellow Wikipedians, I believe that this deletion vote could be either the best or worst thing that has happened to these articles in a long time. If they are deleted, that's the worst thing that has happened. But if you were to check the Potential Superpowers - India article now, you would realize that there are over 120 references, that's a heap of work, that's the best thing that could happen to this article. So please consider the work done before voting. Nobleeagle 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the second two to this nomination. I think we should make a decision for all three of these articles together. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added Potential Superpowers - Japan. It's also unreferenced and original research. Heilme 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added Potential Superpowers - Russia and Potential Superpowers - Brazil. There are more Potential Superpowers pages so it seems. Let the discussion be complete. Heilme 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Potential superpowers article which was apparently created as well. It seems like all the delete and keep votes so far apply to that as well. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think this is working. First of all, the people that have edited Superpower and Major powers agree that Russia, Japan and Brazil are NOT Potential Superpowers. They are not listed as potential superpowers and should not even have such a page. But seeing as they do have such a page, we need to create a seperate Articles for Deletion section when it comes to Russia, Brazil and Japan, as most people with a knowledge of the subject would agree that they are not potential superpowers anyway.Nobleeagle 08:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the addition of the others, as they are equivalent from a policy point of view. It seems at Talk:Superpower that it was realized in January that none of these articles had any verification. Instead of improving the articles, half of them were chosen to be orphaned and forgotten; and even that decision drew on no outside sources. Melchoir 09:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that their articles for deletion section should be seperate from India, China and the E.U., because this changes my opinion and I'm sure many users will now have to go and change their views so that they say Keep this and Delete that...Nobleeagle 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of your opinion does it change? Melchoir 09:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has long been agreed on the Superpower discussion that Brazil, Russia and Japan are not Potential Superpowers. Therefore, there is an extra reason to delete those three, because they shouldn't be there, they are Major Powers (and in Brazil's case, are barely Major Powers). But everyone must agree that India, China and the E.U. are Potential Superpowers, so therefore, atleast these articles are not misleading in their facts.Nobleeagle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to consider articles, not countries. As a reader, why should I believe that three of the articles are misleading me, but the other three aren't? Melchoir 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you fail to understand my point of view. There was much debate on this matter and eventually the long-term editors of Superpower decided that Russia/Japan and Especially Brazil were definitely not Potential Superpowers. Wikipedia is here to present as much fact as it can to its readers and it is fact that India, China and the E.U. presently look like they will quickly rise to heights that Russia, Japan and Brazil will not rise to. Which (trying to draw it back to the topic) means that 3 should be deleted and 3 should be kept. But we're going off-topic, so I'll just stop this discussion in saying that we should have seperate deletion pages and since no-one has voted on Russia, Brazil and Japan yet, it is still not too late.Nobleeagle 09:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do understand your point of view. You seem to expect the reader to trust your judgement, or the judgement of whoever hangs out on some talk page. This is not our policy. Melchoir 10:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are not to be persuaded, but I have had my say, all I ask you is to see how much media hype there is about Brazil being the next superpower? Then compare it to India...Nobleeagle 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely out of order. You can't add articles to this when the "voting" has been going on this long. All these articles should be listed separately. -- JJay 09:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, I suggest we restart voting, since much has happened within this period of voting being opened. 1 Section for Russia, Japan and Brazil, one section for E.U., India and China.Nobleeagle 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the process has been bungled, and JJay's proposal to split sounds best, but I think it might be too late to do it without pissing someone off. It's not the end of the world if this AfD closes with no consensus; if necessary, we can revisit the individual articles in future months. Melchoir 10:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

  • Keep - this seems to be a very well thought out article that seems relevant unless content is duplicated elsewhere -- Tawker 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it seems well thought out is becuase its original research. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it has inherently crystalballish title, it's well done and there are many like it at Superpower#Potential Superpowers. Possibly move these to something like "Power factors of ____". Sandstein 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reconsidered after reading the arguments below: Delete all as crystal ball original research after merging what's usable to the country articles. Sandstein 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a bit POV, but most of it is very well written. It would be better if the article changed its tone from India will become a Superpower to more of a India may become a superpower with these possible reasons. Maybe more should be added on the "Points against the rise of an Indian superpower. DaGizzaChat © 05:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment References are needed badly. Otherwise controversies can arise from a topic like this. DaGizzaChat © 06:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you realise that by suggesting "India may become a superpower with these possible reasons" as a title you're actually arguing for deletion? - brenneman{T}{L} 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I am not, the current title is suitable Potential Superpowers- India. Not future Superpowers. DaGizzaChat © 08:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I mean is that you're acknowledging that this is original research with that suggested title change.
            brenneman{T}{L} 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think this suggestion is indicative of the overal problem of these sets of articles. The solution to original research has become more original research which points in the other direction. This is an exceptional poor analysis anyway. It takes a lot of basic facts and from them extrapolates this geopolitical conclusion which is increasingly meaningless. Wikipedia should be a place that contains those facts, but it doesn't need to present them in a way that suggests a country will or will not become a superpower. Thus, no title change can solve this problem. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the talk page of the article. There are glaring inconsistencies, POVs raised by editors/readers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Article has been there for many months, is very well thought out, has heaps of info for someone that doesn't know about India's rise to become a superpower and is also linked to many other articles including Superpower and Major powers etc. Nobleeagle 06:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I smell jealousy... The article does need improvement, but is not a candidate for deletion. --die Baumfabrik 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jealousy? The nominator is an active Indian wikipedian :) --Gurubrahma 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should we keep these articles? An encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. We all like to boast about the achievements of our native countries but this is not the place. --Spartian 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (and add references). I have added the {{unreferenced}} tag to this page to note that it is in need of references. --Viridian {Talk} 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those references will almost certainly confirm these individual facts but not their use as factors for the rise of India (or any of these countries) as a superpower. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All salvagable matter covered by India. The remainder of this article is POV, crystal ball and unreferenced. What next? Potential Superpowers-Pakistan or Potential Superpowers-Israel? --Gurubrahma 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands this is textbook original research. The fact that it doesn't cite a single source should raise some alarm bells, but citing sources for the various facts in the article won't solve the problem of the synthesis of those facts. What we have here is a personal essay, not an article. I'd note that the Superpower article also has not even one reference. - brenneman{T}{L} 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete India, Improve E.U., Keep China - I've been reading this article for a while, and I notice more and more that the data that is given in this article (to support the notion of India's rise) is more like a predicted extension of current events. That's right, prediction. Therefore, since it's more like crystal-balling, it is POV, and not reference is mentioned. And even worse, in my opinion, what they call "power points" to support India's rise is not even a power point at all. They are all weak arguments. Okeydokey 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article is currently in very poor shape, it cannot be deleted unless you also delete Potential Superpowers—China and Potential Superpowers - European Union. Kevlar67 08:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)</stirke>.[reply]
See below. Kevlar67 11:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's simply untrue. If I get really busy tonight and write an article about all of the four hundred dioramas I've contructed from pasta, there is clearly no requirement that Wikipedia either keep them all or delete them all at once. Each AfD looks at the merits of the article in question and relevent polcies and guidelines, with some head nod to conventions established in other AfDs. The mere existance of other articles doesn't figure in. - brenneman{T}{L} 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem solved--this is a very comprehensive nomination. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reference cited at all. At least the Potential Superpowers - China (so Keep China) page has references and an external link of recent article supporting the argument. The European Union page I think is needing references too (so can improve or delete as well). The India page lacks article at all. This is more like original research (writing school essay) rather than stating facts already established. Sarangburung 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've gone back and forth on whether to nominate this whole series of articles. I hate the title for one. I'll add the other articles to this nomiantion if the nominator doesn't object. No vote. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: these articles are mostly unreferenced and are not encyclopedic. --jrleighton 09:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete India. If the AfD consolidation stands, delete E.U. and keep China, but delete every bullet point without a citation. I don't think the topics are inherently POV, and I am sure these topics can be found in reliable sources, including the kind of historical synthesis that could avoid original research. But the current articles cannot be allowed to stay. Let them grow back when someone's willing to open a book. Melchoir 09:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. --Terence Ong 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first article is nothing but a giant ball of uncited claims and original analysis about india. It needs a serious going over to add references to justify its assertions. Delete unless severely rewritten. Night Gyr 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the delete voters stated that it is unreferenced, which is obviously true. However, that should not be a reason for deletion. There are articles written much worse that this but still exist because of Cleanup, Wikify, NPOV and other templates. This article is notable enough to stay and deserves to be improved upon and references should be added. DaGizzaChat © 11:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I and many others have worked our socks off on these articles, I don't want to have worked on something in vain only for someone to come along and VfD on a very dodgy basis. If it's not cited, then put it up for improvement, there is no reason whatsoever to delete such important articles. Jombo 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to Jombo and DaGizza: Unreferenced articles should be referenced, and original research articles should be deleted. These articles do not display any evidence, in the form of references, that they are anything other than novel narrative or historical interpretations. As such, even if every bullet point were verified, the articles would still constitute original research. The China article is just barely an exception, because it links to a story that has both the words "China" and "superpower" in the title. Even there, the source does not support the article, and its mere presence doesn't vindicate the original research going on. If any of these articles is deleted, your work will not have been in vain; it will have served as an example of the kinds of research we don't do. Melchoir 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that can be salvaged into India, China, and European Union. Failing that, delete. --Descendall 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if it can be shown that it is not original research (some references which says that India, China and EU are the potential superpowers).--Raghu 13:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) until we decide the larger issue of whether this type of geopolitical analysis is "original research" or encyclopedic. Kevlar67 13:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments apply to India, China, and EU only. Delete Japan, Russia, and Brazil since they have seperate sections on major power (I believe?). If that is unfeasible, then Delete all. Kevlar67 11:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, and looks like a fork of India, China and European Union. Or possibly a series of forks of Superpower. Either way, potential superpower is problematic. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Most of the stuff in these article is original research, POV and speculative. It is more like an article one sees in a newspaper not in an encyclopedia!! It would be better option to merge certain sections of these articles with Superpower, Major power and Potential Superpowers. If these articles are kept, the very meaning of an encyclopedia would be at sake. --Spartian 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Move. These articles are written and titled as "subarticles" of superpower, which isn't really appropriate. Discussions on why these have been referred to as "potential superpowers" could be discussed at superpower or possibly potential superpowers (this one needs to lose the "subarticle" notice, too, or if there really is enough for in depth analysis of each one (which I doubt without a lot fo crystal ball/OR), names like "India as a potential superpower" would be better. JPD (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Otherwise delete as crystal ball/speculation. — RJH 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be; then delete or we'll have Potential Superpowers-Kurdistan and the debate on that will be lively. Carlossuarez46 19:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments on crystal-balling/original research. Mallocks 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As the external links on the BRIC article show, speculation about India or China's rising power is not original research, but documentation of the research being conducted by a number of investment firms, notably that of Goldman Sachs. As the BRIC article clearly also needs help, I would suggest a merger of these articles into an encyclopedic article about the acronym "BRIC" (created by Goldman Sachs) and its meaning, which would necessarily include a summary of the research that firms have conducted about the rise of certain developing countries in the world. --Episcopo 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is verifiable, delete the OR bits. Besides, the articles are awkwardly named. --Alan Au 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Still no vote, but I'm wondering what we are going to do in the future with Potential Oscar Winners—Martin Scorsese? savidan(talk) (e@) 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting read, unsourced, appears to be original analysis. Delete - OR. Guettarda 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystalballism after merging any worthy content to other relevant articles such as India, Superpower, etc. dbtfztalk 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Unreferenced and speculative in the extreme. If kept, move to NPOV and non-asserting title such as "Global status of India" - currently the title is an unequivocal statement that India is a potential superpower, which is problematic at best. FCYTravis 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. These are essential topics for the future of the world, discussed in academia and the popular media. Given the hundreds of books that have been written, references should by fairly easy to find India superpower books, Europe superpower books, China superpower books. -- JJay 01:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but sometimes you've got to start from scratch. Rather than hold dozens of line-item debates across three talk pages to remove every bit of original research until nothing is left, it makes more sense to decide the fate of this content here and now. Melchoir 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No reason to start anywhere but right here. That's why I voted strong keep. For those who prefer scholarly articles- Europe superpower 14,000 Google scholar hits, India superpower 8,000 hits, China Superpower 12,000 hits. -- JJay 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those numbers are either deliberatly decpetive or terribly careless, as they include things like the texts below. - brenneman{T}{L} 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • ... as the world’s sole remaining superpower, has a ... and groans from some of India’s traditional...
          • ... two major partners in Asia, India and Vietnam ... Writing when the USSR was still in existence as a viable superpower.
      • Wikipedians are pretty smart. I'm sure they can find one or two good sources there. If not they can buy some of those books at amazon. But thanks again for the always helpful and constructive comments. -- JJay 02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep China (or Merge with Major powers), Delete the rest. I think that there have been many news coverage about China, the "next" superpower. Well, surely those news article are crystal-balling themselves. But, as an encyclopedia, we can quote those news sources which themselves contain predictions? Heilme 07:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a pretty biased opinion, the Australian news coverage has been all over India's potential in the news. But I guess this page is for opinions. Please note that if China is kept and India is deleted, I will personally work towards getting the Indian article back on the Potential Superpowers page. There are many references available, just haven't had the time to look at them yet.
      • Comment well, I'm not the only one thinking of this (scroll above). Some arguments are weaker than the other. But personally, I'll respect whatever the decision comes out here in the end. Whether it's delete all, delete some, or not delete at all. Heilme 08:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Good content, but duplicates existing material, and 'Potential' gives it away as original research. Maybe something like "21st century regional powers" could be made out of it. Peter Grey 07:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless rewritten. IMHO it will serve Wikipedia better to simply delete all these articles and reboot them at a later stage with proper references. Zunaid 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete An encyclopedia should talk about Superpower and it should talk about India, China, etc... And in the context of either of those two discussions, it may be considered reasonable to mention something along the lines of what these articles are trying to achieve. But to push them separately into their own article crosses the boundaries of POV & original research. Eusebeus 11:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, crystal-ballism. Vizjim 14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to transwiki, in line with Oneearth's suggestion below. Vizjim 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is without a doubt original research. Sijo Ripa 16:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. If kept, I would urge a proponent of these articles to rename them to something better (without hyphens). youngamerican (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. While the articles are interesting and readable it is not aim of encyclopedia to guess the future. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. Deltabeignet 01:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unencylopedic, besides being a nut-case attractor & flame-war friendly. --Pamri • Talk 03:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The articles on China, EU and India should be kept because this is a real happening phenomena of the world. What must be done is to provide more reference links to each. Bostonjunkie 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I write an essay full of original research and then retroactively seek out external verification of the individual points I've already made, the result is still original research. This is completely backwards. Melchoir 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the points are factual, it has been proven now through immense hard work. Appreciate the references, read through all 130 of them...Nobleeagle 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly, really, appreciate that you have worked hard. But if you read through the "delete" comments above, you'll find that 130 one-sentence verifications do not address many of those contributors' concerns. At Wikipedia:No original research you'll find the policy that bans "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that... would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'". These articles seem like a textbook case of that problem. I'm satisfied that all 130 points are true and, in themselves, verifiable. But who decides which facts concerning India are relevant to its potential to be a superpower, or even which facts work towards or against becoming a superpower? The article does not name any scholars, authors, politicians, thinktanks, advocacy groups, governments, or any entity as having made those decisions; it is only fair to assume that they have been made by you. It is that kind of analysis -- that kind of synthesis -- that we must avoid if we are to build a meaningful and trustworthy encyclopedic article. Instead we have a potentially unlimited list of facts heaped into a "good" pile and a "bad" pile. If you find such a list helpful, you may want to preserve it somewhere else, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Melchoir 09:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the number of books and articles on the subject there is no OR. We did not invent the idea that these countries are being named as potential future superpowers. If we were doing articles like Potential Superpower: Belgium, or Potential Superpower: Monaco then your points might be valid. What is being offered is a synthesis, like with any encyclopedia article, of the ideas found in reputable sources. -- JJay 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not saying this research is original in the sense that something like it hasn't been done before; I'm saying it's original in the sense of WP:NOR, and the mere existence of good sources somewhere does not vindicate it. I do believe, unlike many of the delete voters, that would be possible and beneficial to write an article on this topic that adheres to policy. Nonetheless, this article is not it. If it really offers a synthesis of ideas found elsewhere, and not just a list of facts, why doesn't it identify where those ideas come from? "X group emphasizes the importance of Y to India's potential superpower status"; it's not that hard. Instead I see atlases, news items, and maps. The article jumps from primary sources to conclusions, and that's way too OR for me. Melchoir 11:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think the China article is the one that needs more references, most of the points are obvious facts that no reader would be surprised with, they just need a source to prove they are facts. So that a 2-year-old reader wouldn't take them for lies. :) Nobleeagle 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- After improving wherever possible. Oneearth 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and this vote should be sufficient to allow future ariticles like Potential Superpowers—Papau New Guinea to be deleted on sight - Melchoir and others are just on point on this issue. Adding sources for the individual facts (e.g. India' military budget is XXX, India is a democracy) does not change the fact that the overall point of the article, that the synethesis of all of this information into the conclusion that India may or may not be a rising superpower is original research. All of the facts in these articles could be merged into the respective articles or subarticles for those countries, but I am hesitant to vote merge becuase (1) it appears that these references have been added after the fact with the intent of camoflaguing the OR (2) all of the facts in this article are probably covered already, in those respective articles. (3) There is no one volunteering to perform such a merge and new "references" would likely be added to these articles faster than they could be merged. In short, framing these facts as factors is POV original research and possibly an innapropriate fork. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR, I don't think so. For recent examples see Stephen Cohen, India: Emerging Power, Brookings Institution, 2002, which starts out, "this book examines the proposition that India is becoming a major power, [11], Or Ted Fishman, China, Inc.: How the Rise of the Next Superpower Challenges America and the World, Scribner, 2005, [12] or T. R. Reid, The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy, Penguin, 2004. [13] Leading think tanks, scholars and government agencies have been addressing this topic for years. Arguing that articles should be deleted if references are added after the fact would mean disqualifying almost every article at wikipedia. All we do is synthesize available facts from reputable sources, such as books from major publishers. Furthermore, every article here is an essay and problems with "conclusions" are dealt with through editing. It amazes me that every crack-pot conspiracy theory can get an article here, such as Elvis Sightings, or every reality show participant, or that we have 100s of articles linked to Deep Space 9 (as if all that attention was not in itself OR), or that we can do a serious article on a marginal issue like Accusations of rape against United States presidents, which of course prominently features Pres. Bush based on an article in one newspaper, but a substantial topic with ramifications for the future of the world can not be discussed here, or at best its "facts" need to be swept away within the country articles. -- JJay 14:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • References have not even been added after the fact. I still see no indication of where these arguments come from; all we have is a list of facts and a huge "further reading" section that hasn't been used. This could be a worthy topic, but it needs to be done correctly. In particular, an article that focuses on speculation must meet higher standards than our average article that focuses on a well-understand, factual topic. OR is the most important policy here, and it has not been satisfied. Nor, in fact, does anyone seem to have a plan to satisfy it, except to verify all the individual minutae and point the reader to a slew of books we haven't read, which may or may not agree with the article. This is unacceptable. Melchoir 21:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in many of your minds, Wikipedia should go no without in depth acknowledgement of the power India, China and the European Union have. Re-read the articles, if you see anything un-mathematical or un-sourced that deals with the future then delete that bit. But what most of the article is, is an acknowledgement and list of the plus and minus points of a nation which will undoubtedly be helpful to the reader. Wikipedia can be the best NPOV source of information in relation to Potential Superpowers or it can just pretend to ignore this importan matter. The choice is for the voters!Nobleeagle 05:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the fact that even though it is entirely factually, it is still drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is an assessment of something that may happen in the future; this has no place in the Wikipedia. This could be a sub-section of India at the very least. This reads like someones report or an article from The Economist or Time magazine. If this article is encyclopedia material, maybe we could have an article on Future Millionaires- Me or more seriously, Future Wars- Fiji Vs. Eritrea (entirely supported my facts, of course). Delete, please. DevanJedi 06:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI doubt you'll get as many sources for Fiji and Eritrea when compared to the sources and obvious media speculation on China and India. Nobleeagle 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Maybe, but maybe if I try hard enough I will find something. The question is not whether facts are available or not, but whether using 'media speculation' to draw conclusions about the future is worthy of an article here. I am of Indian origin myself and believe that India has a good chance of becoming a super power; but my beliefs/hopes/informed speculation, backed up by facts, are not what the Wikipedia is about. DevanJedi 07:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AN IDEA : The wikicities [14] has no policy against "report/factual synthesis/etc". Does it? Theres a wiki in wikicity called futures [15] dealing with all kind of futururistic topics (crystal balling included), but its not geeky/wierdo things, rather very rational stuff. Maybe we can put these items there (provided its inhabitants give green signal) under geopolitics [16] or whatever and we can just provide links to them in superpower as external links. This way (1) Its not in wikipedia and hence no policy breaking and (2) real facts (and work) can survive. Any comments? An observation - I noticed in deletion statistics that this article has drawn the largest number of "Votes" & "comments" among others in last few days. That proves that the topic was contentious. That itself makes wiking fun :) Oneearth 12:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nichalp. Un-encyclopaedic and OR. And I know from experience that the existance of long lists of references is no indication of encyclopaedic content. The fact that pages are composed admirably (as these are) does not mean they are encyclopaedic. Matter should be culled out to these pages to craft sections, on each relevant country-page, of their superpower potential. ImpuMozhi 14:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research by novel interpretation. Moreover the talk pages make blatantly clear that the articles are OR. Moving them out of article space to save material for merging (e.g. into subpages of the respective country articles) would also be acceptable, but there does not appear to be any hope for these pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Is there a point to this article? What sense does it make to try and gauge a country's future status in the world by taking an inventory of its capabilities at a point in time and making predictions (referenced or otherwise) on how those capabilities may play out at a future point in time?? This has no place in an encyclopedia. AreJay 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Futures Wikicities as per Oneearth. These articles have serious flaws, but someone put a lot of work into them, and they belong in a place where nobody will want to delete them. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 16:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • STRONG KEEP:


So long as the requisite sources/citations are provided, I think we should keep the article on Russia's potential to become a superpower in the future. The article is well written and summarizes the key issues very well. Besides, I think that Russia indeed has a potential to become one of the superpowers IN THE LONG RUN. Russia arguably has more natural resources and raw materials than any other country in the world and if wise policies are pursued, its prospects for economic recovery may be very strong. If nothing else, it can already be called an 'energy superpower'. As far as its military and space technology is concerned, it currently is far more advanced than China or India. It still has the capacity to make first class weapons that can rival those manufactured in the West. Russia has territories spreading through 11 time zones. Its geography can allow it to become a major player in European, Central Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern Asian affairs simultaneously. Given these, it should be considered in a category separate from Japan who -in MILITARY terms is nothing more than a protectorate of the US- and Brazil which can only be considered a major REGIONAL power. There are major challenges lying ahead of Russia. Economy, demographics, territorial integrity and a demoralized army are just a few. However, so long as the country can have a strong and competent leadership,many of these challenges may be overcome, returning to Russia a status in international politics that it deserves. My suggestion is: DON'T REMOVE the article.

I suggest that you guys also consult these articles before reaching the final decision: 

    http://www.saag.org/papers17/paper1682.html
    http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=187

Stargate70: Keep. This article is great. It is informataive, and does not seem biased.

Comment This is why I'm saying we should keep the article. It is informative and most of it does not seem to be OR. But most importantly, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that can be one of THE best sources of information, and this article is part of this idea.Nobleeagle 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (Already voted delete) When these pages get deleted, shouldn't the "potential superpowers" section of the Superpower page be deleted also? As the same applies to that section then. Sijo Ripa 09:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Userfied to User:Saxcartel per a neat joining of WP:AUTO and WP:BITE. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sax Cartel[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC; possible vanity article created by User:Saxcartel. PROD contested. Sandstein 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; though the article contains considerable content, the band in question fails the notability standards set forth in WP:MUSIC. --Viridian {Talk} 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio and most possibly vanity. --Terence Ong 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not making it outside Bloomington, Indiana [17] Defunkier 13:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. "Living" person bio (although may be a hoax), no assertion of notability. kingboyk 02:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gladstone[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.  (aeropagitica)  12:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shop Network[edit]

Couldn't find anything on Google; therefore fails WP:V. Daniel Case 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete amounts to advertising.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel like I know about this, but the above voters make good points. Royboycrashfan 05:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A shopping channel with zero Ghits? QVC and HSN get millions. Difficult to believe this one even exists. Fan1967 06:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advert. I'd send it to the deepest pit just for using the phrase 'vertically integrated.' --die Baumfabrik 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe they should sell some google hits instead. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable and ad. --Terence Ong 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleté (looks just like delete but ata fraction of the price!) Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the editor meant Shop at Home Network? Delete and do not redirect (unlikely search term). Thatcher131 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the description doesn't match. This article (the one sentence there is) seems to be specifically a jewelry seller. Fan1967 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 based on criterion A7, band with no assertion of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine octopus[edit]

Lacks proper notability Forzan 06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 09:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American eyes[edit]

Non-notable company, about a company run by a 13 year old. I was tossing up between a speedy and afd. No google relevent results for "American Eyes" "Chris Hughes". Akamad 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Anna Bosworth[edit]

Someone's idea of a joke, and a play on Kate Bosworth. This person does not exist. MadJack 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. MadJack 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The image is probably a copyvio. Says the copyright holder allows it to be used for any purpose, but it's clearly a professional photo of a different person. --Descendall 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good catch. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax? Not so sure, might be an honest (if specatcularly clueless) mistake. Title is too far off for a redirect to be worthwhile. Just zis Guy you know? 15:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends LEGO Duplo[edit]

It's a LEGO set. That's it. Bonus: contains a spoiler warning(!). Toycruft. NOte: was PRODed, but tag removed. Calton | Talk 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is Legocruft. --Terence Ong 12:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the warning is that any five-year-old can spoil them by throwing them out of the upper windows of your house. DAMHIKIJKOK? Just zis Guy you know? 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toys have plots now? Seems awfully dramatic for something made of plastic. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Legocruft. I agree with User:Elkman, LEGO has become far too plot-oriented and distracted from its original idea. Bring back the old Space sets from the late 1980s, I say. JIP | Talk 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Legocruft. I have to agree with the sentiment above... what has happeened to Lego? --Kinu t/c 00:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I was young we had to carve our lego blocks out of rocks, with our bare hands. per nom. Eivind 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 consenus to delete it. Keep or merge, it's up to you guys. — Mar. 16, '06 [20:00] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Mario Bachand[edit]

This article is a massive copyright violation. I don't think that anything can be slavaged from it. I informed Mishkax28 of this on his talk page, but he is continuing to add what appears to be copyright material from Last stop, Paris: The assassination of Mario Bachand and the death of the FLQ, ISBN 0670881961, which he apparently wrote. Mishkax28 has admitted this on my talk page as well as the article talk page. The entire article violates the no original research policy and would also be a copyright violation as the book hasn't been released under GFDL. Descendall 08:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editor now claims that while he did write this information in his book, it is not a copyvio because he believes that the text falls under Canada's definition of "Fair Dealing." He also feels that it is not original research because although he is the one who wrote the book that he is using, it was published by Viking Press. --Descendall 01:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the author of the article owns the copyright on the book, he is free to license any or all of it it under the GFDL. One cannot violate a copyright one owns. So assuming that User:Mishkax28 is actually Michael McLoughlin, there is no copyright violation, and it's not even a case of fair dealing. Anyone can provide their own writing to Wikipedia as long as they agree to license it under the GFDL. However, this needs to be documented with the Wikimedia foundation. See: Wikipedia:Copyright problems for instructions on how to do this. On the other hand, the detailed narrative on the assassination does not really belong here. The author could submit it to Wikisource. Luigizanasi 06:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does he realise that anyone could print off what he writes here and not pay for it? I am suspecting that this might become an advert for the book (i.e. see this book for more info kinda thing). The article also needs to be wikified if it is kept. --Midnighttonight 08:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. Not a copyvio if the author can show he is the copyright owner. The first part is fine and a bit of the speculation could be added to it. the detailed narrative should go. Also, this is not original research. The original research was done when the book was published. However, Wikipedia is not the place for "... a forum for those who wish further clarification of the Bachand murder...". Luigizanasi 06:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FLQ and delete. Forget copyvio, this is a vanity effort by the principal editor to disseminate his work and as a result he has hijacked and mangled the article which is now ridiculously long and essentially unreadable (which at least obviates the attempted vanity in the first place, ha). I think the first part of it is good, and would be happy simply to see the rest excised, but one assumes this may spark an edit war. Hence, I suggest merge the content to the article on the FLQ and leave it at that. Eusebeus 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable person. If copyvio is beleived, tag it as such, and let that process run its course (but it sounds like the contributor is the copyright owner). This AFD is only to decide if we want an article on this topic. Also, I point out, that GFDL,prevents us from deleting if a merge is done. Also, I don't undertstand citing a potential edit war as a reason for whether we keep an article. --Rob 05:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. Homey 15:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to FLQ per Eusebeus. - Runcorn 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Flowers[edit]

The last debate, which drew very little discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Flowers) was ruled to be inconclusive; however, the band still appears to be way too non-notable; in addition, editor who created this article has also engaged in self-promoting behavior (by creating other non-notable articles -- Rusty Bottoms, Sex in the Sub-City, and The Dick Dialogues, all of which I speedied), further undermining any credibility in claims of notability (and the user has not participated in the editing of any other articles than ones revolving around himself). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Their site says theyre the greatest rock'n roll band in the world so maybe theyre modest because [19] says theyre the greatest indie-punk-garage band in the universe but its a small universe with 46 Googles for [20] Defunkier 13:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verifiable. AMG has never heard of them, which for an american band is a bad sign. Ned Wilbury 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the looks of their website and Mypsace, it appears they meet WP:MUSIC with a national tour. While the editor of the article may have made some poor articles, the subject has earned it. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted and external link added to David Firth.  (aeropagitica)  13:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devvo[edit]

No encyclopedic content. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 09:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, net-cruft. Ned Wilbury 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable person. JIP | Talk 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete,--Finest1 21:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only contribution to Wikipedia to date. --Kinu t/c 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete,-Andy. He's big in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.161.195 (talk • contribs)
    • User's only contribution to Wikipedia to date. --Kinu t/c 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article needs improvement. He is well known and notable in the UK – drw25 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, unencyclopedic blogcruft/VSCA. --Kinu t/c 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eivind 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, It's an important part of David Firth's site which is famous because of these things (Devvo and Salad Fingers etc). It should me merged with David Firth. 203.208.71.49 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keep it! It's totally legit!

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American athletes[edit]

I've nominated List of Muslim athletes, so I think it's only fair to nominate this one too. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rerum Causae[edit]

  • Delete: Non-notable college journal with almost no Google hits. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of non-notable? Ronald Dworkin, an extremely notable philosopher was involved and the journal gives a representation of what the LSE philosophy department is about, a department with past names like Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos and current ones such as Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall. The reason for no google hits is because the first edition is still at the printers. The journal will be distributed around the world and also published online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlcullinane (talk • contribs) .

    • Comment: For starters, I don't see where journals that haven't been released yet could be notable. If it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, it kinda falls under WP:NOR (maybe). Otherwise, general notability thoughts can be found at WP:N. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, LSE publications should not be dismissed as "non-notable college journal." Part of the ongoing attack here on knowledge workers and their products. Monicasdude 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This isn't an "attack" of anything. It's simply saying that the journal doesn't even exist yet so how could it possibly be notable? Sounds like something that definitely could be notable in the future - apparently even in the near future. But it's not now. Esp. since no one has ever written anything about it as evidenced by the total lack of Google representation. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball, also no verifiable sources cited. If it becomes notable and verifiable outside a club at the LSE, we can write an article on it then. FCYTravis 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eivind 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, if this comes up in a year to so when the publication has been around, I will almost certainly vote keep. Contact me then. JoshuaZ 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakia[edit]

A search engine which is currently in Beta and apparently scheduled for launch in Q3, 2006. WP:NOT a crystal ball. WP:NOT a resource for conducting business. WP:WEB seems to imply greater notability than is demonstrated here, for example a final release is implicit to my reading. Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, well argued by JzG, Alexa rank = 33,681, and that other search engine has not much about it. -- Samir ∙ T C 10:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nn-website, low Alexa rank. --Terence Ong 11:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per just zat nom, you know? Crystal ball + others. PJM 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Carrigan[edit]

Part of hoax by User:Connorx, related to Bruce Gladstone,Arkanuk Obesh, Namuh, and Latsaoc. Totally improbable that a 24 year-old is a respected medical doctor. Descendall 10:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRINCE2: Starting Up a Project[edit]

Delete: Seems to just be a duplicate of content in PRINCE2, with promises of more to come within 'weeks'. Fuzzie (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: we already have more extensive content in the main article, which could stand to undergo a rewrite before we expand it any further. Night Gyr 11:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. PJM 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, totally useless smaller less detailed version of a single section of PRINCE2 Gelsamel 13:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Kensson 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to the content that will, apparently, be added within three weeks. Hint: If you don't have content, wait until you do before creating a page. Stifle 17:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKHoliday (2nd time)[edit]

Delete nn-flash and advertisement for an online store —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-08 11:20Z

I'll add that the first time this was nominated, no reason was given because it was a disputed speedy. Gazpacho
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about fantasy-thoughts[edit]

This comment about the article was left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, listing the article on afd per the user's wishes. - Bobet 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think List_of_songs_about_fantasy-thoughts should be deleted since "Fantasy Thoughts" is extremely vague and broad. Also it serves no real purpose and is a very small article. Gelsamel 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nn-club. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CWC wrestling[edit]

Delete nn schoolboy fantasy, de-prod by anon ip--Porturology 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. non-notable--Blue520 11:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 12:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanite flag[edit]

Blatant POV-pushing bordering on vandalism, a spillover from a long-standing past edit conflict over Arvanites. This Albanian nationalist POV-pusher tries to present the Albanian flag as a flag used by Arvanites, the Albanophone but hellenized minority group in Greece. This is a blatant falsehood; Arvanites don't use this flag. In fact, during all the edit conflict of the last months, it was native Arvanites who consistently edit-warred against any link between their group and Albania. The same user has also created an article about an alleged Arvanite political party, the Arvanite Alliance ("founded in February 2006", cf. AfD nomination below); made disruptive unexplained reverts to Arvanites, and tried to create a POV fork of Arvanites under Arvanit. Lukas (T.|@) 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The poster has not provided a shread of evidence to suggest that this flag is used by the people he claims. In fact, he deliberately misleads by providing a link to the website of the Greek Arvanite Union, suggesting that he sourced it there. There is no such flag on that website. --Damac 12:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to actually vote delete as nominator. Oh, and thanks to Damac for noticing the lie about the image source, which I've also tagged now. Lukas (T.|@) 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to "vote" as nominator, for two reasons: a) if your nomination is worthwhile, it's more valuable than half a dozen "votes"; b) AfD is not a vote, and the tally doesn't matter. HTH, HAND. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 12:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bitola 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aldux 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pov hoax? talk to +MATIA 13:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Just zis Guy you know? 15:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, apparent hoax and POV fork. — TheKMantalk 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanite Alliance[edit]

Non-notable (and probably non-existant) "revolutionary party formed in February 2006" in Greece, by the same user (Arianitr (talk · contribs)) who brought us Arvanite flag (AfD page) and the POV fork of Arvanites at Arvanit (AfD page) Lukas (T.|@) 11:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. For the time being I've not AfD'd the POV fork mentioned above, and have instead just redirected it. The creator protested against my redirect but has so far not touched it. I'll nominate if the creator should decide to insist on his fork. Lukas (T.|@) 12:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. The poster has not provided a shread of evidence to suggest this organisation exists. A have tried to find reference to it on the internet, so far without success. --Damac 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, and I forgot to actually vote: delete. Lukas (T.|@) 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked you better before you "remembered". AfD is not a vote. Your nomination was decent, and there's no need to spoil it by some ugly bolded text that doesn't in any way increase the value of your words. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pov hoax? talk to +MATIA 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - terribly POV, and probably a hoax Aldux 13:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxish per Matia and Aldux; not notable; POV; original research. Bucketsofg 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sense_MC[edit]

Heavy bias, appears self-written, doesn't feel like it fits or should fit in Wikipedia (yet) User:Firien § 12:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirect to Arvanites and protect the redirect. The correct way to handle this is by discussion in Talk:Arvanites and, if appropriate, a sub-page of Arvanites. -- RHaworth 13:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvanit[edit]

POV fork of Arvanites. See these parallel AfD's for more background. I first redirected to proper article, but article creator reverted the redirect. delete, obviously. Lukas (T.|@) 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adonii[edit]

nn band, possibly vanity, contributer's only contributions are to make this page and link it to some others. The WP:DP deletion policy has no time for these kind of article. A user left a message on his talk page asking for evidence that it satisfied WP:BAND, and there was no reply. Whilst in general I agree that deleting new users' pages asap is a bad way to induct them into Wikipedia, this page and the user have had time to improve/assert notability and have not. Batmanand | Talk 12:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Pub[edit]

I've been to the Woodstock pub while I was in the US Navy, and while it is a wonderful place, it's not notable. Nothing important has happened there, and it's not considered a bastion of Bangkok (other than to the relatively small expat community). This is the stuff that Wikitravel was created for. While I'm going to recommend that the article be deleted here. As a side note, I highly recommend that the article be moved to Wikitravel, though it will have to be rewritten to accomodate Wikitravel's rules. み使い Mitsukai 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki per nom. Eivind 14:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete per nom. Cyde Weys 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been living in Bangkok for over 7 years. Woodstock is definately a notable place in the Bangkok expatriate scene. It appears in books. A song has been made about the pub. It is famous amongst the expats for its hamburgers. Wikitravel is not a wikimedia project. We cannot transwiki things over there. It is also notable that as opposed to most bars who disappear after a year or two. It has stayed on for over 20 years and is still continuing now, which is very very rare in Bangkok. Waerth 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is a violation of copyright to copy content from Wikipedia to Wikitravel, because the licenses are incompatible. Transwiki is therefore not a valid option. See the Wikitravel page for Wikipedians. Kusma (討論) 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I change my vote to Delete as nn. Eivind 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn barcruft. Eusebeus 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems an OK article to me, no reason to delete. Any bar that's been around for that long in Bangkok is notable just for the fact that it's been here so long. KayEss | talk 12:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notability is not important, what matters is verifiability. WP is not paper. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Don't know about that pub or its notability - pubs are not my kind of thing when I stay in Bangkok -, but I trust Waerth's expertise as a local, and as a long time wikipedian. And the article doesn't read like a ad for that pub either. andy 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Somewhat notable. -- Lerdsuwa 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as Lerdsuwa said. --media_lib 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm closing this as "keep". The article is reasonably well-written, doesn't read like an ad, and contains easily verifiable information (though someone over there should work on that). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE per request from author. Although the article was created by an anon IP, I am fairly certain User:Splang is the author because he is the only one to vote "keep". JIP | Talk 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptol[edit]

A programming language which does not establish his notability. There has been repeated spamming to the website in other articles like algorithm and programming language. Website has an Alexa rank of over 2 million and google turns up noting more than some directory listings. The SourceForge project only has one developer and no forum activity. —Ruud 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CS knowledge of nominating admin.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone (or two someones) wrote a fairly extensive Wikibook for Scriptol. [22] There exists scriptol.com, scriptol.net and scriptol.org. 280K Google hits. --Fang Aili 15:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC). Delete. Ruud convinced me this isn't notable. --Fang Aili 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the IP address it seems that the WikiBook was written by the same person who wrote the article and keeps adding linkspam from www.scriptol.com/net/org. Google only returns 212 unique hits. —Ruud 16:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I get "about 276,000" hits for a google search on scriptol, most of which are not directory listings. Lambiam 16:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • scriptol -wikipedia gives me 212 unique hits. Enties definitly look like webdirectory listings/download sites/perfect places to spam to me. —Ruud 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ruud, you are speaking about listings/downloads for a compiler but this is a settle for the Scriptol language. - Splang 08:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a new language, just entered at Sourceforge. The number of users grows up quickly; consider the language itself, not only the number of open source projects: interpreted programs are all open source, but Scriptol is compiled to binary executables. Scriptol will certainly be a major language in the future thanks to its features. - Splang 08:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside WP:NOT a crystal ball, I fail to see any features of this language that are even notable. Is it statically or dynamically and strongly or weakly typed? The 'new' control structures are hardly new. kotepho 09:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Simtel displays more than 10000 downloads for the Scriptol compiler. Click here and search for Scriptol. I don't have the number of downloads from other repositories. I don't know how Ruud has found the number of 212 but has he performed a such search with other entries in Wikipedia? - Splang 08:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are using Scriptol in our company, and it save us lot of typing! Good language. Michaelli 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michaelli (contribs) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Splang. --Fang Aili 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person (thanks anyway) doesn't know the policy, but I have read the document. It is said that the admin must be impartial. - Splang 06:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On my user page I have made a comparison of the first programming languages in the alphabetical list on Wikipedia. It is clear that if Scriptol is not notable, 90% of programming languages are not, and should be deleted also. And Scriptol is a new language, the number of users grows up day after day. - Splang 07:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give me a break you been spamming links to your site for several months now and there is still no evidence it is even becoming slightly notable. And Google only gives you 212 unique hits. Please come back when there's at least one major program written in Scriptol or when you can provide evidence that it has a significant userbase. —Ruud 12:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not my website. Your search method is surely limiting. On Yahoo, including all foreign languages and without Wikipedia, I got 34900 and 4300 on MSN. The point is to compare Scriptol with other programming languages at Wikipedia, as there is no absolute rule for notability. - Splang 10:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lost enough time here, I delete, forget this programming language, it is too bad. Use Mumps or Algol instead. - Splang 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article fails to describe the language properly and I do not see any evidence of major use. Given a proper encyclopedic article on the language and evidence of someone using it I would probably change my mind. It does not take much to make a new language and compiler that no one uses. kotepho 23:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of downloads is evidence of use. It is impossible to know a program is written in Scriptol, once compiled. I have just revised my judgment: forget Scriptol, it is not for you. - Splang 10:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I decided to delete it myself. Wikipedia is not so important, I have lost to much time here, and I am disgussed by this affair. - Splang 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've listed the now blank page to be speedied. Lambiam 18:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas characters[edit]

Redundant list, information is served better by Category:Christmas characters. There appears to be no added value by having a random list of fictional and non-fictional characters associated with Christmas. Some POV concerns have been raised a while ago regarding the applicability of the phrase characters, I'm not nominating for that reason though you may want to consider it. MLA 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no reason NOT to keep this list. Real people can be considered characters, too. Logophile 13:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category. I'm not a big fan of lists, but this list seems interesting enough to be kept. Fetofs Hello! 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most "Christmas characters" can be easily found via Christmas movie (which probably should be kept, maybe renamed) and in other Christmas-related articles. I don't see this serving as a useful list. PJM 14:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Christmas characters" just isn't a clear description of anything. JPD (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per JPD and the already present Category argument. Mallocks 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob MacDougall[edit]

WP:VANITY DanielPenfield 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los (single)[edit]

There was no Los single as far as I know (see [23] and [24]). ~MDD4696 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:V. This single doesn't show up on Discogs.com. Googling the third track, "Amour (Taste of love remix)" brings up a whopping 40 hits—and the few of those that are in English suggest that it's a fan-made remix. I get similar results for the other alleged remixes. If this single exists (and I agree with MDD that it probably doesn't), I don't see any verifiable information about it. - Rynne 15:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; unverifiable. PJM 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, as above Just zis Guy you know? 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its no los Defunkier 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lodsworth[edit]

Non-notable village, page aparently created to advertise a pub. First edit by author BrownHairedGirl 15:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I added a link to the village council's website and a {{Sussex-geo-stub}} but I don't think that there is enough of note about the place to make it worthy of an article. The pub doesn't appear to be noteworthy either, although I am happy to be corrected on this.  (aeropagitica)  17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I am open to correction and have changed my opinion as a result of the following comments.  (aeropagitica)  21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a link to a map and another detail. As far as I recall, the precedent is that any real geographic places are kept (from memory, American communities with populations of zero or one have been kept...). Anyway, Lodsworth's got a village hall, a pub and a church! Sliggy 18:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sliggy.Obina 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sliggy, have seen many articles about less populous villages around Wikipedia. Mallocks 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Like aeropagitica, I'm swayed by he discussion, but not entirely towards a "keep". As it stands, it's still functioning primarily as a plug for the pub, and I can't see any way out of that save adding more detail. But this is a more general issue, and I feel I'm too new to Wikipedia to cast a vote on how to handle such a situation, to which I'm sure there are precedents. BrownHairedGirl 22:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we've far smaller places here. I added another few relevant words to the article. Grutness...wha? 07:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundsgood audio book[edit]

Transparent spam; whether or not the company itself is notable, this is not; we already have a proper audio book article. Delete. See also its twin spam article. Fourohfour 15:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audible audiobook[edit]

Transparent spam; whether or not the company itself is notable, this is not; we already have a proper audio book article. Delete. See also its twin spam article. Fourohfour 15:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is already an article about Audible.com. Mushroom (Talk) 15:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant spam, which really should be a speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bucketsofg 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an ad, Sounds like an ad, Smells like an ad... Inventm 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Blatant advertising. Plus there's already a real article at Audible.com. Plus it's not even a real trademark: it's a a statement of fact whether or not an audiobook is "audible". Peter Grey 08:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  13:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Maltsev[edit]

  • Delete. Appears to be a vanity page. Not notable in Russia. KNewman 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom abakharev 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of meeting WP:BLP or other applicable guidelines, 160 Googles indicates that verifiability from reliable sources is likely to be a problem for the English Wikipedia. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with KNewman. Montco 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to verification. Seems to be notable to me. JoshuaZ 03:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Durin 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Che Guevara Birthplace in Rosario, Argentina[edit]

Delete Artlicle is repeating information contained in 2 other articles, Rosario, Argentina article and Ernesto Che Guevara article. Jpeguero 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rosario - Fan1967 16:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep if it is op--Durin 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)en as a museum (which doesn't seem to be the case) otherwise redirect. Hawkestone 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Polaris999, the author and only editor apart from the AfD nom, has now blanked the article, requested deletion in the edit summary, and added an {{empty}} speedy tag. Looks like speedy as G7 apples. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  (aeropagitica)  13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intoonfada[edit]

A neologism for the recent cartoon controversy. I brought it here because the links certify some notability, but I don't think this is anywhere near common enough to warrant its own article. Google is inconclusive to me. Delete. Grandmasterka 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A nickname that one blog used once is not enought for an article here. Bertilvidet 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrestling Voice[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are several wrestling sites on the internet, and this one has Alexa rank 1,050,937. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if I were to assume a good article could be written about this site, this isn't it. This is pure advertising. --djrobgordon 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Ned Wilbury 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this wrestlecrap. Oh, wait... Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle CASE 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:VSCA. -- Krash (Talk) 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-rubbing. The website does not appear to be significant enough at the moment and Wiki is not infinite. SilkTork 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. McPhail 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of India[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After following the link, it appears the site's actual title is "Voice of Dharma." Googling that phrase gets 9200 hits, almost none of which are references to that site. Seems non-notable to me, but if kept it should be moved to "Voice of Dharma." --djrobgordon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete voiceofdharma.org is in the 5 millions of traffic according to alexa, therefore it is nn MadCow257 16:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wrong title, and hard to substantiate any claim of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, npov violation, self-advertisement, et al. Leppy 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Arthur Harris[edit]

I prodded this but the tag has been removed without explanation. It's a vanity page created by someone who writes as a hobby, has few Ghits and apparently no Amazon rank.

  • Doesn't matter. Review the guidelines on notability and biography to see what the Wikipedia consensus is on which topics qualify for inclusion. Thatcher131 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-published author of two books whose only reviews come from review farms. --djrobgordon 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author is non-notable at this time. Few GHits, no Amazon rank. — TheKMantalk 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity. Fan1967 16:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-published author, autobiography, altogether a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 16:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author's literature doesn't appear in the British Library bibliographic database. WP:BIO and WP:N violations refer.  (aeropagitica)  16:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity press, no Amazon sales rank. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. -ikkyu2 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; vanity. Bucketsofg 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! "Rewind To Ancient Times" has sales ranking on Amazon in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom.--65.94.195.206 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,383,973"; "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,943,352"  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Herzog an award winning author publishes with the same company. Are we in the business to attack book publishing companies here? --65.94.195.206 22:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No! Never attack. However, publishing with a reputable publishing house can be a criterion for notability; publishing houses such as Little, Brown; Random House; Penguin Putnam; etc., excercise editorial discretion, which approbation is taken as a surrogate marker of encyclopedic notability. As clearly shewn vis-a-vis their website, publication with iUniverse is a surrogate marker of no more than a pocket ready to part with its heavy ladings of gold. Other evidence of notability, then, must be put forth; the books prima facie are rubbish until reputably sourced otherwise. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reconsider the "r" word. Certainly the existence of self-published books are not, by themselves, evidence of encyclopedic notability; nothing further need be said. Thatcher131 01:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said what I meant to say in the first place, certainly. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of Global Books in Print and Galnet's Literature Resource centre. Two books on Amazon with sales ratings in the millions and short stories published in local Canadian newspapers. Doesn't meet WP:BIO for mine and lack of verifiability as well. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, vanity. An author isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they've published books; criteria for distinguishing notable from non-notable authors still apply. Wikipedia is not a PR database. Bearcat 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what distinguishes notable from non-notable authors? Sales or content? Just recently there was an article in the Toronto Star about authors that were selling smut out of the trunks of their cars and making hefty dollars. Are they to be noted on this site or denied?--65.94.199.80 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They would have to be denied if they didn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's not necessarily "sales vs. content" — there are the far more relevant matters of verifiability, fame, critical evaluation as being an important influence on a particular literary genre or scene, literary awards, etc., to consider. An author selling smut out of the trunk of their car might conceivably manage to sell a not-entirely-unrespectable number of copies of their book, but how could Wikipedia verify their sales or their importance? Again: Wikipedia is not a PR database; it's an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to reflect things and people that are already considered important or noteworthy by objective, verifiable sources; it is not to help promote things and people that want to become acknowledged as important or noteworthy. If you want a free webpage to help you promote and sell your work, go to Myspace — Wikipedia is not the place for it. Bearcat 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the "Myspace" suggestion. I will check it out.--70.48.46.56 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomicon[edit]

Delete. A poem written by a poet whom the article declares to be non-notable ("little known"). "Chass Kinski" shows up twice in Google, on WP and a mirror site. Nareek 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not actually complete bollocks then certainly profoundly non-notable. The reference to Extra Pound's arse leads me to believe the former. Just zis Guy you know? 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, references, citations or critical appraisals supplied mean that even if the poet and the poetry are real then they are very likely non-notable. WP:BIO violation for the poet and WP:BALLS violation for the poetry.  (aeropagitica)  16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. His supposed publisher Black Sparrow doesn't seem to know of him and Abdullah something Contemplating the Dilation of Ezra Pound's Asshole does not inspire confidence! Dlyons493 Talk 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Bukowski-inspired bollocks. dbtfztalk 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Chairman S. Talk 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surface 10S10N[edit]

I have no idea is this is patent nonsense, or just a rather sloppy article. I'm nominating it for deletion as nonsense, if it is in fact that. CrypticBacon 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as non-notable, probable advertisement. Sandstein 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, definitely ad. I deleted a scanned-in full-page ad for a cruise line. Fan1967 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unintelligible (and if it was intelligible I suspect it would indeed be spam) Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the text means something, the title doesn't. JPD (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was unable to find any context. The stub tag says this is about a "specific ship", but the content reads more like sci-fi. Perhaps it's about a spaceship of some kind? Is this in a book or a computer game? JIP | Talk 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it was some sort of speed boat, but I'm not sure. If you can't even figure out what an article's about, that's a bad sign. Fan1967 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "what-in-the-what-what" Eivind 03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment belongs in Bad jokes and other delete nonsense. Eivind 03:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not interesting enough for BJAODN. It's just a really badly written article. I suspect the author has limited English. Fan1967 14:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentslayer[edit]

Serpentslayer is a fantasy / action novel written by Australian author Zak Ford, due for publication in late 2006. 400 google hits, most of which seem to be the name used as an id on various message boards. Sorry, but this is not notable. Delete. bikeable (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough, at least not yet. JPD (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article can be written again once the book actually comes out. As of now, nobody knows of it. The book's "official" site lists only 70 hits, anyways. Zelmerszoetrop 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball. Zak Ford is not a well-known author in Australia. A search of an Australia New Zealand newspaper database came up with five newspaper articles with none verifying him as a fantasy author. I suspect that this will be a first novel. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE THE ARTICLE DUE TO UNVERIFABLE RESEARCH -Husnock 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in the Boy Scouts[edit]

This article is a fork from Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, has no references, is very POV, and only cites a couple of cases from the entire world. It does not deserve its own article. It should be merged back into the controversies article. It also talks about story telling, which is not violenece. Rlevse 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The attempt to delete this article strikes strongly of article ownership issues and censorship. When this material was listed on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, it was blasted from all sides as being "inappropriate" for the text of that article. Therefore, the material was moved to its own article. Reading the nomination, the user states that the material does not "deserve to be on Wikipedia". This is against everything Wikipedia stands for. The nomination, itself, appears to be over content dispute and lack of references, both of which are highly invalid reasons to delete an article. As far as the size of the article, there is no stipulation that articles have to start big. Plenty of articles start as stubs with little or no information. POV is also not an issue...since the article states several occurences and doesn't give private opinions like "the Boy Scouts encourages violence". Last but not least, this article should be given a chance instead of atatcked and voted for deletion by those who don't like what it has to say. -Husnock 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't say it didn't deserve to be on Wiki, but rather that it didn't warrant its own article. Your assumptions about my motivations are SORELY WRONG, but discussing it with you would likely be pointless. Your scope on this article is too focused and narrow (one main incident and an allusion to the HJ and German Scouts)...Rlevse 16:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My allusion to that opinion was the statement: "It does not deserve its own article" As far as the article being narrow with two incidents, those are the only one's I know about. As stated on the article talk page, I did not intend to write a lengthy article off the bat, but rather start one and let others contribute. My entire annoyance with this nomination, was that the article was not even given a chance, but nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after creation. -Husnock 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment An article name change may do a world of good too. Rlevse 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Forks from main article that don't have enough material to be other than a stub are highly frowned upon. There is far more violence in the military and yet is there an article on that? Also, how are ghost stories violence? THis is what prompted my proposal for a name change, but I haven't thought of a good one yet. You do really need references for all this. You may want to save the text, work it offline, come up with a better title, reference it, and then start an article in this area. It that is doable, but I don't see this one going far. If you want to go that route, I'll even help you.Rlevse 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like original research, no references, should be merged back into the parent article if were going to keep it. Mike (T C) 16:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back per nom. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the main article, and creating a separate one isn't a way to get around discussing it properly. JPD (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and verify. Violence has taken place in the scouts and Husnock speaks the truth. Even if outright violence did not occur in the scouts, hazing does, and this is one of the lesser known issues of scouting. But I welcome everyone to come in, cite references and just make this article to be good. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, undesirable fork. We already have an article for this. Ned Wilbury 17:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What article could support this? When it was on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, the material was blanket deleted at least three times. That was the prime reason this was moved it its own article. -Husnock 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my 17:19 comment.Rlevse 17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. An article of this nature, because it is inflammatory, must cite sources. It's not censorship; it's a matter of being responsible and encyclopedic. If sources can be cited, then improvement is needed. Slowmover 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An isolated incidence of bullying does not merit an entire article on the "Violence in the Boy Scouts". Also, the Hitler Youth is not the Boy Scouts, and almost all campfire tales everywhere are about serial killers, ghost stories, and the such. POV fork. — TheKMantalk 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, original-research POV fork. -- Krash (Talk) 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that the mass of people will win here, and this promising article will get deleted. In any event, to answer those three points above, the article verifibility is already being discussed on the talk page. A police report or other offical document would be all that would be needed. Original research is very questionable, since at least two users have claimed knowledge of one of the events in the article and, again, talk page discussions have been made ot get offical sources. POV Fork is the most questionable of all, since the definition is an article created about the same subject as another due to content dispute. There is no other article about violence in the Boy Scouts and the material was removed over and over again from controversies about the Boy Scout with users claiming it didn't belong there. Deleted the article may be, but deleted it should not. -Husnock 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks like that the mass of people will win here..." Yup. That's usually the case. -- Krash (Talk) 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful, sourced info with Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, per nom. PJM 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America. Merge only if the information can be sourced. Nobody's saying that this is undoubtedly false or doesn't belong in Wikipedia's articles about the Boy Scouts of America. With controversial topics, though, things must be sourced. Information on Wikipedia, no matter how controversial, is kept — given that it is notable and verifiable. It is up to the writer of the information to provide legitimate sources. "Two users have claimed knowledge of one of the events in the article." That is not a verifable, legitimate source for our purposes here. If you can provide a police report, that's great; a police report will certainly back up the fact that it happened and no one will have any right to delete it. However, you must find more sources to verify that events like these are what led to Youth Protection, back up the quotes from adult leaders, prove the explusions, and the like. We can't have Wikipedia editors drawing their own conclusions from the facts or personal research and experience, however ugly it may be. If the material was deleted in the past, it is likely that it was written without any way to back it up. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and only merge in whatever can actually be sourced. Staxringold 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and possibly merge (if sourced) per Rebelguys2. Bucketsofg 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourceable information as per PJM. Mallocks 20:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Real. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and a note to "merge" voters - there's nothing verifiable here worth saving. Cyde Weys 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One unverified incident does not an article make. --InShaneee 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clean up hazardous waste, salt earth. Unverified original "research" which article author admits is based on personal observation and vague memories of tabloid TV shows. Monicasdude 23:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- A few isolated incidents of violence aren't notable, even if they were verifiable, which they're not. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This essay lacks all sources; I just removed the paragraph on Germany - the few lines on this were totally speculative and didn't even mention any incidents in German Scouting. --jergen 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the the essay Alecmconroy wrote at Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America; in short, unverifiable. Melchoir 08:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Melchoir MLA 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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!) 10:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platycrat Party (United States)[edit]

No assertion of importance, no sources, created by (apparent) founder. Google search of "Platycrat" turns up nothing. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "political party" with no sources? Bullocks. Delete. Ned Wilbury 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like something User:Myselfalso made up. — TheKMantalk 17:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure fiction. Slowmover 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete nonsense. -- Krash (Talk) 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFT Bucketsofg 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm actually running as a write-in candidate in the 105th Pennsylvania District. Whether or not it's chose to be deleted is your choice, but it is a legitimate political party, as it has a--albeit small--group of members. --myselfalso 21:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article also mentions Canada. It was not a valid party in the most recent federal election in Canada in January 2006. There are no Google hits. There does not appear to be a website. I suggest that without a source to prove its existence, it remains a solid delete.Slowmover 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be real, but if it's not covered by sources, I don't see how there can be an encyclopedia article on it. Ned Wilbury 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can attest to seeing signs of this party's existence throughout this district, although I am surprised to see that no official website seems to have been found. Perhaps they are under an unassuming URL, I'll do a check to see if the domain itself has even been purchased. But this small party does have some impact around at least the rurals of the area. Gorosaurus 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this page should be kept. I firmly believe in maintaining third parties in America and, while this one is clearly small, I see no reason to attempt to eliminate what may be its greatest current chance to grow into a greater aspect of the American democratic system; that is, existence in a recognized source of nonpartisan information. At the very least, the search should be continued for the party's website, if it exists. Even if there isn't one, I don't see that as a reason to remove it. It's certainly not offensive and may actually spur political discussion which can only be a good thing. --Mkw001 15:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. This article is without sources and otherwise unverifiable. Therefore, it should be deleted. Where is the "105th Pennsylvania District"? What is the name of the supposed person running for this party? etc. etc. Slowmover 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe you're misconstruing what Mkw001 was saying. The Platycrat Party (United States) on Wikipedia would give exposure on a wider basis to allow the party to grow. That having been said, I do know that Wikipedia is not a forum. The reason I put the Platycrat Party on Wikipedia is because the party is a legitimate grassroots organization, founded in 2000 and fielding its first candidate in 2006, granted it's a write-in. --myselfalso 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One begins to wonder when all these assertions will be supported by some facts (who is that candidate again?). Until then .... Slowmover 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look on the Platycrat Party (United States) article, you can see that it says who is running and where the district is located in Pennsylvania. --myselfalso 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does this party have anythign to do with this? [25] Lurker 16:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows? That link is "socialist platypus" not "platycrat", the pictorial symbol is not the same, and it's a Geocities site, which is a personal web host, so I think it doesn't count.Slowmover 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please come back in a year or when it gets someone elected. Stifle 00:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no google hits outside of Wikipedia, no other sources mentioned. -- Ravn 14:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't buy 'no Google hits' because Google takes longer to crawl sites. Granted, Yahoo! has yet to make a non-Wikipedia hit, but that will change. --myselfalso 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, we don't really need to be racing ahead of Google on this one. Slowmover 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 partial copyvio and blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 17:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio7designs[edit]

commercial enterprise advertisement only EncMstr 16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio from [26], as well as blatant ad. Fan1967 17:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karamja[edit]

Fancruft, very non-notable Island on RuneScape would be over 100 articles if every island/city was included as an article. J.J.Sagnella 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but it looks like there's a bunch of other equally-crufty RuneScape-related articles. Ned Wilbury 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to Point the Finger at the ones in Question? J.J.Sagnella 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fictional island, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fairly notable island within RuneScape. 20,000+ GHits. — TheKMantalk 17:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ned and per nom MadCow257 17:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Eivind 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fancruft", "gamecruft", or other "cruft" is a poor reason for deleting something, when it actually does have notability to a rather large amount of people. Now ask yourselves, do people find this article useful and informational? I'd say so. Is this article hurting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a factual source of information? Absolutely not! It's well written, doesn't go overboard in the so-called "cruftiness" in any way. This is for all you deletionists out there: Please consider looking into the notability of a subject, looking into its value as an article, rather than simply pasting "*Delete per nom. -- ~~~~" into its AfD. — TheKMantalk 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can clearly see that there is a lot of information about the subject. Its a notable island within RuneScape, and is a useful article. The Warcraft Portal has articles as specific as Bind on Equip with about 3 lines if info. I dont see that up for deletion. This is one of maybe 3 or 4 location articles that do/will exist within the RS Portal. Not every location will have its own page. The only reason this one does is because it is notable, has plenty of information, and is useful. It is also, as mentioned above, well written, structured and wikified. May I also remind you that this is a discussion, not a vote, so putting "Delete per nom" probably wont be counted when it comes to closing the article. Otherwise, we could just make a list of "Keep"s and "Delete"s. - • The Giant Puffin • 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. This belongs in a game guide. Mention at RuneScape, but nothing more. Stifle 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not belong in a game guide. You cant give a guide about a location. Plus there are several video game-related pages that are more like game guides, and they are not up for deletion. RuneScape is also being broken up into sub-pages because of its long length (hence the clean up notice on the page) - • The Giant Puffin • 12:19, 12 March 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. Flowerparty■ 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahibarn[edit]

Not notable Tc61380 16:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Raja Ahibarn was the historical founder of a merchant class/community in India. — TheKMantalk 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 hits, both on wikipedia MadCow257 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shouldn't be about Google hits, this is about the founder/leader of a 10th century merchant class/community. — TheKMantalk 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but information has to be verifiable. The article contains no references, and with nothing on the web, it doesn't seem suitable for wikipedia MadCow257 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say merge to Barnwal except that this single-sentence article is already there. Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, until references are added. — TheKMantalk 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why so much enthusiasm for biting non-Anglo newbies? And if Wikipedia is going to limit itself to repeating whatever information's alreasy online, it's a tired waste of time. Monicasdude 22:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -- Krash (Talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CompanyClick[edit]

Was de{{prod}}ed by an anon IP without explanation. Seemingly unnotable website which fails to meet WP:WEB. YASNS. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN & advertising. Slowmover 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Alexa ranking. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 17:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like just another case of linkspamming to me. --Elkman - (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert, and we should consider speedily deleting articles whose "prod" notices are removed. Tempshill 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, non-enclyclopedic Inventm 02:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herminio Bautista[edit]

Unverifiable three line stub about a 'minor actor'. The only Heminio Bautista I can find is the president of a university in Batangas; there is no proof that these are the same people. The actor has no IMDB page. Was prodded originally, but tag removed (rightly, as article asserts notability, despite no way of verifying information). Fails WP:V, ergo, delete Proto||type 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to non-verifiability. Ned Wilbury 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not verifiable. -- Krash (Talk) 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails IMDB & Google tests (about 100 hits for multiple persons with that name, including one for an apparent Filipino director). NN and/or unverifiable. Slowmover 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, changing my vote to keep but only if Herminio is really "Arsenio", and some explanation of why the name is different. Slowmover 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Why does almost every article about non-English-vernacular popular culture get tagged for deletion by blinder-wearing editors who check only English-language-based resources? Monicasdude 22:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a systemic problem because of who the majority of editors are on the English wiki. We can't really apologize for that. We're doing the best we can, and the number of hoaxes that show up here daily force quick decisions to be made. If sources were routinely cited, this problem would be significantly smaller.Slowmover 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's because they are frequently unverifiable. There is no record of a Herminio Bautista. Arsenio Bautista, who is verifiable, is not verifiably the same person. This is nothing to do with systemic bias. Proto||type 13:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. The unverifiability also underlines lack of notability.— TheKMantalk 17:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Butch Bautista has been a figure in Filipino film since the 1950s. One of the stars of the Lo Waist gang series. His IMDB page can be seen here [27]. I would also be fascinated to know on what basis the nom has determined that this is a "minor actor", particularly since he has failed to verify his existence. -- JJay 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new information. Looks like this article should be moved to Arsenio Bautista. — TheKMantalk 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I found "Arsenio" previously, but who is "Herminio". Also think this page might be better placed on a different language Wiki than English. Slowmover 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't seriously be suggesting that we not have articles on people who achieved something in the non-english speaking world? That seems quite biased to me. There is more out there than US/UK/Australia. -- JJay 18:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I was just thinking "aloud" that there may be much more material from Spanish/Tagalog/other sources to develop an article on one of the other Wikis that could then be translated for the English wiki. If you think it can be developed here, fine.Slowmover 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wild and ill-thought-out accusations of systemic bias are both nonproductive and deflecting this AfD from the main issue, which is that this article is unverifiable. It says right there below the editing window that content must be verifiable. Yes, there is someone called Arsenio 'Butch' Baustista. There is no verifiable proof that Heminio Bautista is the same person. Believe me, I hunted for it. Proto||type 13:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out his IMDB page, which you said didn't exist. Compare the films with our article. Compare the nickname. However, you haven't explained why you felt entitled to call Butch Bautista a "minor actor" when you can't even verify he exists. The Filipino film industry is tricky and requires research before making these types of noms. We should be talking about how to improve our coverage of film industries and production in non-English speaking countries, not how to destroy it. -- JJay 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Once the AfD is withdrawn, I will move this article to Arsenio Bautista, as I believe the informaiton in the article refers to Arsenio, and not Herminio Bautista. Perhaps JJay and Monicasdude would like to lend their in-depth knowledge of the Filipino movie industry to trying to improve the quality of the coverage of this area. Trying to apply one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia in the face of hyperinclusionism is hardly Wikilawyering. Proto||type 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. pschemp | talk 08:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South African National Census of 2001[edit]

Article contains no relevant information whatsoever in any of its versions.(— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinesis 14 (talk • contribs) )

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Content appears to be a copyvio in any case. Humansdorpie 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noteworthy event. (Rewrite, obviously, if it is a copyvio.) Peter Grey 08:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The copyvio text had already been removed, and I've replaced it with an informative stub. Deletion of this useful page would be inappropriate. Zaian 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The census is notable for being the source for essentially all South African population data in use today, and for the large publicity surrounding it at the time. (They even had a census data collector come into the Big Brother house!). Of course, the article as it stands needs a lot of work; nonetheless, we are supposed to vote on the notability of the topic rather than the quality of the existing article (or so I am led to believe). htonl 20:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 in this AfD, in the state it's in it just needs to be closed. W.marsh 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrodollar warfare[edit]

  • Keep. This topic won a Project Censored award. If it were censored from wikipedia, that would be too ironic. Besides, it is a very valid viewpoint - it should be merged into petro-dollar discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.j.ploughman (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This is a very valid theory and, if nothing else, ought to be merged with the 'petrodollar' section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.124.92.163 (talk • contribs) . – user's only edit.
  • looks like the same editor as the one above?-csloat 18:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not, they are new, and seems to be made for this occasion. Therefore should not be counted. A human 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased). As pointed out on its talk page, most of the google hits for this page point to advertisements for this guy's book or to blogs. On Lexis/Nexis I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase. Not one. A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase. A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing. The only result on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times." This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar. csloat 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And a comment regarding notability: the publisher's blurb on the author (William R. Clark) asserts notability as "manager of performance improvement at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine" (e.g. Amazon.com), though the actual publisher's website makes no such claim and a google search finds scant evidence of such a position that's not referenced to Clark. That sounds quite fishy to me. Note that this William R. Clark is not the UCLA Immunologist nor the Iowa State ecologist. - Rynne 18:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is both original research and a conspiracy theory. Clearly not encyclopedic.—thames 19:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a conspiracy theory, but that is irrelevant. Trying to verify if the theory is incorrect however is original research. Journalists, a concressman, a professor and university lecturs have, as can be seen in external links section, written on the matter. Petrodollar warfare gives 57,300 Google hits therefore is is notable. So by definition of Wikipedia policy it must be kept. A human 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I get about 24,400, all ads for the book or blog nonsense. Please see the more accurate searches I indicated above. See my note on the talk page also -- google hits are a poor measure of notability, esp. when there is nothing in scholarship or books on this topic.--csloat 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fringe theory.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think a move to a new title is needed, but the theory itself is actually notable. I ran into this whole thing on a website about hybrid cars and gas prices. I then came to Wikipedia to read about petrodollars and Iraq's move to Euros in 2000. Then I ran into this article. The theory can be found in many journal articles as can be seen in the "External Links" section. So a new title is needed because this is not just W.R.Clark's invention, but a delete is not warranted. --Mihai 04:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory cannot be found in any journal articles, at least not in any that have undergone peer review (or, for that matter, any that are in the EBSCOHost database, which includes many magazines and non-peer-reviewed journals as well). If this theory has another, more accepted, name that is used in journal articles about it, what is it? --csloat 06:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SCloat You seem to be unaware of wikipedia guidelines. Peer-review has NOTHING to do with whether the article should be kept. The wikipedia guideline for notability even mentions conpiracy theories and having only 1-2 proponents of the idea as valid. As long as journalist and bloggers, etc. picks up the idea it is noteworthy. Go read the guidelines and change your vote. Stop mentioning peerreviewing as it is irrelevant, to reseach if the idea has any real merit is to do original research. A human 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No; original research occurs when you use wikipedia to showcase theories that are otherwise not notable. Quoting Ron Paul and claiming that the quote has something to do with "petrodollar warfare" is original research. That is what is happening here. I don't mind this idea being mentioned in an article about ludicrous conspiracy theories believed by only one person or something, but there is no way this "theory" deserves its own page. Peer review, as well as mention in newspapers or other print media, is a much better way to measure notability than google hits. Again, if this theory has another name that is more easily found in such sources, let's hear about it. The fact that those defending the theory can't suggest such a name indicates that it probably doesn't have one. I agree with the MLA comment below that Oil imperialism theories would be a good place to mention this if it must be mentioned.--csloat 18:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
R.Paul talks about Dollar hegemony and how that leads and already has lead or been part of a rationale for warfare. Now he may not have called it Petrodollar warfare but that is the same as this Clack is saying. They both argue that oil producers switching to selling in Petroeuro will hurt USD and therefore US might force them to return to USD. Clark just 'invented' a word to go with it. That how I see it. Listening to Rons speech it become obvious they are saying the same thing. It is not a scientific theory, in fact it implies that the US government is lying about rationales for wars, by definition it is a conspiracy theory. So why all that fuss about peer-reviews? It is a fringe theory, but wikipedia says that "The following are not original research: 6. The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories" and google hits and the various external links confirms that. Wikipedias guideline for fringe theories states: "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced in at least one major mainstream publication or by another mainstream group or individual.", and if a rep. congressman from texas is not a mainstream individual, what is? Is this a discussion about the term or the content, I do not care about the term, but the theory does deserve its own article. A human 01:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been called by various names like Petrodollar vs. Petroeuro, economic perspective of war, oil currency geopolitics, financial subtext of the oil conflict and economic warfare. Alan Oldfield 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see "petrodollar warfare" on a single one of those pages you linked. You are referring to a number of different ideas and theories here and none of them refer back to the William R. Clark theory this page is about (save the link to Clark himself that you included). The conflation of these various ideas constitutes a bizarre form of original research -- come on; Zbigniew Brzezinski and Michael Klare support the same theory? That's ludicrous. We already have pages on petrodollar and oil imperialism theories where Clark's nonsense can go, but to conflate the conspiracy theories with the legitimate theories of everyone who has ever mentioned the role of resources in warfare is not an encyclopedia's job.--csloat 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It might have been a neologism a decade ago, but is now quite common with supporters and opponents on both left and right. With 42,000 links on Google, it has long passed out of the fringe phase. It is reminiscent of neoconservative. People thought it was a post-9/11 neologism when in fact it has been common in libertarian circles for decades before being adopted in the mainstream press. Carltonh 23:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. This is a term that is spreading very quickly at the moment because of all the press its getting. Especially if Iran is attacked as predicted, Petrodollar warfare will be as common as "neoconservative." So at most, the deletionists will succeed for a few months and then the term will become common enough that all the arguments against it will be no longer debatable. You can't make it fall out of favor like the term World War IV just by avoiding a Wikipedia article. Carltonh 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? All the evidence suggests that it is not "quite common" among anyone except people advertising Clark's book. Compare "neoconservative" in hits when you go to google scholar or lexis/nexis (where "petrodollar warfare" has zero).--csloat 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and rewrite. I understand that for some reason csloat has a problem with the model. Probably a conflict with some deeply hold convictions. My apologies but this does not make it less relevant. Conversly it means it is important enough if somebody is fighting it with such fervor. What comes to the notion that the afformentioned people only some mention the theory with the same name does not mean that they are not talking of the same model. If somebody offers it a better name then lets rename it. --Alan Oldfield 11:14, 10 March 2006 (GMT+2)
The classical steps a theory goes through: Ignore. Ridicule. Fight against it. Accept it as self evident. 194.204.49.249
  • LOL... Thanks, but if I need psychoanalysis I'll consult a professional. If you think Brzezinski and Klare and Chomsky and Ron Paul and William Clark (whoever the latter is) are all articulating the same theory, please point to some specific claims. Everyone who talks about "resource wars" (Klare's term) is not saying the same thing. But that's neither here nor there; my point is, we already have oil imperialism theories (poorly titled, but better than "petrodollar warfare") for this kind of stuff, and we don't need a name that makes it sound like a science fiction movie. It would be interesting to email any of these people (besides Clark) and ask them how they felt about being named as a proponent of a theory of "petrodollar warfare." As I said when I suggested deleting this page to begin with, I think this is a vanity site showcasing an otherwise unknown scholar's work.--csloat 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Colin Nuan: "The first country to actually make the switch was a very important oil exporter indeed: Iraq, in November 2000. Before the war in Iraq began, some observers, myself included, argued that this might well be a major reason for the US desire to invade and the strong Franco-German opposition to the invasion. Corroborating evidence included the apparent influence which loyalty (or lack thereof) to the dollar seemed to have on the US attitude towards other OPEC members. Iran had been talking of selling its own oil for euros and was subsequently included in George Bush's 'axis of evil'."
*Howard Fineman: "the disagreement had little to do with the French calls for the search for weapons of mass destruction to resume and for sanctions to remain in place until the search was complete. Instead, it was mainly about the dollar vs the euro."
*Krassimir Petrov: "At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:" --194.204.49.249
  • Keep but rename, or something.
(1) Perhaps it is does really only reference one book, but many books have their own page on Wikipedia - since it is a collaborative article and not written BY the author, it cannot be considered a "vanity page". An argument could be made, however, for the article to specifically be renamed to refer to the book in question.
(2) Yes, "petrodollar warfare" seems to be a Wiki-neologism, and therefore essentially unsearchable - but this is an argument for renaming rather than deletion.
(3) If you consider it a conspiracy theory, then it should be linked to "conspiracy theories" at the bottom of the page. But since other conspiracy theories have entries in Wikipedia, this is not in itself a reason for deletion.
I put such a link in place, but Alan Oldfield removed it [28]. And I agree, the validity of a theory is not relevant to its being on Wikipedia, only its notability. --Dcfleck 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Admittedly, there is no information here which isn't on other Wiki-pages too, but that may simply be because people have tried to spread the info out in fear of deletion? Nevertheless...
(5) I think it's jolly interesting. --163.1.209.246


  • Comment. Though, I don't want to meddle into this discussion too much, I wish to add that there is some academic research about the connection of Iraq's petroeuro choice in 2000 and the war in Iraq since 2003. See: R. LOONEY, “Petroeuros: A Threat to U.S. Interests in the Gulf?” in Middle East Policy, 11, (2004), 1, pp. 26-37. (Note that the conclusion of this article is that it is very unlikely that there is any significant connection). Sijo Ripa 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: found the article also on the internet: [29] Sijo Ripa 21:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. An important entry. It could do with a rewrite and expansion, but well researched. It may be a fringe analysis (ie. one not commonly understood), but don't see any reason why it should be considered a 'conspiracy theory'. There is no conspiracy alleged. It takes the perspective of the US as an empire, but in the last couple of years that has become the accepted terminology by both US leaders and their critics. The referenced articles are good -- they include articles pro- and con- the core theory. However, I think the M3 data reporting discontinued section should be removed, as it is not sufficiently central to the argument. --Adamfenderson 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It takes the perspective of the US as an empire, but in the last couple of years that has become the accepted terminology by ... US leaders..." Really? Which ones? --Dcfleck 03:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dfleck: yes I probably stretched a point there - but several US conservative opinion leaders have begun embracing the term in this time, which seems like a pretty significant intellectual turn, given that it has been such a negatively loaded concept and one vehemently denied by many: eg. "America's New Empire for Liberty", article from conservative writer and historian Paul Johnson, in which he argues that the U.S. has always been an empire—and a good one at that. See also the "Benevolent Empire secion of the American Empire wikepedia entry", the most significant name there being Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Either way it's a matter of semantics. The US is big and powerful, dominates the world economy, has military bases all around the world and uses financial and military pressures to apply political influence. I don't think anyone credible would deny this, they'd just characterise it differently, and whether you're for or against it, you can choose to call it an empire or not. --Adamfenderson 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Merge as per MLA --Mmx1 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is people using this term, but if it looks fringe, then it can be described as fringe theory (but with NPOV). --Thv 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because my integrity has been fully compromised by implicit threats of retribution both on- and off-site, and because I don't fucking care anymore. — Mar. 17, '06 [21:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Comment what the hell happened here? first it said this was going to be deleted, now it has a warning about ballot=stuffing (who is being accused of that?) and then we have this cryptic note from freakofnurture that he "doesn't fucking care" -- what's going on?-csloat 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headway[edit]

  • Delete, the article consists of just three advertising sentences. SeL 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN ad. As near as I can figure out, it's the English textbook used by a language school in São Paulo, London Express Idiomas, which may well also be a strong AfD candidate. Possibly the author's using these articles as an opportunity to practice his English. Fan1967 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely a spam (advertising) article. These uncontroverial articles can be proposed for deletion. Hynca-Hooley 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Krash (Talk) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mrist[edit]

Seems to me that this belief system (reminiscent of Scientology,) is a likely hoax. Googling returns a lot of unrelated crap. Mrist.com is a theology website which might have something to do with this. Unless someone can prove that this is a notable belief system, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 19:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:V, probably hoax. The Ghits for "mrist", including the one listed above, tend to point to people named "M. Rist", and are not relevant here. The names mentioned in the article, Livefast and Cloabell, seem to be usernames on some Italian messageboards and blogs. I think this is some sort of inside joke. See Cloabell's blog [30]. - Fan1967 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. -- Krash (Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Janus[edit]

Subject of the article may be notable, but reads as a CV or resumé. Prod removed by author. Hynca-Hooley 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Web search indicates non-notability. Probably vanity. dbtfztalk 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be marginality notable music business figure. Monicasdude 22:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable CEO[31] of non-notable company[32]. -- Krash (Talk) 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably vanity, most definitely nn. Eivind 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dbtfz. Stifle 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reformatted per guidelines of Wikipedia, noted music buisness person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentkeys43 (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 userfy. Shanel 07:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aram David[edit]

Bio of a person who is a webmaster. Written by a user named AramDavid. Tempshill 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy Transfer to the user's own page as it is a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy his hasn't been Userfied yet???? J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, per above. Stifle 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to The dozens --Cyde Weys 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mum[edit]

Delete. No value to this poorly written "article" on a form of joke that doesn't merit inclusion Gwernol 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:Sango123 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:The Powerpuff Girls[edit]

Delete. This was made from nothing but fancruft and it is not useful at all. I suppose that no one will ever use it. Marcus2 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, after two IP/new votes discounted. Mailer Diablo 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code Lyoko: A Retelling[edit]

Non-notable fancruft Cynical 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is indeed popular. It just needs much more exposure.
  • Keep This is a popular Fan Fiction, and like other large fan works deserves to be here--Chupathingy 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fanficcruft. Fan1967 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN fanfic. - Rynne 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The retelling series is one of the best and brightest of Code Loyoko fanfiction on the net. Much like Eva R, it deserves a place in the Wikkipedia universe.--Zerosconcubine 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Zerosconcubine's first and only edit. Note that EVA-R is currently AfD-listed. - Rynne 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: just because its important within its own fan community does not make it notable by Wikipedia standards. See in particular WP:FICTION and WP:WEB Cynical 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --InShaneee 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fanficcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fancruft. Eivind 03:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually voted for keep on Eva:R, it is much more notable than this. And there I am (I think) the only keep vote. There is no way this should be kept. JoshuaZ 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRUFT. Stifle 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Jablonowski[edit]

Article credits him as creator of Corn programming language, which is of dubious notability in itself. Doesn't look notable at all. MadJack 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J3D[edit]

Delete - no other articles link here and it's basically an advertisement, not encyclopedic TRauMa 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom; they may be doing good work, but that doesn't make it especially notable. BTW, Alexa rank is 433,611- not the worst, but hardly in the stratosphere. Fourohfour 20:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity ad. -- Krash (Talk) 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 00:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon International Breads[edit]

A puff for a neighbourhood bakery; just one useful article links to it; does not meet WP:CORP and does not assert notability beyond a vague and unverifiable claim that it has helped to revitalise a corner of Detroit. The bakery achieves 110 unique Google hits (I closed my business two years ago and it still gets over 2,000...). Prod disputed, so I am nominating on AfD Humansdorpie 20:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable outside Detroit, as far as I can tell. (Although, if they made the bread used in the Spanjo sandwich, also up for deletion, that might complicate the issue.) --Elkman - (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable on global scale. -- Krash (Talk) 01:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How does it not meet WP:CORP? WP:CORP requires coverage...that's what the Google links are. The claim that it revitalized part of Detriot is claimed in one of the reviews, so all we have to do is make sure it's properly attributed and, BAM, verifiable. There is no requirement that a company be "globally" notable, and Detriot is a big city. NickelShoe 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, but not notable beyond a neighbourhood. Stifle 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NickelShoe. -- JJay 02:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Bakery. Does not meet WP:BAKERY. Should have been speedied under {{db|bakery}}. Besides which: it's a bakery.Herostratus 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please explain why you think it doesn't pass WP:CORP? I explained why I thought it did. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corn programming language[edit]

The article is not notable and, to judge from the webpage (complete with a FAA--'Frequently Answered Answers'), probably a hoax. The article that links to it, for its creator (Dariusz Jablonowski), is also an AfD (a few above) Bucketsofg 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn or hoax. dbtfztalk 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable programming language. We created new languages in Programming Languages and Compilers 101 too. Worth an article some day if actually used by a number of other people, most languages never get there. Weregerbil 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 01:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on principle as it cannot prove it has any external users. The language is real, reminds me a little bit Erlang programming language but until it gets adopted outside the author it is not encyclopedia notable. 99% of programming languages fails to attract any attention in the harsh world and no attention means no ability to maintain the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, certainly not revolutionary unless you've never heard of functional programming. One thread on comp.programming that was crossposted a handful of places[33]. kotepho 10:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was lol, but delete. Mailer Diablo 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snubster[edit]

A social networking service created in February 2006. Article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB guidelines and frankly, a service founded less than a month ago is unlikely to yet be all that noteworthy. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No alexa ranking either (possibly just because the site is so new). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Cyde Weys 21:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WEB violation; non-notable website. Give it time to build up a reputation before submitting the article.  (aeropagitica)  22:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. See also nominator's reason. Stifle 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TatukGIS[edit]

nn company, fails WP:CORP. 29000 hits on Google. み使い Mitsukai 21:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Barendse[edit]

Delete Subject not notable, previous articles have been biased and highly POV about a student politician. Similar situation to Stephen Luntz, Alex White and Scott Crawford--2006BC 21:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with Julian, indeed one of my concerns is that the article is a vehicle for defaming him by adversaries. Be that as it may he is no more notable than the National President of Labor Students whoever that is. His term expires in a few months anyway. --2006BC 05:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete More notable than the others, but not by much. --kingboyk 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems like a notable enough political figure. JoshuaZ 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for similar reasons as Kingboyk above. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Student politician, not notable. No doubt he'll be in Who's Who one day. DarrenRay 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, student politician with no other notaibility. Stifle 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defamed daily. Not a notable hack.--Schgooda 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jovel Fuitter[edit]

Delete. Not notable, trivial web content - see WP:WEB guideline. Darcyj 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/rename. W.marsh 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Series[edit]

Originally proposed for deletion with for reason "non-notable series, info about DVD releases would fit better on individual film articles". Delete for those reasons, and the fact that this article can never be more than a collection of links. --InShaneee 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep. Disney series of "special editions" of classic animated films which can certainly be discussed in terms of packaging and extra material. Monicasdude 22:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Platinum series" is a term from chemistry. Please extend or qualify this title to avoid confusion. --DV8 2XL 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Disney Platinum Series. I think they're all Disney films. Disney articles are already mostly long lists so this will just have to be another one. MLA 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand. Stifle 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was ambiguous. First, I don't know why a good faith nomination received so many "speedy keep" votes early on. Alright, there is not any majority, let alone a consensus for deletion. I have reviewed this article and Greater Iran and have observed that this article is more about the current situation while the Greater Iran article is more historical. Yet all the references/links in the article relate to history, not to the current situation. I am closing this as a tentative keep, and recommend that someone more knowledgable than me look into this and decide whether or not to merge it. I defer that discussion to Talk:Greater Iran. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian nations[edit]

Delete: Not notable and missing references (also requires cleanup). Neologism in the best case. AucamanTalk 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: Important article regarding Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariush4444 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep: The article is well referenced, you did not even ask in the talk page about any problems with it before put it up for deletion. False request. --Kash 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those are not references. Where's the information in the article coming from? Pakistan is an Iranian nation? Huh? In the best case it's personal research. AucamanTalk 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: A notable subject, but needs some clean up. --ManiF 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Articulate article laced with many crecible refrences.Zmmz 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Iranians are a branch of Indo-Europeans and the article should be kept. Just like there are Arabic speaking nations, Germanic nations, and Turkic nations, there exist Iranian nations

Ali doostzadeh 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non-notable neologism. Merge content into Iran.--csloat 23:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has nothing to do with Iran nation, it stands as a nationalist ideology as claimed in the article --Kash 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • uhh, yeah it does; it refers to nationalism that lays claim to a "greater" Iran. There could be a section on this in the Iran article, or perhaps elsewhere, but the phrase "Iranian nations" used in this manner is not notable.--csloat 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked and found articles for Greater Iran and Pan-Iranism. There is no need for this article. The supposed references for this article -- I looked at all four of them -- never once mention "Iranian nations" used in this manner. I'm not sure what the point of this page is, since we have the others.--csloat 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe these articles should mention it. I dont know. There is more than 1 Iranian Nationalism ideology though, you have to remember that. There are a few dozen of different Iranian nationalist parties in Iran and out of Iran.--Kash 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone removed the AfD notice from the article, I reverted to put it back. I'm leaning towards keeping this article, but if so, shouldn't it be renamed Iranian Nationalism? --Xyzzyplugh 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just neologist nationalism without any references. AucamanTalk 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has many references, what are you talking about? --Kash 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: If you have problems with article not having enough references, ask about it in the Talk page, do not delete it, so again I vote Speedy Keep, if you are confused about this matter see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman for hundreds of similar actions taken by this user. --Kash 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: External links are not the same as references. I suggest someone separate the two in this article. --Khoikhoi 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why would you want to merge something that is not well-referenced? It's a made up term. AucamanTalk 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they're basically about the same thing. --Khoikhoi 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term is not made-up. There are hundreds of references to "Iranian nations" in many academic papers and articles. Just google the term and you'll get hundreds of results, many of them academic. --ManiF 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only get 338 hits. "[Any country] + nations" is likely to get a lot of hits. Try any country. Most of them get more than 338 hits. "German nations" gets 17,400, so that should have an article too? AucamanTalk 21:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German nations" gets so many hits because of so many references to the "nations" of Eastern and Western Germany during the Cold War. Regardless, that's irrelevant to this discussion. My point was that the term "Iranian nations" is not a "made up term" and that's a fact. Persians, Kurds, Baluchs and many other Iranian peoples are referred to as the "the Iranian nations" in many published scholarly works. --ManiF 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: An important article that should be kept. --(Aytakin) | Talk 18:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be yet another example of ethnic irredentism -- many of the "ethnicity" articles seem to be prone to this. Zora 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has nothing to be merged into other articles. Diyako Talk + 09:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 13, '06 [18:41] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Bernard R Melchior[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Can't find mention of this poet/author or his works on Google or Amazon. Prod tag deleted without comment. Weregerbil 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete I, as an established critic of Literature, verify that Melchior is in fact, a figurehead of our literary generation. Did Shakespeare need publishers to get recognition? Did Hardy need "Yahoo"? I think the facts speak for themselves. OscillatingHarry 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the bibliography claimed for the subject, I would say that this is a {{hoax}} rather than a vanity page.  (aeropagitica)  23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page history indicates that this was autobiographical from the start. It appears to be non-notable and I agree with previous reviewer that it is also a {{hoax}}. Tithon 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I agree that this appears to be a hoax. However, we should not be fooled into thinking a genuine article is indeed phoney, without considering all the facts. I would like to see some more evidence that Bernard R Melcior does not exist before this article is deleted. GopherBroke 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, and I certainly hope it's a hoax. I pray no one could exist who would want credit for coining the phrase, "May your goats forever gribe (in the fertile alluvial pastures of the mind)." - Fan1967 00:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smacks of hoax. -- Krash (Talk) 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As a student of English Literature I should like to learn more about B R Melchior, having come across his name only recently.Ralf Bike 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krash. Stifle 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete There are many theories regarding the true identity of Bernard R Melchior. Is he a real poet?? Is he a hoax?? Is he the greatest writer known to existance? Is he Lord Lucan?? It is a personal theory of mine that he is three schoolgirls. One of my contemporaries believes that he IS Wayne Smith. Whatever the answer, we should not simply run away from the issue. Mrs Powell 09:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete What about the Gang of Four? Katmandu 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete As President of the Marching Bernardites, I take great exception to the above comments. Any oaf can see that I must protest to a most extreme degree. Good day to you all. Chaosbaker 16:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC
  • delete, definately a prank. Snargle 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitting on the fence I have no opinion, but I do know that "definitely" does not contain an 'a'. [[User:|User:]] 17:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete The very fact that this page was put up for deletion so soon after appearing on Wikipedia, demonstrates very clearly to me that someone has got something personal against Mr. Melchior, and is not using their power of deletion in the interest of people who simply wish to broaden their education. This artical is not hurting anyone, so why is it so important that it is removed? Clearly, gentlemen, there are ulterior motives here... Saxgod 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I refer you to section 2 of "what about vanity?" - Wikipedia deletion policy guidlines: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." BRM is famous, although not on the same level as a football player or "Britney Spears". Does that make him less worthy of our recognition? ROD 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sizzle[edit]

Another book by the author of Spiked (novel), also up for AfD. Both are published by XLibris, a self-publishing print-on-demand company. Amazon sales rank is in the millions. No evidence of any reviews or coverage other than online "customer reviews" which are, of course, open to astroturfing. Do we need a stub article on a self-published book? I'd say not. Just zis Guy you know? 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Postdlf 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CSD A3 as far as I was concerned upon its creation. It isn't looking any better now. cmh 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is proved. Stifle 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Flowerparty■ 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glomp[edit]

Delete. Firstly, this is a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Secondly, this entry is fairly hopelessly poorly-written ("The word comes from the sound (though it’s not really a sound) [...]"). Belongs on Urban Dictionary -- only transiently notable. Also note prior nomination, inconclusive with 12 delete and 7 keep. Tgies 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Mostly concur with Tgies, a notable enough term for a dictionary but not quite warranting an encyclopedia entry, especially not one of this lack of quality. While a somewhat-known social phenomenon on the Internet, I just don't think it's enough to warrant an article at this point in time. Also reeks of original research in, quite obviously, the form of personal experiences on the Internet, and doesn't seem to be highly verifiable, although it is probably largely accurate for the most part. G-Flex 23:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I'll be the first to admit that the article is in bad need of a rewrite, but it does explain social customs within the Otakusphere. Or should we get rid of Handshake, Physical intimacy, Greeting, et al? I'll get to work on cleanp.--み使い Mitsukai 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the Physical intimacy article already "covers" the entire area this article is in. This article only refers to a very specific term used by a niche group of people for a wholly non-notable form of physical contact (this behavior does not only exist within the "Otakusphere"). If anything, this article should be merged into one of the articles on anime fan culture -- if this VfD fails, I'm going to go ahead and start a merge discussion. Tgies 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did an extensive edit to remove a lot of the OR, possibly all of it.Successive edits by myself and others have addressed the OR problem, enough so that the OR tag has now been removed.--み使い Mitsukai 00:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good work; kudos (though I still stand by my reasons as explained previously). Tgies 07:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It needs a lot of clean up, but we do have Handshake etc.. Gerard Foley 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Changed vote, see below...[reply]
    • This is almost a valid point, except that shaking hands is a bit more of a sweeping psychosocial concept than glomping, so there's a bit of a problem of scale in that comparison. Tgies 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable psychosocial concept, although less so that handshaking. Luckily wikipedia is not paper, so the existence of one article doesn't require the deletion of another. Kappa 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep- I detect the pungent aroma of fancruft, original research and dicdeffiness, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt as it seems to be a fairly notable phenomenon. Reyk 03:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to lean towards Keep on this one, although I can provide no evidence other than my perosnal experiences on anime-based forums, reading fanfiction, and personally knowing people wo would classify as otaku (in other words, original research) -- Saberwyn 10:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I came here specifically to find the meaning of this word. This means Wikipedia has done its job.199.43.32.85 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not Wikipedia's job. That's what Wiktionary is for. 24.255.10.132 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename and Expand. Rename to something like Otaku culture and expand to include other examples of the same. I think it would be more effective as an expanded article with a somewhat wider focus. --日本穣 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this is probably a better idea than full-blown deletion. Tgies 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki I don't see anything here that warrants an article. kotepho 10:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rename and Expand. I like 日本穣's idea better. Gerard Foley 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Keep or Merge). It's already been entered in the wiktionary. I also came to this article through google to see what "glomp" meant. This article is about a documented social behavior of a subculture. Is the purpose of wiktionary to explain social nuances and behaviors? I think it's usage has spread beyond the anime/manga crowd, though. It should be kept until it can be cleaned up and merged into an article where it would make a nice sub-topic. --Kunzite 22:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. It goes beyond a simple dictionary entry, but it is probably better suited as a subtopic rather than a standalone entry. Keep for now, merge if a suitable umbrella topic is found or created. tylerwillis 23:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebattles Europe[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Delete. Fightindaman 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Beck[edit]

A self-published author who once ran his student union newspaper. Paul Dacre worked there. Whoopee doo. I was libelled by Dominic Mohan when he ran the student newspaper at university, do I get an article? Even Cambridge Footlights has seen many more members go on to obscurity, like Back, than have risen to stardom. The fact that both his novels are self-published by a print-on-demand publisher probably tells us all we need to know at this point. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was editor of a national, or at least a regional newspaper, he might be notable. But he isn't, so delete. Stifle 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodymap, David Holah, Stevie Stuart[edit]

Copy of David Holah article. David Holah gets 175 google hits. Non Notable. Both articles need to be deleted. Magdela 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add David Holah, Stevie Stuart. -- Krash (Talk) 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three as non-notable. -- Krash (Talk) 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three nn. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the three per WP:BLP. Stifle 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the importance of these designers in fashion history- to the point that the Times wrote last year in a feature on Stewart that the "Bodymap label had a defining influence on the aesthetic of the 1980s"- and the fact that their designs are featured on the V&A site, the articles look like obvious keepers to me. At the very least, I would have expected some intelligently argued reasons for deletion, something beyond NN or "needs to be deleted", something that demonstrates that the participants here have a basis for their "votes" beyond the knee jerk thrill of removing material from the site. Of course, the articles also would appear to have been copied from the V&A site and thus should be tagged as copyvios. -- JJay 02:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP WP:NN are usually enough when commenting on 3 sentence articles that make no claim to notability. Why don't you expand the articles and ask people to reconsider if that's what you are proposing? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 02:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I missed your comment on the article, but I would point out that BLP is barely applicable to the discussion and NN is an essay that has no meaning at all. They are both patently insufficient for participation here. If "notability" is what interests you, you should see the start of the 8-line Bodymap article where it says one of the brightest design teams to emerge in the 1980's. As for why I do not "expand the articles and ask people to reconsider", besides the fact that I tend to doubt that anyone gave any serious consideration the first time around, see above where I mention that the articles are copyvios from the V&A site. -- JJay 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rose[edit]

Delete because this seems to be Vanity and a non-notable biography. There are no references to other Wikipedia pages from the article, only to external sites. The User, Zander13, though he created the article only a week or so ago, has now deleted his User page. I have therefore not been able to contact him to discuss this. I suspect that Zander13 is also Alexander Rose (no proof of this but the alias sounds likely). Tithon 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymod[edit]

Delete Computer game mod, which makes it non-notable software, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE Xyzzyplugh 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --TM 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per Xyzzyplugh. Reyk 03:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random mod. Maybe possibly notable when it gets finished, but I don't expect it to be. Stifle 00:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_8&oldid=1116878671"