Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

Purge server cache

May 16[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 obvious hoax, copy & paste of Matthew Edelman, also an obvious hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Edelman[edit]

Hoax/vanity/no google hits/vandal ip:[1] Kaisershatner 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete obvious hoax, copy & paste of Alexander Edelman, also an obvious hoax. Just zis Guy you know? 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Edelman[edit]

Vanity/hoax, no google hits Kaisershatner 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is it uncited and (for me) unverifiable, it is also utterly implausible - the chances of anyone with the name Matthew Adelman serving under Napoleon are vanishingly small. Just zis Guy you know? 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Keep Prodego talk 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MACRoCk[edit]

Delete non-notable music event. Article fails to establish notability by using citations or establishing verifiability of claims. Strothra 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's notable enough. My brother went to JMU and I lived in Harrisonburg briefly, btw, so that might make me biased. But it is verifiable as a local indie rock festival and receives coverage from newspapers each year, not to mention that there are a number of notable bands performing there. Aplomado talk 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be tagged for citations and/or rather than Afd. Can see blog or magazine articles at[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] etc... Event has been running for 9 years, attended by many bands and written fairly widely for a local indie rock festival. Certainly looks verifiable and notable enough Peripitus 01:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peripitus. It needs some cites, but it's definitely a keeper. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as we wait for citations M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, needs citations --☆TBC☆ 05:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, ciatation needed. --Terence Ong 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Tomb Ride My Talk 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego talk 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog restaurants in Montreal[edit]

The PROD was removed with a "merge" tag added, but I honestly don't see that this would be appropriate as an addition to Montreal. As I stated in the original PROD, Wikipedia isn't a restaurant guide. Joyous | Talk 00:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Montreal hot dog, which is a very similar article; whatever happens to this, the same should probably happen to that. — Haeleth Talk 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would merge the article. Places can be added to an overall article. This artical has some content that could be included into Montreal. Navou talk 01:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't see anything in the article that sounds notable enough to merge into Montreal, either. LjL 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no merge There's nothing in this hot dog article that would be even remotely useful in the Montreal article. Nothing. -- Kicking222 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no merge per Kicking222. If we allow this to stay or even be merged, it would open up a veritable Pandora's box of crufty articles. Aplomado talk 01:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge, per above. Usrnme h8er 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Cedars 03:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely non notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and original research.--Jersey Devil 03:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unencyclopedic. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable--☆TBC☆ 05:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is Wikipedia the place to come for recommendations for hotdog restaurants? Are any of these notable establishments? Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet tourguides website; perhaps recommendations can be placed on the Wikitravel pages for Montreal. They are not encyclopædic.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Terence Ong 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or even BJADON, as I personally found the entry hilarious. Maybe it's just getting too late though... VegaDark 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteJust rambling nothing substantialWoldo 08:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very silly (rambling is a good word) article. Staxringold 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncyclopedic and non-notable. --Andy123 talk 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing worth merging --Scott 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rewrite. I see no good reason to have a separate article like this.--Jusjih 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't see a reason to merge. MaxSem 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a sentence or two may be welcome in Montreal. Deffinately an aweful article by itself. Olleicua 17:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would Montreal really be enhanced by a sentence like "Like every single other major city on the face of God's earth, Montreal is also home to a wide variety of hot-dog sellers, who sell things like hot dogs, at various prices"? I think not. — Haeleth Talk 18:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dishwasher Studio[edit]

Seems to be linkspam for non-notable website, disguised as editorial material jmd 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It gets a surprising number of Google hits, but most appear to be from directories and personal pages. I really can't find a link that would indicate he or the studio is notable. Also, it appears "Gokcen Ergene" is more the subject of this article than Dishwasher Studio. Aplomado talk 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Andy123 talk 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 12:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete precisely per Aplomado. Just zis Guy you know? 13:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Just more than 1000 Ghits may not be notable.--Jusjih 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you try to actually view the Google results, it stops after 54 because all the rest are duplicates. What I can't find is any actual commentary on the site from a reputable source, which strongly suggests that this is not something we need an article on. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because as has been said it is a non-notable website. Also it isn't very NPOV! --Tmorton166 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North bar[edit]

A not particularly notable bar, other than getting a mention in The Observer. Joyous | Talk 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Richardcavell 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, we can't include every bar that happens to win a newspaper award, even if it is a national weekly paper. Grandmasterka 03:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "I think... my opinion only..." WP:NPOV violation for language and where are the winners of the award from previous years? If they have not been otherwise noted as drinking establishments or have since ceased trading then this could be a delete vote. The photographs add nothing to the article, as they could have been taken anywhere.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, nn, etc... Ydam 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Rob 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bar. JIP | Talk 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree w/ aeropagitica Olleicua 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Patman2648 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus for keeping, but following Abe's merge I've redirected TIN The Incompetent Ninja to Snafu Comics since there is a consensus that it doesn't need its own article. Follow the redirect back if any more information is wanted. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TIN The Incompetent Ninja and Snafu Comics[edit]

No claim to satisfying guidelines for inclusion of websites. brenneman{L} 01:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. brenneman{L} 01:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. Claims are incompetent, not the ninja. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Snafu Comics, which is notable--☆TBC☆ 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Snafu Comics. --Terence Ong 08:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Snafu Comics to this nomination. There's no evidence presented that it's any more notable than its Ninja brethren. Clearly if some supporting documentation is provided showing that this satisfies the notability guidelines for websites, I'll change my tune. - brenneman{L} 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TIN I could see deleting, maybe, especially since it only has 20 strips or so, but not Snafu. Take a look at Snafu's Alexa traffic details. 17,105 is very good for a webcomic, and though I suspect Bleedman's doujinshi stuff might be the site's major draw these days, it illustrates Snafu's existence not only as an individual webcomic, but as a collective. That's more than all of DrunkDuck (already survived an AfD with a Keep, by the way). Likewise, its Google results look good, with 236,000 hits, and if you'll take a look at the first few pages of results, they're all about Snafu itself. Yes, the articles could stand some references, but I'm going to take the eventualist position and say that Snafu at least is sufficiently verifiable that some will be added. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Andy123 talk 12:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both. Besides no claims of notability and no reliable sources and no signs of meeting WP:WEB, both articles are created and extensively edited by User:SnafuDave who writes on his talk page that "SnafuDave or Snafu Dave is the most common online user name for David Stanworth, Author of Snafu-Comicsand TIN The Incompetent Ninja." These two articles are therefore clearly WP:VANITY and counter to the official policy that WP:NOT for self-promotion. Also, note that the Alexa ranking for snafu-comics.com is particularly misleading here since there are at least 8 webcomics hosted on that site. -- Dragonfiend 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:VANITY would have applied if this had come up for AfD back in October, but it doesn't now. This is the last edit I'd attribute with any confidence to the author. As far as the fact Snafu exists more as a collective than an individual comic, that's really an argument about what the content of the article should be, not whether or not it should exist at all. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on unreferenced vanity articles: There seems to be agreement that Snafu Comics was an unreferenced vanity article back in October. What changes have been made since then that now raise this above an unreferenced vanity article? The differences between then and now are that some spelling and style errors have been fixed, the article has been categorized, and two sentences have been added ("Currently it has become home to a new series called Training Wheels. Additionally, it has been mentioned that Filibuster Cartoons is hosted on the Snafu Comics Server.") Snafu Comics may now be a categorized and spell-checked vanity article with slightly more unreferenced information ("it has been mentioned?") where all of the titles are now in italics, but it is still an unreferenced vanity article, and as such should be deleted. Merging one unreferenced vanity article (TIN The Incompetent Ninja) into another unreferenced vanity article (Snafu Comics) will not solve the problem that these are both unreferenced vanity articles. Let's delete them. -- Dragonfiend 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment This is as far as I'm willing to go: merge information about TIN into Snafu and rewrite the result to emphasize its existence as a collective. I just can't justify deleting it with the numbers I'm seeing. It'd be nice if we could add King of Fighters Doujinshi, PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi and Grim Tales from Down Below into it as well, but that's mainly because Bleedman's stuff creeps me out a little rather than for any legitimate reason. Such a move would be strenuously resisted as well. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 08:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge TIN to Snafu. Definitely had its roots in vanity, but now seems to be established as a credible site. Just zis Guy you know? 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to remember a webcomic inclusion guidelines. Something like if it's been around a certain number of years or has a certain readership, it's eligible for inclusion. Has this changed? Olleicua 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe you're thinking about the guidelines Eric Burns suggested. We tried to use those for awhile, but we never got much buy-in from the general AfD audience. If you can prove a webcomic has a large readership, that certainly does help, though. For the most part, now we use WP:WEB, which is a relatively good, if sometimes rather vague guideline. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Insufficient reasoning given to delete both. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: We don't need individual pages for every section of the website. It's not so much that the pages are non-notable as that there isn't that much info on each page. Also note the web-traffic data given above. --Tjstrf 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rewritten the Snafu Comics article with TIN already merged in. Mainly what it needs now is a few references. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. On close inspection it was self-contradicting - it was obviously written by three men sitting at the corners of a round table eating vinegar with forks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Arash Irannejad[edit]

This individ is non-notable...a google search did not turn up anything, and it doesn't help that the creator oshares the same name as the music band mentioned in the articleOsbus 22:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th and 26[edit]

I didn't prod this because I think it's borderline, but I don't see this as a play worthy of its own article. It was a difficult play to convert, sure, but was it notable? Not really. Aplomado talk 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per Jjjsixsix, I guess we can give this article some time. Aplomado talk 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I should not have retracted the nomination. This debate should be played out regardless of the outcome. Aplomado talk 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I simply can't decide on this one. On the one hand, it was a huge play that was analyzed over and over and over and over again. On the other hand, it was just one 4th down play, and one that, in the long run, was unimportant- the Eagles still lost in the conference championship game. This isn't to say that other huge plays haven't come from teams that didn't win the Super Bowl, but those plays were things like the Music City Miracle or the Miracle at the Meadowlands- absolutely spectacular, you-will-never-see-this-again plays. A 4th-and-26 play does not fall into that category. So, tough as it is, I'm voting for delete. Barely. -- Kicking222 02:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of notable single plays are already included (The Catch, The Fumble, etc.). The fact that the Eagles did in fact sell shirts making reference to the play also helps. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think comparing this play to either the Catch or the Fumble is a huuuuge stretch. Aplomado talk 04:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't. Kicking says it doesn't matter because the Eagles still lost, but then the Broncos still lost the Super Bowl after the Catch and the Fumble, and the Titans still lost the Super Bowl after the Music City Miracle. If the Eagles don't make a play which required them to get a quarter of the field's worth of yardage, they lose. Simple as that. That at least ranks with the Tuck Rule as a play worthy of Keeping. -- Grev 04:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: For whatever it's worth at this point, it's certainly up there with the River City Relay, and not only was that not a playoff game, but the Saints didn't even win. --Cheapestcostavoider 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You rank this play up there with "The Catch"? Seriously?? Still I suppose I can buy keeping the article in that it was notable for Eagles fans, at least for now. Aplomado talk 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's too recent for comparisons, quite honestly. It is, however, in football folklore now, kind of like the tuck... we just need to see if it stays in there over an extended period of time. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and relist in a few years (yes, years). -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep we seems to have a few of these single play articles (Hand of God goal f.x.), I agree with Jjjsixsix let relist in a couple of years and see if anybody remembers the play then. --Eivindt@c 05:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've come to agree that there is some claim to notability here, but for the record I think that some of you don't fully understand the significance of plays like the "Hand of God," a very famous, oft-replayed and controversial goal. A similar claim can be made about the "Immaculate Reception." The Catch and the Fumble, likewise, have their place etched in sports lore. There's Doug Flutie's Hail Mary, a last second 50-yard prayer that is miraculously caught and wins the game. There's The Play, a game won between two heated rivals based on a kickoff return featuring five laterals. This, on the other hand, is simply a long fourth down conversion in a non-championship, conference or otherwise, playoff game. It was impressive and probably notable as it relates to Eagles fans, but I don't think it's at all accurate to compare it to these other plays. Aplomado talk 06:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well worded article about important event in Green Bay Packer history. If innumerable anime characters get articles, this decisive play should have one, too. --BaronLarf 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, of interest to fans of the team only. I vote to delete the anime characters, too, whenever I get the chance. Vizjim 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep, I would delete as above but I think anime characters are a lost cause. My main quam with this is that it's poorly written and unclear. Some pictures and copyeditting would really help it but I think it's notable enough. Olleicua 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no way this can be compared to the Hand of God, which changed the outcome of a world competition and led to significant international tension. This play is not widely known outside fans of a single sports team. Therefore, it is not encyclopedic material. — Haeleth Talk 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it is kept, would someone please add some references or citations of sources? It has been tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since February. [7] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several football plays that only have significance to one or two teams have their own articles on Wikipedia (Red Right 88, The Play, Music City Miracle, The Miracle at the Meadowlands, etc). Kirjtc2 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Play has significance only to Cal or Stanford fans? I think you are mistaken. Aplomado talk 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell me how it would affect an Ohio State fan. And even if it does have a more wide-reaching effect than the others, explain what significance Red Right 88 has outside of Cleveland, 25 years after the fact, or the Miracle at the Meadowlands (a regular season game, no less) has outside Philly or New York (the Eagles lost their first playoff game while the Giants didn't make it at all).Kirjtc2 20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The question is not whether it affects an Ohio State fan, the question is if it's a notable play outside of a small group of fans. The Play is arguably the most famous play in college football history. Aplomado talk 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but what about Red Right 88, which was not only a single play, but one that didn't even work, for a team that lost the game? --Cheapestcostavoider 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I'd say that was significant to the team's history. It's possible I've misunderstood the level of significance of "4th and 26" to Eagles fans, so I'm not against keeping this article now. Aplomado talk 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename because the title is unhelpful. Peter Grey 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the shirts kind of add notability, although as a Packers fan I didn't really remember this until I read the article. BryanG 21:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keap, but I wouldn't oppose a merge into NFL playoffs, 2003-04 or perhaps the Packers or the Eagles articles. Cool3 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This really should be covered in the game or team article and not as its own article. Vegaswikian 23:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or rename, as it was a significant play in its own right on grounds that a "4th and 26" was a rarity in Gridiron football. User:24.271.143.256 03:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, as per both consensus and the relavancy of the arguments. Proto||type 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of proper nouns containing an exclamation mark was List of proper nouns containing a bang[edit]

List of proper nouns containing anything is a poor start. In this case it's a loooong and still incomplete list of names containing an exclamation point. As far as I can tell there is no especial reason for choosing an explamation point over any other punctuation mark. A jumble of names, book titles, TV shows etc., which takes no account of the recent vogue for stuffing a shriek on the end of TV programme names. I call listcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think, first and foremost, the criteria for keeping a list like this should be based on its utility. What useful purpose can this list serve? Pondered and rejected. If someone can state reasonable bases of usefulness, I'm open to changing my vote.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, following Fuhghettaboutit. --Jadriaen 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list provides a unique insight into an aspect of pop culture that has been present since the invention of film. Using an exclamation point is nothing new, as evidenced by Oklahoma! and many others. It is an exciting look into the history of entertainment, which is not possible to find using Wikipedia's search engine. GilliamJF 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not meaningful or useful. SCHZMO ✍ 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally useless. Brian G. Crawford 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but at least this one isn't as bad as List of songs whose title constitutes words cosequencing the first letters with the words. BigDT 00:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!. Not the worst article ever.... but close. Who is going to search for this? · rodii · 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Nintendude list". Danny Lilithborne 02:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First write an encyclopediac article on the use of exclamation marks in proper names, of course adhering to WP:V, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:N. Then create the list and link to that article at the header. GRBerry 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nintendudecruft. (Totally useless list.) Grandmasterka 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems useful to me.  Grue  09:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like Nintendudecruft but isn't, it was Alphonze this time. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first of all, it's called an exclamation point, not a bang. Secondly, it made me want to bang my head againstmy computer monitor. --Bachrach44 14:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until wikipedia has a decent search engine to look for this cultural phenomenon in other articles, then this list is a useful reference point. Buttle 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until it is possible to search by regular expression in Wikipedia this list will be useful for researchers of onomastics and typography. There could also be similar lists of proper nouns containing asterisks, question marks, etc., or proper nouns beginning with a lowercase letter - an interesting type of word in English Grammar, since proper nouns in English usually begin with an uppercase letter. Alphonze 06:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Alphonze is the original author of the article. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Tawker 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!--blue520 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think I have to explain the rationale for voting for deletion. It's self-evident. -- Kicking222 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless listcruft. Also, I think the previous AfD had a pretty clear consensus, does it really need to sit for another 5 days? --Hetar 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Renegade-tr 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Usrnme h8er 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. We don't need lists for everything, do we? WarpstarRider 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reasons for deletion have been advanced. While terribly dull, this is a perfectly encyclopedic list article. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per everbody above. As for Tony's observation that no good reason for deletion has been advanced, how about significance? It's used as a criteria for Speedy Deletes, I think it's applicable here.--WilliamThweatt 03:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cedars 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't expect to find many "list of X with attribute Y" articles when I thumb through an encyclopedia, and yet this is an exotic example of one. Sorry that we don't have a less offensive term than listcruft, but that's precisely what this article is. Vslashg (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I doubt even a dictionary would want this. --Carnildo 03:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an indiscriminate collection of info. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the good reasons above. To Vslashg, maybe "listshit" might fulfill your wish? Copysan 05:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who on Earth is going to look for a list like this, and what would it tell them if they found it?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a bit funny, but belongs in a dictionary. The general phenomenon of using an exclamation mark in a proper noun could could be the object of an interesting Wikipedia article (along with a few noteworthy examples), and I wouldn't be surprised if some linguist has studied it somewhere. u p p l a n d 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. The exclamation mark on 'Allo 'Allo! isn't part of any 'phenomenon', it's part of "'Allo" being a greeting. And please don't Transwiki, Wiktionary is not our dustbin. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • De!ete. The vast majority of these are actually incorrect, at least insofar as I understand what makes a proper noun, and what the word "containing" means. And pointless. And listcruft. And silly. And an indiscriminate collection of information. And this isn't a new phenomenon, or part of pop culture - just think of Westward Ho!. Vizjim 09:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Carmen[edit]

Unneccessary, with a list of pieces in the Carmen article itself. No encyclopaedic value, being merged with the Carmen article. --Alexs letterbox 01:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This AFD was begun by the original author of the page, who then changed his or her mind and prodded it. The prod tag was removed, but since this AFD subpage exists, the AFD should be considered active. I am listing it now. Chick Bowen 15:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the comment by Alexs letterbox on the talk page "It is really more of a guide to the opera, rather than an encyclopaedic article".--blue520 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource...then Redirect to Carmen. This could have been done boldly without the AfD...--Isotope23 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images would have to be moved to commons too, of course. I'll get to this eventually if no one else does it first, but I'm not familiar with Wikisource's way of doing things. Chick Bowen 17:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Transwiki the text to Wikisource and the images to Commons, then redirect to Carmen. --Sherool (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Could be a very useful resource, and belongs on some Wikimedia project, just not here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked over the projects, Wikisource is not the place for this at all. b:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks allows any instructional resource within the limits of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V (all of which Wikibooks follows too), or at least any instructional resource on at least a very slightly academic topic (Jimbo's cracking down on videogame manuals, from what I hear, but this is undoubtedly fine). s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? excludes original writings by contributors. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 02:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the text is my own, and no sources were used in its preparation. --Alexs letterbox 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete belongs more in publications like Wordsworth Book of Opera, but may be a useful resource. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever you do, don't transwiki to Wikibooks. Anything else is fine with me. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, why? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikibooks is for textbooks... not just Wikipedia's junk they don't want. Thanks. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 20:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This would be suitable for inclusion in a textbook for a course on opera, surely? Those include at least partial listening guides for at least some operas, to judge by my music textbook. Of course, the book fragment would probably sit for ages without anyone actually trying to format it as a textbook and add other required things (like an introduction and actual discussion of opera generally), but it's still potentially part of a useful textbook. m:Eventualism, anyone? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnent If no suitale Wikimedia project accept this kind of thing then delete it, but it seems like a waste to delete if it can be transwikied somewhere, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia so delete if all else fail (are there aany GFDL compatable Opera wikis on Wikicities?). --Sherool (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the wish of the original author of the page. He can submit it to another wiki site if he feels like it.—Tokek 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not that fussed really on what happens to it. If room is found for it somewhere, I will finish the page; if not, c'est la vie. --Alexs letterbox 06:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutline[edit]

  • Delete after merging what is possible into Testing. The meaning of the word is generic. It is hardly a testing-specific term. It is actually used in exactly the same way for any task prioritizing/scheduling. 97% of this small text makes sense in the context of general article, and the word itself is good only for wiktionary. Mukadderat 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: was just transwikied to Wiktionary. TheProject 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Adrift* 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 02:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gyre 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Ydam 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now that I took a look at the nominator's vote, I want to point out that if there's any content merged into Testing, this article cannot be deleted and must instead be a redirect to preserve GFDL. If there's no content merged, there's no problem with deleting it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be a local usage only. User's sole ocntribution, and I seem to recalla series of other software testing neologisms back around December but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, after several years as a developer and working still in a software house I know not of this term - which doesn't mean it ain't real, but all you get here is my opinion. There are at least two more common uses for this term, one is a Photoshop plugin, the other is a standalone software product for cutting vinyl graphics. Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squares[edit]

Alright, I'll bite. I'm not sure, but I don't think this group is notable. There's nothing in the article I can see that meets WP:MUSIC, despite the prolific number of albums. (It usually takes much more than three years to become notable, in my experience.) Note that this is definitely not the same "The Squares" that was speedily deleted before. Grandmasterka 03:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tough to Google a name like that, but searches in conjunction with "Mike Mahon" and "No Lizard" turned up less than 10 results each, so I think this is a delete. Aplomado talk 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can not see any thing that meets WP:MUSIC. For example the albums seem to be self releases (the latest album can be found here in mp3 format). Basically fails to show or assert verified notability to the levels outlined by WP:MUSIC.--blue520 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads as the biography of a busy pub band - how many of those are there? The EPs released don't appear to have troubled the charts - WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, 2 comments. 1) Self-releasing music shouldn't be a criteria for deletion in itself; it's increasingly a choice that artists make, especially in alternative and experimental musics. 2)If this article wants to stay, it's best chance is to demonstrate that they are a regular touring act as per WP:MUSIC rather than just doing the local pub circuit. Ac@osr 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Ydam 11:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as not notable. DarthVader 12:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only for consistency. This is a local pub band who have only released records themselves (seemingly not on an indie label), no discernable notability, and doesnt meet any of the wp:music criteria...Amists 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Official website" uses a freebie my.tk domain, band has a MySpace page linked in the article, allmusic.com hasn't heard of them. Looks non-notable to me. ergot 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You're so square, baby I don't care. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ShoW[edit]

Prod, but I feel we should have a debate. Prod reason was: "The first Google mention of this item combining terms "the show" and "michigan state" is number 48. I find it difficult to find a reliable mention. Is this notable?" from User:Matthew Platts, who I have notified. I deprodded and brought it here because I find it plausible that The ShoW is the longest-running college sitcom, as the article claims (and as their website claims), and if this can be verified, it seems like a reason to include it. Even if that can't be verified, if the show was created in 1988, that's a really long-running show. Still, I remain neutral. Mangojuicetalk 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Even if verified I don't think it's sufficiently notable. If anyone can think of applicable Wikipedia policies with which to qualify this article that would help, but I can't think of any. I'm thinking along the lines of things like university performance groups, theatre companies, sketch groups, bands, etc and I just don't think longevity and having a few former members go on to (marginal) fame is enough to establish notability. --TM 14:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a "student-produced situation comedy" - unless reliable evidence can be found that this is the next Cambridge Footlights. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teddie[edit]

The page is incorrectly named, the Mr. Bean page already has more information about Teddy and the text is simply copied from the Mr. Bean homepage. There is not enough information to justify keeping this as a separate article, unfortunately. Bob 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rje 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKonian[edit]

This article is WP:OR and is also a Protologism Mal 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can find sparse usage of the term on the internet, but at best this is a transwiki to Wiktionary, I think. Aplomado talk 04:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to English people or something similar. - Richardcavell 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Presumably the reason for coining a term such as "UKonian" is that "English people" is totally inaccurate for this purpose. --Ryano 10:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which makes no sense considering the perfectly legitimate "British" term exists. *shrugs* --Mal 06:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced, unsourced proto/neologism. If references and a citation of usage in popular media can be provided then it can be transwikied to Wiktionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism and WP:NOT for those and not a dictionary either. UKanian is much more common, but even that would only be a dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT a dictionary. I'm British and I've never heard the term before Ydam 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete protologism. Vizjim 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. TheMadBaron 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sincerity[edit]

Though the article is cleverly coloured at the start to look like a serious article (e.g. cites of legitimate books like Scarry & Steiner} it seems to be largely a hoax, & the article eventually devolves into a fart joke. The history of the article shows that it seems always intended as a joke (rather than having been vandalized). ND 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Actually if you do a search on google there's plenty of stuff on it, having checked the history of the article I'd say it's clearly been vandalized: the initial post seems pretty sensible. Its subsequent edits that have pushed the page beyond the pale, however the amount of discussion around the issue on the internet would argue for its inclusion. Driller thriller 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking a bit through the history I'm wondering if the best thing is to simply revert to the very first version of the article? It looks to me like the problem is that the article started off as a serious piece on one topic (the mooted "New Sincerity" in the wake of 9/11) & then got expanded via a completely different topic (a radio show), & then the latter seems to have attracted some jokers (fans of the radio show? grad students with nothing better to do?) who have completely overrun the original, well-intended article with piles of nonsense. -- I'm not very impressed with the person who's posted to the Talk page that the article deserves preservation because it's "brilliantly retarded". ND 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I don't think anyone's suggested that this is original research. Driller thriller 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I just did. Stifle (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I am actually writing a paper on this at the moment, and I assure you there is fair basis for New Sincerity to be included, but the article has certainly been vandalised and changed beyond the truth of the matter. Although many people claim to be the originator of New Sincerity, the phrase has been around for almost a decade in describing the work of director Wes Anderson and more recently people like Jared Hess. I think there has been enough discussion about this in various essays and magazine articles to warrent it's inclusion. (Hippo Shaped)15:22, 06 May 2006
    • If you're writing a paper, you'll have no problem citing sources for this phrase.
Onion: Does it bother you to be potentially pegged as the head of a new movement? I know there’s a Film Comment article that mentions you as part of something called ‘the new sincerity.’ Do you pay attention to any of that?
Wes Anderson: Well, I don’t know. Who else is in ‘the new sincerity?’
Onion: I don’t know. I think it’s just you at this point, and they’re waiting for people to line up behind you.
Wes Anderson: Oh, well, I’m not waiting for that line to form, and I don’t expect it to. I don’t know if there’s ever going to be much of a movement in that direction. It sounds like one that could be boring for a lot of people.
It appears Anderson himself doesn't know anything about it. http://www.coldbacon.com/movies/wesanderson.html
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Strong Oppose Well that interview was from 1999, and references the 'Film Comment' magazine article from January that year. It was around that time the phrase started so of course he didn't know. Whether or not you agree on who invented the phrase or when, the phrase describes something not described in any other way and has been used in a variety of places over the last 7 years. I'd fix this article myself, but i've never really written an article in the Wikipedia style before, but if I have time I will give it a go. Almost the whole thing needs to be reorganized and rewritten, but not deleted. (Hippo Shaped) Re:Above(17th May 2006)
  • Delete. Unsourced neologism. -- GWO
  • Comment The concept doesn't seem to be entirely made up for Wikipedia: [8]. E.g. the first draft of the article seems genuine enough, no fart jokes there. I don't know about notability though, and the lack of sources is unfortunate. Weregerbil 13:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, quite a few Google hits, although there are zero for New Sincericists, so the last few sentences could probably go. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After two full listings on AfD no one has found any sources? At this point, its safe to say its unverifiable. --Hetar 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This search shows that the term is around and is applied on many blogs etc to the work of certain directors. Equally, it shows no academic or mainstream media mentions that I can see (only got to page 3, admittedly). So, this is more of a meme-type thing. Since none of the artists who've had the label attached to their work appear to know about it or encourage it, the question is whether there is anything real here, or just a phrase that sounds good and has spread across the internet a bit. Vizjim 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, unverifiable. If someone knows about the concept: trim the article mercilessly and leave only stuff to which you can provide verifiable reliable sources. Weregerbil 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - can someone tell me how an anon started this article?!! - Glen TC (Stollery) 11:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah ha, learn something new yada yada yada :). Thanks mate, appreciate the response. - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: . . . which plays upon Judith Butler's notion of citationality and the body, in order to consider beauty and intersubjectivity as outcomes of the body's performance of itself. I'll have some blue cheese dressing with my word salad, thanks. Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Hasn't this nonsense been killed via AfD at least once before? -- Kicking222 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a term that's been around for several years and has been appropriated by a few different groups. I just think it needs cleaning up. Wells 298 10:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a term with enough history and meat that an article is useful. The article as it stands now isn't that great, but it'll improve with time. -- Brett day 08:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Weregerbil. Zaxem 11:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian weblogs[edit]

Delete. WP is not a directory or web index. A complete list would therefore be non-encyclopedic. An incomplete list is not useful. cmh 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio SHARK[edit]

This fails Wikipedia's policy on the notability of products. A quick Google search shows mostly reviews and simple product listings. And the Radio SHARK certainly has not become a genericized trademark. joturner 05:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Do published independent reviews in a major magazine (e.g. MacWorld) not count? The notability guidelines seem to indicate that they do ("This criterion includes published works in all forms..."). The Griffin radioSHARK is a well-known, widely-used and easily-recognised product. --Canley 06:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy on the notability of products you cite don't seem to exclude reviews. So on the basis of the nomination, I vote Keep. Vizjim 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, but I think the article is just a bit advertisement-y. -- Kicking222 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Kicking222 M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article about a notable product. TheMadBaron 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. The article title does however, sound similar to Radio Shack. --Nintendude userpage | message 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Delete Prodego talk 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gornography[edit]

Neologism. Ryan Delaney talk 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator: neologism. joturner 05:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, unreferenced proto/neologism. If sources and a reference for usage in popular media (newspaper columns, magazines, etc) can be provided then it may be a candidate for Wiktionary.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --MarsRover 06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A whopping 157 GHits (37 unique) says this is a word whose time has not yet come. Fan1967 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between the buns[edit]

Three restaurants in the South Bend area barely qualifies as a chain. They got good local food reviews, but I don't think that merits an encyclopedia article. It's bordering on a WP:SPAM violation and I don't think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Scientizzle 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn. Fluit 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The "best of" articles are incredibly common in any town with a newspaper. ScottW 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Yellowikis. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cason Farmer[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. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wager island[edit]

spam, non-notable, fails WP:CORP, etc. Rklawton 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fazeshift[edit]

Band from Syracuse, NY. Only one EP which was independent, so I see nothing that helps this qualify with WP:MUSIC. --Hetar 06:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:Music violation, only one self-produced EP and no contract, notable members or national tours mentioned. Better off on Myspace until notability criteria satisfied.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (WP:MUSIC)--blue520 08:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. DarthVader 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 766 Ghits cannot be notable.--Jusjih 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How cute, they have a MySpace page. Delete; delete the photo, too. ergot 15:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I'm beginning to feel that having a Myspace page should be prima facie grounds for speedy delete of a band as NN. RGTraynor 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 766 Ghits? even I have as many (or about). Also, I think RGTraynor's argument may have merit, but what if, say, Paris Hilton decided to create a MySpace? M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Heh, if that happened, that would be one thing, but right now, IMHO, a subject with a Myspace page is the new corollary of Geogre's Law. RGTraynor 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, take them to the beach and make them eat something with iron in. They don't look well. TheMadBaron 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okama[edit]

Japanese dicdef that has little hope of ever being expanded. Article hasn't changed since it was created nearly a year ago, and to my knowledge there's little to say about the etymology of the term (pretty straight forward: pot (okama) - anus - gay man) or its use (currently a pejorative in most cases, more or less equivalent to faggot). Exploding Boy 06:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki (if it hasn't been already) and delete per nom. It's doubtful that any future expansion will ever occur. -- Kicking222 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Haeleth Talk 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Bananas on the Moon[edit]

Non-notable song. Argon233 T C @ ∉  07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Rje 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

WHEAREAS:
This is a dictionary definition. Examples of usage are part of normal dictionary definitions in extended entries in high-end dictionaries.
Any attempt at taking this article beyond a dictionary definition violages WP:NOR.
User:badlydrawnjeff, a known hardline inclusionist, has done his best at bringing this article in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and has failed, although his insulting edit summaries are noted.
This is a vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BE IT RESOLVED that this article be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 07:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep bad faith nomination based solely on a personal attack against badlydrawnjeff done in the name of the third AfD on this article all in recent memory. Wikipedia is not censored and this is a notable urban legend. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes there were two previous AFDs. Yes, both ended with "no consensus". Yes I endorsed the result on DRV. But there are an awful lot of sexual slang terms lying around, and I don't this one is so common, so significant or of such interest that it needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn dicdef. Vizjim 09:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep. Sourced, can still be expanded with a little bit of effort, and, at this point, this nomination does not appear to be in good faith. Not a single effort has been made by "hardline deleitionist" Crawford to expand this. After THREE AfDs that failed to come to a deletion consensus, and after noting that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, along with a platinum-selling rock music act and various television shows have more than noted its existence, this shouldn't even be a question. Quit it, for the love of pete. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an exaggeration of the provided source. The term was one of a multiple mentioned in a transcript, included in an exhibit, of a government report. No signficant government official (to my knowledge) has made special mention of the term. The radio personalities are the ones "validating" the term, not anybody in government. I won't vote on this, due to my distaste for re-AFDs. But let's not pretend the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is behind you. I don't think we want to be tossing in every term that's mentioned in a transcript, included in an appendix, of a federal government document. --Rob 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It was noted as an obscene comment by the FCC, as referenced in the transcript. If it's good enough for government work, it's most certainly good enough for wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We must be looking at different places. The only source given in the article is here. This is *not* a transcript of an FCC proceeding. This is a transcript of a radio show, included as an attachment to an FCC document. Nobody from the FCC make *specific* reference to a "Cleveland steamer". The people using the expression are labelled MV1, MV2, MC3, MC6 identified as "cast members" and callers of the radio show Deminski & Doyle Show. So the *only* thing this proves is that the term was used *one* day on one radio show. The FCC discussed the transcript in *generall* but did nothing to "note" a specific term. Also, the version before my edit, implied the term was mentioned in a hearing, but there's no proof of that. --Rob 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I and my nearest and dearest are unlikely to be giving this a whirl in the near future (viz. Alabama hot pocket, Blumpkin et. al.), I believe that notability is shown in this current incarnation of the article. I will not call this a bad faith nomination, but I do believe that if the article passes this AfD, there might not be much benefit in raising it again in the near future. This is a cultural meme, above and beyond being a dicdef, and as such is worthy of inclusion here. Colonel Tom 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep per CanadianCaesar and badlydrawnjeff. --TM 14:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff and the FGotUS (so this is what the tax money goes for?). The article is well sourced. AnonEMouse 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. Would not oppose a transwiki to wiktionary, if it isn't already there. ergot 15:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Very well-written, very well-sourced article. It might be overly lewd, but it deserves its place in an uncensored encyclopedia. -- Kicking222 15:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per above. Bad faith nom. Good to have you back, Bri! Badgerpatrol 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete turdcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oreo man 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Coprophilia. As the nominator has already tried to do, being summarily reverted for no good reason. The article simply doesn't say anything that couldn't be covered more appropriately and usefully by a paragraph there. — Haeleth Talk 18:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a rather incorrect statement regarding the merge request. I reverted the merge for two reasons: 1) lack of discussion meaning lack of consensus, and 2) one of the worst merges I've ever seen where almost none of the information from the article being merged was inserted into Coprophilia. I still disagree with a merge, given the notability of this subject. Ask 100 people - more will know what a cleveland steamer is than what "coprophilia" is, let alone pronounced. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because something can be targeted by vandals does not mean that we should not have articles on it. Any minority or political page is a target for vandals as well. Shall we get rid of those as well? If there are other pages that also pertain to this act then they should be merge. DanielZimmerman 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm generally opposed to re-AFDs. But it seems the *extreme* lack of reliable sources, has led to the blatant misuse and twisting sources to say things the facts don't support. Pretending this term has some sort of backing by the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" is patently absurd. The only thing worse than not providing a reliable source, is trying pretend you have one, when you don't (or mischaracterizing it). There seems to be unwillingness to properly state what sources actually say. --Rob 00:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable sexual UL. I would cite double jeopardy as I did for the AfD on Dirty Sanchez the other day, but it appears that it doesn't attach in this case. Haikupoet 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was a valid article when I didn't know what it meant, especially since it's used in Family Guy those that encounter it on such a popular show may question it's meaning.--GenDeathRaiser 02:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this kind of...stuff...really doesn't belong on wikipedia. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a worthwhile contribution to knowledge. Scranchuse 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is the third time in six months. Obviously notable and well-documented term, pretty clearly bad faith nomination. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNaFedaykin
  • Delete Notable enough for Wiktionary (where it already exists) but not enough material to justify an article. OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just vile. I've half a mind to start advocating for morality standards for content... Or quite possibly, I just have half a mind. Nevertheless, I am disturbed that such articles exist and cannot find any defence, free speech or not, for their continued existence. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is more than a dicdef. No valid reason has been given for deletion. TheMadBaron 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Urbandictionary is the place for dictionary definitions of scatalogical slang. -- GWO
  • Very Strong Keep This is a bad faith nomination for deletion which includes a malicious personal attack by Brian G. Crawford on User:badlydrawnjeff. Despite many attempts to sabotage this article in order to get it deleted there is still no legitimate reason for this nomination. Again, Very Strong Keep --Apyule 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bad faith nom, User Conduct RfC filed. -- backburner001 16:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - bad faith nomination. Kukini 18:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All this article is, is a slang definition. I can't see this being able to expand beyond being a mere dicdef, and a "list of pop culture references" is not enough for this to warrant an encyclopedia article. WarpstarRider 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. It's a dictionary definition, and WP:NOT a dictionary. Its source is not useful: an appearance in a radio transcript means nothing: WP:NFT extends: Wikipedia is not for things made up on the radio one day either. As a matter of fact, that source PROVES this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If you look through it, you'll see that it's quite obvious that the "Cleveland steamer" term was made up by one of the "male cast members" on the spot as some kind of joke; they were having a silly discussion about gross, made up sexual practices. In fact, merging this with Coprophilia is a bad idea, because this made-up slang term is of absolutely no importance to Coprophilia. As for this nomination being in "bad faith", I disagree. I think the nominator wasn't very civil... but there is PLENTY of reason this article should be deleted from wikipedia, so I just don't see bad faith. Mangojuicetalk 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking a little more closely, apparently the supposed mention on Family Guy occurred before the radio transcript. So they may not have made up the term (though after talking about a "Cleveland Tornado", I'm inclined to believe it's a coincidence or subconscious reference to the show). Still, they obviously made up what it's supposed to mean. Mangojuicetalk 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how it's "obvious" that the radio show cast is responsible for creating the meaning of the term, even after the term was used on a more popular venue. I think that conclusion is pretty presumptuous, but if you have a source I'd be very interested. --TM 18:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it this way: on that transcript, it looks like they're making up the definition, so I don't even think it's convincing evidence of the definition already having been in use. But remember, the burden of proof is on those wanting to include information, not the other way around. And while we're at it... check out Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (an official guideline) which reminds us that for something to be a reliable source about a neologism, it's got to discuss it, not use it. Assimilating many examples of use is specifically, and appropriately, described as Wikipedia:original research. This article fails that guideline very badly. Also, one last thing... I'm generally an eventualist, but I think that we've given this article enough of a chance to get real sources, and it hasn't, and it should be deleted until such sources can be found. Mangojuicetalk 19:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I belive this page should remain, it has survived afd and it appears no effort really has been made by some whom want it deleted to improve it. Yanksox 22:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --DavidGC 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Coprophilia per above. Ewlyahoocom 20:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I generally object to repeat noms and we have already argued the merits/demerits of this article. However, there is never a reason to personalize a deletion nomination by labeling another user. The accususations concerning the noms motives here are troubling and obliterate any chance for a fair hearing for this article at this time. -- JJay 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nomination.  Grue  13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Roads of Belfast[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list was moved from the Belfast article to a seperate page. Contains no useful information, and is unencyclopedic. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per User:Stumason. Unencyclopedic - Ali-oops✍ 08:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have List of London streets and roads, List of roads and highways, List of streets and roads in Hong Kong, List of State Routes in New York, List of New York State Reference Routes and List of state highways in the United States to name but a few Jcuk 10:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The New York/HK articles are much more comprehensive. Most of the roads mentioned on them have articles. It is very unlikely that many of the Belfast roads will ever have, or will ever deserve, their own article. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no definition of what makes a "main road", so this is POV. Vizjim 10:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary. Gerry Lynch 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic & unnecessary. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and rename if possible per JcUK. Some of these roads already have their own articles (now linked). Given the history of the area and the uniquely segregated nature of Belfast, it is in my view likely that many of these roads may well have a historical or cultural significance, especially in connection with The Troubles. For obvious reasons, Shankill Road and the Falls Road are already quite reasonable articles. I would strongly support a rename to, e.g. 'A-roads of Belfast', 'B-roads of Belfast', or similar, since the current one is inherently POV (UNLESS there is some official Highways Agency definition of a main road that I'm not aware of?). Badgerpatrol 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This information has been removed a number of times from Belfast but a article is not appropriate (nor the listing of them on wikipedia). A link to an authoritive external website (explaining their significance, if any) would be more appropriate. Djegan 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those saying this list in unencyclopaedic, is the same not true of the other lists I mentioned? If so they should be AfD'd too. If however the other lists are encyclopaedic, then this one must be. You cant treat one set of roads any different from any other set of roads. Unless you want to start saying Jersey cows are less encyclopaedic than Fresian cows, Spanish villages are less encyclopaedic than German ones, or Mexican people are less encyclopaedic than American ones, for example. Jcuk 11:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stu & Vizjim. TheMadBaron 17:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the moment for reasons given by user: Jcuk and Badgerpatrol. However this should be conditional on articles being written on the other roads. If that is not done on comining months, there would be case for deletion. I note that there are artticles (of very varying quality on some English A-roads. Peterkingiron 23:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The vast majority of the other roads do not deserve articles. The urban part of the Gilnahirk Road is about a mile long and contains nothing but houses and a school. The same is true for some of the others. You have to remember there is a distiction between the mains roads of a city the size of Belfast, and a city like London. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the main roads of Belfast not relevant information about Belfast? Why are some of the areas of Belfast listed and not others ie Ormeau Castlereagh? All the small villages are listed. 62.252.148.32 00:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ison & Fille

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Stanworth[edit]

No claims made to satisfying guidelines for inclusion of humans. brenneman{L} 08:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete If his webcomics survive their own AfDs, I'd probably just redirect him over there. This is going to be a rant, but this is as good a platform as any. Having articles on webcomic artists is often more trouble than it's worth. They're often neglected and I keep finding bogus criticism sections in them where people air their trivial beefs. They're utterly beneath our notice, but when I revert, their creators fight like wildcats. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect. TheMadBaron 17:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Mahmood[edit]

Vanity bio from Javed68 (talk · contribs). A lot of other animators make animations, and this person is not anything special --Ragib 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: nn, vanity. --Ragib 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity, no IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, vanity Optimale Gu 13:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definitely nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definitely vanity, page was created by himself. I have removed a wikilink to this page from an animation article, too. --Janke | Talk 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, possible userfy M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography. How it made it as far as AfD, I just don't know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amintore_Peluso[edit]

This page looks like a vanity page to me. There is absolutely no useful information in it either. olki 09:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - for nn bio if possible. Wickethewok 09:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 & CSD G4.--blue520 09:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is a really obvious speedy, and shouldn't even be here. Philosophus T 10:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry. I'll request a speedy deletion the next time I come across a similar page. I just wasn't 100% sure whether to go for a speedy or not, so in the case of doubt I decided an AfD request would be more prudent. olki 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete- nn bio. Reyk YO! 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and don't forget the images. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete vanity Ydam 12:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rob 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not someone's personal blog. JIP | Talk 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The Subways[edit]

  • Delete - Forked off of The Subways. Already controversy over this, so its been brought it here. Any useful info should be merged and then this deleted. Wickethewok 09:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would be perfectly fine if the article was even remotely well-written and properly sourced, but it's not. Morever, this is section material and doesn't deserve its own entry. --Antrophica 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever's salvagable to The Subways. Ac@osr 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is this unsourced and a fork, the coverage of this Indie band with one whole LP to its name is already grossly excessive. And I was born in Hertfordshire. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not been able to verify any of the this article. --Cjakob 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, should be in section in 'The Subways' if anywhere, except it's too poorly written and unsourced. Amists 14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Personal opinion, original research, inherently POV (due to being almost completely unsourced) fork. -- Kicking222 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a fork, plain and simple. --Agamemnon2 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon the evil inside 2[edit]

Delete - the article about the first version of this game was deleted - this should be no different. Non-notable game, etc... sadly this doesn't qualify for db-repost. Wickethewok 09:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable. Vizjim 10:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unofficial fan game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This was made using RPG Maker, for gosh sakes! -- Kicking222 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Set Records[edit]

NN music label, fails WP:CORP. Dismas|(talk) 09:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that other than listing the name, and how to do describe an entitiy without that, there is NO self promotion nor is there any link to Chemistry Set Records (but there should be).

NN - except on about 50+ artists Myspace sites. (Per Google search) on independent white boards such as www.thejamzone.com with no affiation

Also see below:

Talk:Chemistry Set Records From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

My opinion is to keep it so that users are aware of this aspect of the whole "Weed" thing. I have researched on Wikipedia only to learn about the file sharing of music side. What's important to us Artists is to know how to get our music into the system and Wikid doesn't explain it anywhere else like this page does. I did a search for independent record labels and there had to be 50 entries in the "c" but Chemistry Set Record was not listed there, wonder why is that.?--Brokerdelete 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Electric Doormat, Bret, Jeff Marklein, Countrside (UK) and other artists who use CSR find this entry to be completely legit - proof? Visit Myspace.com/jeffmarklein Myspace.com/countrysideland Myspace.com/bretgrey Myspace.com/electricdoormat Visit www.chemistrysetrecords.com and select the "musicians" link and tell THEM that CSR isn't relevant. You do realize your being extremely discriminatory and favoring other labels which we artists have never heard before all over the Wiki place. Don't be biggots. Jeff. _ _ _


Wes, you gotta help me before I slam my head on the table real hard.

Please please please explain why this info is worthy of a big old tag about being considered for deletion:

Chemistry Set Records is an online 'label' and ICP (Independent Content Provider) for Weed™ which is a service developed by Shared Media Licensing (“SML”) [1]that lets you sell your music over the Internet and continue earning revenue even when your fans share your music with others.

Note that there is nothing but factual information there. I guess you'll have to search "Chemistry Set Records" in order to see the links and you'll see NOT A SINGLE ONE even goes to CSR. There are couple internal Wiki links and only one external which is the "SML" which goes to www.weedshare.com

Hey if THAT is the issue I'll gladly remove that link. You do realize that peeps going to weedshare's site helps me in no way right? So am I a vandal and spammer or something again here? Wiki is ridiculous, but Wes, you are a righteous dude so I'm hanging in there a bit longer (on 6 hours sleep). --ChemSet 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY would you consider this for deletion? What is the trip here man? Just type a reason here or something --24.182.12.127 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, obviously, as per the above. Vizjim 08:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way I see it, anyone who pulls the "deleting my article is discrimination! / Don't censor me!" card is an automatic Delete vote. Articles that deserve to say can at least mount a better defence than that. --Agamemnon2 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per head-spinning-inducing screeds. Anons, please note that ranting about unrelated articles isn't going to help the case of this article. Also, "Someone doing something first" isn't notable per se, unless the action really is world-changing (think of then-famous and now-famous bands getting leverage from Napster - while this is just some company hopping on the bandwagon a lot later). In this case, Weed may be notable, but there's no evidence about the company's notability (unless some is provided); as such, it may warrant a small mention in the Weed article. But unless this company is notable in its own merits, it doesn't need an article of its own - so please, read WP:CORP carefully and explain a contrary point. (And what does rising up have to do with P2P music distribution, anyway? Sorry, not intended as a lame spelling flame or anything - I was just so colossally disappointed when I thought I might learn some new musical term that I had to complain. Sorry.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Doesn't have any resemblence of spam. Doesn't have a link to themselves even. It's true no other known ICP also has a online radio station to PROMOTE and EXPOSE the artists who have files available for download in Weed format. No less "notable" than other entries. Also true that Wiki has NO information for the interest of aspiring artists (all existing Wiki is on file sharing and addresses music fans instead of bands and artists).--69.178.130.210 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything within this article is NOTABLE.

Chemistry Set Records happens to be THE FIRST ICP to not only offer the Arist access to the Weed music distribution service system but to ALSO play their songs online via stream audio radio station on SHOUTcast.com.

(How do you think their songs get put into the weed digital format? You can't just got to the Weed site and say "ADD ME PLEASE" as the response will be "GO THROUGH AN ICP PLEASE")

You are completely missing the point that until now Wiki ONLY has information about the end user aquisition and file sharing the Weed file alone, and ZERO info on how an Atist can get into the system. This is wrong completely wrong of you. Please reconsider.

The system in itself is NOTABLE and a few seaches around the net will produce many indepedent publications mention over the last 3 or 4 years... I haven't the time at the moment but will post some the history and technology behind it tomorrow.

A business plan like Weed shows a new use of technology, etc and is therefore notable. But the COMPLETE picture and this side of the equation has been missing on Wiki for all these years for some reason.

Same thing with GarageBand.com I was completely shocked that until I came along and added a page for that Wiki seems to have slept through THE BIGGEST thing for unsigned artists on the net SINCE 1997

Lastly, instead of simply suggesting deletion, why not add constructive critisism or ways to correct to your satisfaction (never understood that part)--24.182.12.127 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "What's important to us Artists is to know how to get our music into the system and Wikid doesn't explain it anywhere else like this page does." Ugh, Wikipedia Not Instruction Manual. Include it elsewhere on the internets. Docether 19:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete agree to Docether NN and spam--Brokerdelete 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Go Biofuel[edit]

Advert for a just-starting, not yet notable project. -- RHaworth 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kepple[edit]

This article was deleted through the WP:PROD system, but a person has disputed this on DRV. Because of that, I have undeleted the article and brought it here. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'Comment: The reasoning stated in the "prod" was as follows:
      • he who draws NN internet things shall be NN. Apparently, not all webcomics are NN, but he hasn't drawn any with articles
  • Keep. Have you no heart to consider him nonnotable? I am not going to support this with a lame "He is just famous on the internet," but rather, he has earned a good number of awards in Newgrounds, achieved high fame in Albino Blacksheep, especially with his Lemon Demon music videos and his best known animutation, French Erotic Film, and is a regular contributor to both sites. Many people follow his style of Flash animation, and he is widely respected throughout the internet. He did make some non-notable works, but that does not make him non-notable, because of French Erotic Film, Zero Wing Rhapsody, Only Superhuman, and a good share of others. Plus, Veloso, the author of Irrational Exuberence, is also there, and Kepple is just as popular. Another supporting point: since French Erotic Film is mentioned in the Wikipedia several times, and there is a page on Ome Henk's song, Opblaaskrokodil, in which Kepple wrote French Erotic Film, there should be a page on Andrew Kepple. One final pointer: not all famous flash persons draw ALL notable works. AltF4 is famous MOSTLY because of The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and seldom anything else. There is just one undeniable thing that there is: this page is in a stark need of a cleanup, but does not deserve to be deleted. In conclusion, even if this page is not saved, it should. Thanks for listening to my long, boring speech, and thanks for showing no respect to the animutation world (in a sarcastic way), to all those who say otherwise as below. --Wartys Neryon 9:13, 16 May 2006 (PTC)
  • Delete Internet Flash animator. I get just 180 unique Google hits, so the old "but he's famous on the internet!" excuse doesn't apply here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His work may be more noted than he is, but it doesn't change his notability. Certainly, more people knew of Seinfeld than Larry David, but his notability wouldn't have been in question. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having no readily apparent claim to encyclopaedic notability. Cicierega's work is borderline for my money, and this looks so much like an attempt at search engine optimisation (look at all those links!) that I have a hard time taking it seriously. Where are the multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources? Just zis Guy you know? 11:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --TM 14:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --cholmes75 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ravenswing 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, not enough notoriety. --Zer0faults 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The presence of other articles on non-notable people is a reason to delete the others, not a reason to keep this one. — Haeleth Talk 18:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Another reason why notability is subjective, POV, and should not be used as a criteria for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Voting Again, But Getting to the Facts. I posted here to disprove and dispel your ideal, Haeleth. Veloso was famed because of Irrational Exuberence. You just did not go to Albino Blacksheep very often. It is a big site, just like Newgrounds, and it hosts that and French Erotic Film, both famous titles there. You are just ignorant of Albino Blacksheep and the world of Animutation, plus Ome Henk is notable in the Netherlands and (after French Erotic Film) the internet. --Wartys Neryon 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A lot of keep comments seem to say that he's active and notable on the "Animutations" circuit. How large is this community exactly? If you could give actual numbers, that would help. - Hahnchen 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Sorry to go on this commenting thing again. Anyway, to take a far less aggressive approach, he was famous because of his animutation series, the Colin Mochrie vs. JHC trilogy, which can be seen on Albino Blacksheep but he wasn't just an animutator, but also a cartoonist in general: a contributor of two major entertainment sites. Somehow, Andrew Kepple is on the WikiProject Webcomics, and is threatened for deletion because of that. If only we could take the webcomic business as very little as possible and only mention the webcomic stuff on the external links (as is the page on Neil Cicierega, where his Farchie Archie webcomic is only mentioned in the external links), this might help just at least a bit by taking it out of WikiProject Webcomics. I wouldn't really care if the page is gone, but I do have a slight feeling he is notable in a ways. Oh yes, and there is about a few hundred members right now (I believe) in the Animutation Mailing List, but if anyone has a reliable source of information in regards to how large the animutation world is, please post it here. Forgive me, all y'all, for being rather stubborn. -- Wartys Neryon 3:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per JzG --Hetar 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote, for now, and comment. I'm a big fan of TmsT's work, and I tend to hang out in the same online circles as him, such as the Animutation discussion list and the Lemon Demon forums; given that, I probably have an imbalanced perspective of his notability, since he is indeed quite noted relative to those communities. I don't have a good sense of how widely noted he is on the Internet in general, though if the article is to be kept, then it should include explanation of his notability, which it currently lacks.

    Colin Mochrie himself is apparently a fan of the Colin vs. Jesus trilogy, which would probably be a point in favour of Kepple's notability, but I'll need to find a reliable source for that.—Adam Atlas 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Few people in his line of work get mentioned in newspapers. JoshuaZ 01:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Yes, but one would think that if he were genuinely notable, he'd be mentioned on the Internet. Which he hasn't particularly been either. Ravenswing 08:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above - Hahnchen 10:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep May not be notable in my world of interest, but very notable in his own realm. We must divorce our interests and biases in deciding notability.  : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Animutations go, his work is among the best known. Bryan 06:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per all delete votes above. Zaxem 11:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William McFerrin Stowe[edit]

Tagged as a speedy as a G3 no context, but I think context is established. Not sure if this an A7 either, because bishops may well be notable (for instance the bishops of the state church in Norway are pretty well known with considerable media attention). No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe we could all just have a little patience? I am working on this article. Sorry I couldn't get everything in there right away. Hang in there -- its coming! Pastorwayne 12:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Enough content to establish notability now. RGTraynor 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THinking about it a bit more I have decided that all bishops of a major church are notable. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. sufficiently notable, asserted within the article. -- cmh 22:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense. kingboyk 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovekids[edit]

inappropriate Wikipedia usage Dunstan talk 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep Proto||type 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Modernist women writers[edit]

I normally don't suggest deletions, but this page doesn't seem to receive any replies and appears inactive. I don't think this article has much chance of taking off -- it is too specific for Wikipedia at this point. This talk page is entirely about which female modernist writers are notable and as such ought to be merged into Talk:Modernist literature — Донама 01:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like this is work in progress for {{WikiProjectCSBTasks}}. AnonEMouse 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - literary pages can take ages to get going. Vizjim 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article will appear any day now. Though it is incredibly bemusing that an article which doesn't exist already has a talk page. Hasty Fool 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Communist Party of Britain. Proto||type 13:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer and dove[edit]

Not really encyclopedic; party was not the main communist party in 20th century;only serves promotional purposes.. tells us nothing max rspct leave a message 11:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mostly Rainy 07:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned episodes of Pokémon[edit]

Contains original research, unencyclopaedic tone, a POV title (banned? or just not shown for some reason?) and - in the end - I reckon it's Pokémoncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep When one or more episodes of a popular show are banned (or withheld or whatever you prefer to call it), there's usually reasoning behind it and in most cases is quite interesting. The Porygon seisure epsiode in particular made worldwide headlines when it occured... I remember reading about it long before Pokemon was well-known in the US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was reading this just this morning, and I'm not one for trawling through pages of Pokecruft. This information is interesting and notable. Vashti 14:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite notable & encyclopedic. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is interesting and seems notable. Metamagician3000 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Delete - read the article, please, chaps. Not a single one of these episoes has been banned by any normally recognised definition of the word: they're just not shown. The writer speculates that the episodes have been withdrawn, but gives no proof at all. The episode with the epilepsy-inducing flashes is covered (better) elsewhere, and even that has not actually been banned. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, speculative fancruft that is potentially untrue. Vizjim 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...so rename the page, then? Vashti 15:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To what, though? Episodes of Pokemon that don't seem to get shown any more, though we should legally point out that nobody has formally withdrawn them from circulation, at least we don't have any evidence of their having done so? Vizjim 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Controversial episodes of Pokemon? That would cover the differing attitudes towards some of the episodes across countries. Vashti 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then all we'd need to do is change the tone and add sources. In my book, wrong tone, wrong title and no references is a delete :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a quick google search also shows many of these as being banned. I dont have the time to verify the original sources however. --Zer0faults 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this search? Because I can't see a single reliable reference saying that any of these episodes have been banned, just that certain commercial networks aren't showing them. Vizjim 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Vizjim. After actually reading the article, it's obvious that this is NOT encyclopedic at all. -- Kicking222 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per Vizjim. There isn't a factoid here that shouldn't be mentioned in the articles to the individual eps, and the Pokemon fedayeen being what it is, there would have to be. Ravenswing 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also found it interesting, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Aplomado talk 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete with icing and cherries on top per nom. and Vizjim. YES, this essay is interesting. NO, being interesting does not override the three fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, of which this article violates all three. — Haeleth Talk 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but major editing It needs a major rewriting. Major. Jebusman says so. --Jebusman 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be moved, because "banned" is not the right word, and citations added. Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be rewritten a bit, with possibly a title change, but it is full of useful information (to some) that's too long to just stick on the bottom of the Pokémon (anime) article. Censorship is one of those things that should be recorded, and it is essential information to the Pokémon anime article (unless we're planning to delete that, too). And besides, at least it's not just another list. -- Lampbane 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vashti and Starblind. I'm surprised this has been nominated. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say keep it. User_talk:Bobabobabo
  • Delete: Interesting, sure. However it has major problems with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR that I don't think can be overcome. --Hetar 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought this was a very interesting article. - Richardcavell 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we should create articles on each of these episodes individually, and put a section in each labeled controversy over the episode or something like that. Cabby2 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Cabby2, especially since some people are making episode guides, and Computer Soldier Porygon has one. I wouldn't object to keeping it though. Matty-chan 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give it a throughout mopping (the "really really really throughout" kind of mopping, you know). Though I'd definitely like to see this getting integrated into the Pokémon episode articles themselves (once they exist for each episode in question), after which this could be turned into a category. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a different title. Can't think of a good one, though. But delete if no reliable sources are found (people appear to be finding some, however, from what I read above). LjL 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really liked this piece and I think that it stands to good reason to be on wikipedia. I think that the title could be redirected and changed to Controversial episodes/Unaired episodes But seriously, it was enjoyed and should not be deleted. Galoisprotege 2:29 19 May 2006
  • Comment Whether or not this article is deleted, the information regarding the Porygon seizures is notable and should be preserved. --Algorithm 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Or clean up and merge with a related article. Most of the episodes are not actually "banned", but rather never shown. I found this page to be informative, although it does require some cleaning up. --hirokazu 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andrew Lenahan - Rudykog 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think about it, Keep until all the episodes have their own seperate articles. Then make into a category, perhaps a subcategory for "Pokémon episodes". Matty-chan 04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful article of reference. --FlyingPenguins 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. It's not original research, I've seen this list many times. Sources can be found. Plus,when episodes of a very popular kids show are yanked for whatever reason, I consider that notable. The title of the article reads more like a magazine headline and REALLY needs to be changed, maybe to Unaired episodes of Pokemon, but the info here is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Seems notable to me. I often come to this article, and was definitely surprised to see this on AfD... -- RattleMan 05:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.  Grue  13:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, nom withdrawn. Kusma (討論) 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truth theory[edit]

POV fork of Truth. See [11]. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC) See below. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data[edit]

JA: By way of background, here are the previous Wikiquette Alerts:

13 May 2006

  • Might help to have an observer at Truth over the next few days, with regard to events beginning here. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
16 May 2006

  • Stemming from an earlier dispute over the appropriate technical level for the article Truth (alert posted above, 13 May 2006), a new article Truth theory was created to cover the subject at a more comprehensive technical level. Would appreciate guidance about the proper use of Cleanup, Factual Accuracy, Merge, and OR tags. 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here is a sample of data gathered on the division between introductory level and advanced level articles, as the distinction is currently drawn on a de facto basis in WikiPedia:
Table. Introductory and Advanced Articles in WikiPedia
Introductory Advanced
Introduction to special relativity Special relativity
Introduction to general relativity General relativity
Introduction to quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics, Mathematical form of QM
Set Set theory, Algebra of sets
Naive set theory Axiomatic set theory, Alternative set theory
Function (mathematics) Function (set theory)
Binary relation, Triadic relation Relation (mathematics)
Graph Graph theory
Group, Elementary group theory Group theory
Ring (mathematics) Ring theory
Field (mathematics) Field theory (mathematics)
Vector space Linear algebra
Topology Topological space, Algebraic topology
Introduction to topos theory Topos theory
Boolean logic Boolean algebra
Information Information theory
Computer science Theoretical computer science
Computation Theory of computation
Computing, Computable function Computability theory
Recursion Recursion theory
Relational database Relational algebra, Relational model
Biology Theoretical biology
Music Music theory
List of basic dance topics List of dance topics

JA: Jon Awbrey 13:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure[edit]

JA: With regard to the article Truth theory, that was a page that already existed in the form of a redirect to Truth, but which I changed from a redirect to an article in order to add content that was being wholesale deleted from Truth, initially by a single editor who had been away from the page for an extended time and simply started deleting everything that he considered too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", etc., and who objected that the References section was "bloated and inappropriate" to what amounts to his opinion about the preparation and needs of the intended reader.

JA: Thus I believe it is not accurate to describe this page as resulting from a POV Fork. The need for a separate page arises from the need to address a different intended reader, one with more than an initial interest in the subject, and one who will be tolerant of a more abstract, advanced, comprehensive, and detailed technical discussion, with all due "bloat" of the Bib that this entails.

JA: The article on Truth has always been a turbulent site, as anyone can well imagine, but the editors who were doing the actual work on site up until that time had evolved a modus vivendi, involving the excruciating examination on the talk page of every bit of controversial text, that seemed to be working about as well as anyone could expect. All that went out the window on May 12. Jon Awbrey 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Keep in some form. This can either be a stand alone article, in which case much of the section "Major theories of truth" in the truth article should also come over (with significant duplication acceptable), or get merged back into truth. But this content should not be deleted. GRBerry 02:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. After looking more carefully, I see I misunderstood what was going on. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this nomination caused. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Truth as per GRBerry. The content is verbose to the point of incomprehensibility, the topic treated in far too much detail - for comparison, the Britannica article on "truth" consists of a single sentence; the Britannica has no article on Truth theory. Banno 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electors who elect to read a few paragraphs of the article before voting will know that the The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1996) includes an entry for truth theory which refers the reader in turn to the entry for truth definition.
Blackburn, Simon (1996), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.
I need not remind our crustier scholars that the EB does not count as a fully authorized source, since its entries are not signed by their authors. Jon Awbrey 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote: Because I'd need to hear from someone more knowledgeable about philosophy to see if "truth theory" is actually a concept in popular use, but the article by itself is just unfocused rambling, mostly tangential to the concept of 'truth'. Peter Grey 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term does appear to be used by academics. [12] Tom Harrison Talk 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the problem; Jon is obviously passionate about his work. Will he oppose a merge, regardless of the outcome of this process? The material in Truth theory consists at least in part of material that had already been removed from Truth by other editors. Will mering simply result in the same stuff appearing under yet another heading? Banno 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Banno is a party to the dispute at Truth, and has a distinctive POV with respect to the questions of intended reader, level of detail, technical level, and so on. These are not primarily disputes about content, as we had a routine for resolving those issues that was working up until May 13, when Nathan Ladd came back from a long break and simply started deleting text en masse that he said was too "abstract", "advanced", "technical", and so on. If the reviewers will trace the course of the edit history beginning at the link that I posted in my first WQA, copied here, then I think that the record will bear that out. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 22:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: The article truth is both too long and too technical. That article should give a brief discussion of truth in philosophy, with each major school defined, but the more technical parts should be moved to truth theory. On the other hand, the article truth theory should cover a variety of ideas, not just one philosophical specialty. Rick Norwood 13:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletters in Pakistan[edit]

Student essay. Reviews a number of non-notable newsletters and contains a lot of how-to stuff about writing them. -- RHaworth 13:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Long essay with totally non-encyclopedic tone, switches to 2nd-person in places, i.e.: "Send the newsletter to just about everyone you do business with … bankers, accountants, lawyers … it’s a way of networking!" Unsalvagable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Starblind. --soUmyaSch 14:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay as it exists is non notable. If published in notable journal, if author was notable independent of essay? As is, not notable.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7. Just zis Guy you know? 14:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eargasm[edit]

nonnotable band Skysmith 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy From the article: "They Formed one fine school day in 2006 and are working on their first songs" That says it all, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userified by author. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie maclean[edit]

Appears to be autobiography (article and author are the same), although Google search does yield many results the apparent commercial link suggests self-promotion, no pages link to this article, text is exactly the same as user page Si-Jay 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - I doubt the article writer is the same as the article subject. If she is truly an internationally renowned journalist, she would not forget to capitalize her own last name -- in two places, even. AnonEMouse 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The writer even userfied the article already. That just goes to show what sort of vanity, nn-bio junk this is. -- Kicking222 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy IQ Test[edit]

This is a disputed prod. Rationale for deletion: IQ test/pay site with no independent sources external to the website demonstrating notability. Google returns no relevant hits and the website does not meet WP:WEB. Rationale for prod removal: "They go out of their way to prevent usage by non-professionals. The certifications listed meet high standards in psychology. The site looks like an important step in the direction of professional online testing [...] the site requires far more rigorous vetting before someone can take their test." --Muchness 14:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the excellent nomination. -- Kicking222 16:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, the nom is persuasive. Also I would not be allowed to take it, since my left eye vision is 6/36 fully corrected. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as adspam. RGTraynor 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. ergot 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial[edit]

pseudo-scientific; science has yet / cannot determine which ethnic groups constitute "a race"; Category:Multiracial Americans currently is being voted for deletion (see here) largely based on the vagueness in defining what is meant by multi-racial (as opposed to multi-ethnic) Mayumashu 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I voted to delete the category because that was classifying individual people by race in a nonsensical way. The concept of multiracialism exists (even though in fact we are all multiracial) and should have an article devoted to it. Vizjim 15:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jawohl! Ich bin Deutscher und North Carolinian. Hecht Deutsche. <grin> :) Dlohcierekim
  • Strong keep The article, which has literally been on WP for years, is generally well-sourced, well-written, and contains many external links. The definition and concept of being "multiracial" are all logical and as factually accurate as possible. There's no reason whatsoever to delete this article. -- Kicking222 16:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep apparently a content dispute not a serious request for deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pick up on that. :) Dlohcierekim 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was expecting a dictionary definition... this looks like more. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons so far stated. And yes, I was the one that put the Cat up for deletion. Dismas|(talk) 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as widely used concept and word and improve. Capitalistroadster 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TheMadBaron 19:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: It's an important concept in various times and places. It could use some less US-centric content. Peter Grey 21:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a valid area of academic (sociological) research, and a current social issue for many individuals.Exia 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given that "two or more races" is a classification used by the U.S. Census Bureau and similar terms are undoubtedly several other government agencies, this is hardly a "pseudoscientific" term, but a real social and anthroplogical one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated above. It's notable and seems to be a relatively well-written article. Yom 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd. Proto||type 13:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeddust[edit]

Non-notable. If anything, the case is notable, not the party to it. cj | talk 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Keep case delete this article.--Nick Y. 05:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the case is very notable, there is no "if anything" about it. Supposed 06:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Supposed, it is suggested that those editing an article disclose their involvement during AfD discussions. In any case, I started the case article. --Chaser 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per ScottW. RGTraynor 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd. Expand Totalise Plc v Motley Fool Ltd. It needs all the help it can get. :) Dlohcierekim 17:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above. TheMadBaron 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - per ScottW. Zaxem 11:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure, please I merged what little content there was. I think we're ready for closure and page redirect or deletion if someone who is not involved would like to do so. --Chaser (T, C, e) 09:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem Part Two[edit]

Non-notable song. It was never released as a single. When the article says it "charted and got 9th" I assume that means on MTV's Total Request Live, so, non-notable. Metros232 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete in current form, but I'm going to contact User:Angusmclellan and see if he will recreate to assert notability as stated. I'm not convinced the two are the same, and as the current article has one line of text, it should be speedied, anyway. Proto||type 13:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Close[edit]

Prod was removed because she is (supposedly) a former Miss Great Britain. I can't really find any evidence, and Google certainly doesn't help. If she exists, she doesn't seem notable. Aplomado talk 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Since the only piece of information in the article can't be verified, the article is basically nothing. -- Kicking222 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, almost certainly a vanity hoax. Check "what links here" before deleting... Just zis Guy you know? 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More than unverifiable, positively verifiably false: there is no Ivy Close among any of the past winners of Miss Great Britain or Miss United Kingdom. — Haeleth Talk 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, upon further research I found this article about her. Searching her in conjunction with her husband's unusual name also turns up more than 400 results on Google. She was born in 1890 which would explain why she isn't listed in the Miss Great Britain roles, which only go back to the 1940s. Notability is still sketchy though, and I didn't see any reference to Miss Great Britain, though she did win a beauty contest. Aplomado talk 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ydam 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Aplomado's googling, if the subject is Mrs Elwin Neame, who appears to have been notable. I'll rewrite if kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of Angus McLellan's offer to rewrite and make notability clear. Zaxem 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minima Yacht Club[edit]

Not notable with one sentence and just about 100 Ghits only.--Jusjih 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save for a second The article was just made 3 minutes ago by a new guy. Give it a couple days or so to grow, if it has nothing by then, then lets talk.Minnesota1 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article gets not just a couple of days, but five whole days, as part of the deletion process; since AfD is not a vote, the closing admin is perfectly permitted to disregard early "delete" votes if the article is improved in the meantime. That said... — Haeleth Talk 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just one of thousands of sailing clubs, and not a famous one. The only potential claim to notability I can see is that the club was founded in 1889. However, that isn't actually anything particularly special; clubs that old are two a penny. — Haeleth Talk 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Minima Yacht Club that was founded in 1889 folded in 1895. The Nore Yacht Club was founded from its remains [13], and was later merged into the Thames Estuary Yacht Club. This is a later club using the same name. Fan1967 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will kill them in the shithouse[edit]

Surely this one liner doesn't deserve its own article ??? Dunstan talk 15:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this isn't encyclopedic. Wikiquote [already] has it. Gwernol 15:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Vizjim 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopædic. No need to Transwiki as it is already on Wikiquote.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sheesh. RGTraynor 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Aplomado talk 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that said, I learned something :) Oreo man 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Despite the educational value. -MrFizyx 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless someone can make an article out of this. - Richardcavell 23:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC... hold on... this isn't another of those nn pop groups? Oh. Delete anyway. Rockpocket (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete? You have an article on the famous quote Lloyd Bentson said to Dan Quayle (Senator, You are no Jack Kennedy) but don't have an article on what President Putin said. The line was quite famous in Russia in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc85 (talk • contribs)
  • Interesting - we don't have We will fight them on the beaches, but we do have We will kill them in the shithouse.... I was going to suggest a merge and redirect to Vladimir Putin, but he's quoted there as saying "we'll whack them in an outhouse", so delete. TheMadBaron 20:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep famous idiotic line from a president of the largest country of the world.  Grue  13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl William Hansen[edit]

An obscure historical figure, referenced in relation to Ordo Templi Orientis but of no obvious significance outside of that group. Just zis Guy you know? 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the voidance of doubt, merge works for me too. Just zis Guy you know? 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of WP:HOLE is that it is not to be used as an argument for deletion, rather, it explains the need to address some poorly written articles. What is your understanding of this? -MrFizyx 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering that he died in 1936, the 80 Google hits for "Carl William Hansen" Kadosh seem sufficient. True, he's not notable outside his OTO activities but he founded an OTO branch in a country, that's something. AnonEMouse 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A significant contribution to his field has been made, he is notable within it, and wikipedia is for the sharing of knowledge don't you know. This knowledge is worthwhile. Therefore it should be kept. Benjaminstewart05 12:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
—Whouk (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough, significant enough to deserve own article. Vizjim 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Merge way obscure. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable OTO figure. More notable than some of the neo-Nazis we have articles on. ergot 15:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as it has already been established that this person has no notability outside of the OTO. Since the article contains little other information, a merge seems particularly appropriate. -- Kicking222 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ordo Templi Orientis per JzG. Founding an OTO branch (and several other Templar-wannabe groups) is not in my opinion notable enough for a bio article without proof that it influenced a lot of people (such as the "audience of 5000" guideline for performers). Writing the pseudonymous tract cited in the article is in my opinion only notable enough for a bio if there are substantial citations showing influence. Most stuff about secret societies, especially ones whose spiel is mystical, comes through sources that are POV and not externally verifiable. Barno 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (or merge at a pinch). The article claims he was in Who's Who; can this be verified? — Haeleth Talk 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Obscure, but notable enough. -MrFizyx 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. With a 5d-4k situation, I realize that I may be on shaky ground, but I think that is the result which best summarises the discussion. One argument given for "keep" by Kicking222 is "...if it's verifiable that the group exists or did exist, then its article is warranted", but that is not consistent with the previous precedent we have had for bands (WP:MUSIC); except for unusual circumstances we have required some releases on major record labels or a bit more on independent ones, in this case no albums have been released. TheMadBaron has argued that tracks have been commercially released, but after looking at the article myself I cannot see that to be evident. The participation of a notable artist like Xzibit has also been given as an argument for inclusion, but his participation appears to have been only a minor side-project. In all, I find the arguments presented by Durin (lack of Allmusic entry, no productions in over seven years of existence) to be convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Project[edit]

Non-notable band (does not meet WP:MUSIC), which author has removed {{prod}} and {{importance}} tags from without addressing concerns or explanation. Harmil 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The band does have notable members, but WP:NOT a crystal ball. --cholmes75 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The group, with its notable members, obviously passes WP:MUSIC. Whether or not they ever actually released albums, if it's verifiable that the group exists or did exist, then its article is warranted. -- Kicking222 16:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These notable members (such as they are) are none so titanic that a "band" they purportedly formed several years ago with a formless lineup and an announced album with not a single announced original cut should get any consideration. Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball, and this is the WP:MUSIC version of vaporware. RGTraynor 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like that crytal ball stuff that people use so often to justify the vote. Note that Flipmode Squad article exists as well with Busta Rhymes being the only notable member. Note that every major mainstream rapper has his own group that has its separate page. See Nas and the Bravehearts, Fat Joe and the Terror Squad, Snoop Dogg and Tha Dogg Pound, Jadakiss and the D-Block...etc Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much though anyone might not approve, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball is official policy, not some sort of offbeat justification that one can slough off at will. That aside, the list of bands you give actually exist and actually have put out songs and albums; their notability is not in question. RGTraynor 18:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. - FrancisTyers 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or change into a redirect. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see WP:NOT). The group has been in 'existence' for seven+ years and hasn't managed to produce anything? Furthermore, there's no entry on allmusic.com which does a decent job of representing western groups and even more so U.S. groups. Clearly fails all aspects of WP:BAND, which encourages a redirect in this case; it's a side project, and worse, has produced nothing to date. This should have been speedy deleted. --Durin 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A list of songs the group has recorded is listed in the article. No they haven't released an album yet. But they have recorded a number of songs. Just because they aren't on one album doesn't erase their existence. Also, Harmil accuses me of deleting the tags with no explanation. NOT TRUE. I explained my reasoning in the discussion tab of the article. MrBlondNYC 20:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playfair enterprises[edit]

Non-notable company: only Google hits are Wikipedia and a job advert (contested prod) Pak21 15:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. The current article reads like an ad for them. Gwernol 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; and a mediocre ad at that. RGTraynor 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No useful content at all. -- Kicking222 17:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ydam 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 22:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Proto||type 13:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about places[edit]

Listcruft, and probably not maintainable at that. cholmes75 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've pretty much taken care of this merger seing that the majority here is going for delete. So be it. -MrFizyx 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agus R. Sarjono[edit]

User posted article about self. Deprodded. Userfy and Delete. If he really is a notable poet, which I very strongly doubt, somebody else should create an article about him. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' I deprodded b/c despite strong evidence of a vanity article, this guy really does exist and seems notable. On further research, a google search returns 696 hits [14] (surely all on him), including this one, an article about him at the International Institute for Asian Studies, and this one, a biography of him that verifies much of the info. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice. u p p l a n d 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bars in Brussels[edit]

A classic case for transwiki to Wikitravel, I think. It's a travelogue about - well, bars in Brussels. It accords very much with my experience of bars in Brussels, in that they serve fantastic beer; the Brasseurs is certainly well worth a visit (especially on a hot summer day when you can watch the world go by in the Grand Place) but I can't think of a way of saying that in an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks - Grue is correct. This is not encycloapedic material. Proto||type 13:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Interval mnemonics[edit]

A list of song examples fitting musical intervals. Not exactly original research but not exactly encylopedic either. Prodded with the comment "tablecruft." Deprodded with the comment "This is a useful resource for anyone who wants to learn intervals. It needs to be added to and refined. The examples may not be known by everyone." Thatcher131 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These aren't mnemonics, they're examples. As such, they fall foul of that law about "not doing articles made up of loads of random examples of something" (to paraphrase WP:NOT). Plus, who can resist the word "tablecruft"? Vizjim 16:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tablecruft/listcruft/chartdoesn'tmakemuchsensecruft/cruftcruft. -- Kicking222 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree it is in bad shape, but the idea is good. It could evolve to a useful page. −Woodstone 20:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, useful. These are both examples and mnemonics, and they are hardly random. You could merge it into Interval (music), but that article seems to be long enough already. A {wfy} tag may be more appropriate here. -MrFizyx 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very useful. Was just what I was looking for, since I am new to the English speaking world of teaching music. I have equivalent for German students. My suggestion:3 blind mice for major second descending.Hoernchen 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find they are mnemonics, as they help me remember them. Needs filling out though. (which bit of the simpsons theme?) -- GWO
  • Keep. These mnemincs were all familiar to me years ago. I wanted to look them up again, and a search engine led me here. That's what it's all about, right? --194.72.110.12
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is how-to, not an encyclopedic article.  Grue  13:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand Does anyone have any mnemonics to remember these mnemonics? I can only ever remember one or 2 of them. And where's that one about the dog? Ewlyahoocom 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiti[edit]

Created by vandal, does not seem to Google. If anyone can verify this exists then fine, otherwise delete. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a hoax. Also removed a reference to it in Napoleonic Wars. Aplomado talk 16:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything about this so-called island online. Thus, it's unverifiable. Thus, it's an easy delete. -- Kicking222 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete lack of verifiable evidence Craig451
  • Delete – based on history and contributions of editor(s) involved (in real life Alexander Edelman?), who have a track record of vandalism, clearly a vandalism hoax. --LambiamTalk 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Probable hoax. DarthVader 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -MrFizyx 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanter[edit]

I can't find any credible confirmation of this definition on Google. Nor can I find it in yourDictionary.com or in a copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary that I have to hand. Gil Gamesh 16:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dose exist as a website. www.spanter.com

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Motorola 680x0. I gather from this discussion that the content has already been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga virtual machine[edit]

I have refactored long comments to the talk page to reduce the amount of text someone reading through the day's AFDs must scroll through. This is not an assertion that those comments were somehow less valuable or important. Please post long comments there, while posting short delete/keep recommendations here. No delete/keeps have been removed from this page. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to this operation of censorship

Ubelivable behaviuor! Congratulations! You have just deleted all my argumentations here that were well written and documented forcing people to read another page to read my arguments, so people who must vote to keep the article have nothing to read directly about WHY to keep it.

I hope these are not the methods of all moderators in Wikipedia, i.e. to delete testimony!

I don't want to comment more or I will start being offensive about these methods.

But:

I warn you mr.Stifle.

Delete any other argumentation from mine and I will start a Request of Arbitration versus you.

Sincerely,

--Raffaele Megabyte 02:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An Amiga emulator is no more a Virtual machine then any other emulator. Should we have pages for NES virtual machine, Mac virtual machine, etc...? I believe the topics in this article is sufficiently covered by Amiga emulation and WinUAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anss123 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep An emulator is just a program running into an host machine. Programs run by the emulator are considered alien by the hosting machine.

Amiga Virtual Machines create a series of Hardware Abstraction Layers between the hosting machine hardware, and the software, and let it run as if it was in the original Amiga environment.

Often Amiga VM are associated with emulators engines and/or code interpreters, but this fact can't let an Amiga VM be considered as like as a merely simple emulator. AVM just could be integrated with emulators to obtain new results with limited re-use of existing software solutions.

There are at least 4 Amiga Virtual machine known. Petunia from AmigaOS 4.0, ABOX from MorphOS, Amithlon as stand alone product and Amiga Anywhere as standalone product. Read more about these products into the article itself.

Also I remember to all readers that the Amiga world it is evolving and different solutions are considered by different people developing Amiga. In the future more about virtualization will take place into Amiga world, so more phenomena will emerge and will deserve Wikipedia articles.

This is a summary of all my testimony to let this article be kept alive, and a summary of all my comments to detractors of Amiga. Hope that at least this summary will be let to stay finally without receiving any censorship.

--Raffaele Megabyte 02:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep with reserve Strong delete (this is getting more and more absurd). This looks life a strange (and OR) "parroting" of things like the JVM, which are actually intended to be virtual machines, and never were real hardware. "Write once, run anywhere" was never a stated goal for Amiga Motorola 680x0 executable programs, and the term "AVM" itself is not attested at all. Advice that the content of the "Bytecodes" section (by the way, again, nobody ever called M68k instructions byte-code before, and they most definitely are not) be merged into Motorola 680x0, as it may contain useful information about the M68k instruction set. LjL 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I've done the above (merging into Motorola 680x0), as well as putting some content into Amiga emulation as well. Please review my edits! LjL 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't personally like Amiga Virtual Machines then that is fine but that is no reason to damage wikipedia by removing a clearly written article. To Mr. LjL, your complaint is false as Macintosh Virtual Machines and PC Virtual Machines are already listed in various other parts of the wikipedia such as Comparison_of_virtual_machines. Perhaps you feel that Java inc. owns the term "Virtual Machine". It does not. Furthermore the term "Virtual Machine" is synonymous with "Emulator". The trouble is that people who type in the phrase "Emulator" are usually looking for games, while people who type in "Virtual Machine" are typically searching for some type of serious application to perform work. Thus 2 different articles are needed, each with its own clear focus. Also if you were to discriminate against PC, Mac, Amiga virtual machines and delete them then you would also have to delete Java Virtual Machine. It sounds like your complaint is an attempt to give Java a Wikipedia monopoly. There are many types of virtual machines in the world today and they are ALL worthy of wikipedia articles.--StoneGiant 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is this user's 21st edit. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry but I cannot find anything in this article that violates any rules. It is NPOV, uses proper English etc. I wish it had more meat but I am sure someone will expand it. I agree with StoneGiant that Sun does not own the concept of Virtual Machine. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for rich corporations. Opensource free virtual machines are deserving of articles just as much as any other.--4.231.152.76 09:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This recommendation is likely to be discounted as it comes from an unregistered user. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I'll show you why This invoice in wikipedia should be to stay.

(long comment refactored to talk page by Stifle)

This is why the invoice was created. This is absolutely the reason that requires such an invoice to keep stay into Wikipedia.

This is why I ask moderators to cancel any past an any further request to delete it.

With respect,
--Raffaele Megabyte 21:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almost all of this user's edits, including all of those made in the last 6 months, are to this article and related pages. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • response: Is this a problem to you? It is a long time I don't edit and/or write into wikipedia. It is a right of mine to do it or not.

And I thanks God I discovered the attempt to delete this article, so I can fight democratically to keep it.

With respect --Raffaele Megabyte 02:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the discussion here is getting a little out of hand. Keep the the article for now. The discussion about where to merge it, or what content should be here vs. elsewhere, should take place on the article talk page, and should NOT have the time limit that an AfD discussion has. Mangojuicetalk 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect to Amiga emulation. Emulation of the Amiga is already covered in Amiga emulation and various articles such as Unix Amiga Emulator. It's redundant to have two articles, so they should be merged, or this one deleted. I agree than "Amiga emulation" should be the primary name - this phrase is far more common that "Amiga virtual machine". Furthermore the article confuses Amiga emulation with Amiga Anywhere, which is an entirely different thing - this should be moved out into its own article. I realise that the article states they are different - but it's confusing to cover them together like this. If we want to cover both articles, then the article should be converted into a proper disambiguation page. This should also be deleted as a non-notable or unreferenced term - only 1 non-wikipedia Google hit [16], and that says "Too bad there isn't an Amiga Virtual Machine"! Mdwh 00:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 5 nonwikipedia Yahoo hits for "Amiga Virtual Machine" [17] and I see no factual errors in the article. In fact it seems clear from reading this discussion that the article should be enormously expanded.--70.110.80.15 07:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's debateable how many hits should be considered "enough", but 5 is absurd. Even hundreds is generally considered non-notable (e.g., I get over 1,000 on just an online name I use which is unique to me). Also note, of those 5, none are relevant to this article: 1 actually appears to mean a Java virtual machine, 2 talk about a hypothetical Amiga virtual machine for the A\BOX, which was never released, and 2 are actually duplicate hits, I've no idea what the mention of Amiga virtual machine is about, the phrase just appears in some RSS feed. Mdwh 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge; none of this is in the right place, and most of it duplicates other articles.--Prosfilaes 19:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You surely must be a newb to Wikipedia so I will explain some things to you.
  • You don't get special priveleges for being a minority in Wikipedia.
  • There are no federal laws protecting minorities on the Wikipedia.
  • We the majority make the rules in the Wikipedia. The minority just has to deal with that.
  • We can delete this irrelevant article if we want to. (We do). All Amiga articles are irrelevant to society.
  • Wikipedia is not the place for nonstandard systems to promulgate themselves and clutter up the wiki.
  • You are not just a minority. You are an infinitesimally small minority. Get over it.--AirportTerminal 11:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please refrain from responding to this obvious flamebait.--Anss123 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above vote by 68.238.104.248 was the editor's first edit. Mdwh 10:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
  • Delete Why are we letting people clutter up Wikipedia with articles about a dead platform? All Amiga artilces are not notable. They should all be deleted! Why are we having this discussion? There can't be more than 10,000 Amiga real machines and probably no more than 90,000 Amiga virtual machines in use today. That is less than 0.01% of the desktop market. This is not notable. It isn't relevant for society at large. I agree with the others in that I feel hostility towards this (and all other) amiga articles. Let the purge begin!--AirportTerminal 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please refrain from responding to this obvious flamebait.--Anss123 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is this user's fifth edit. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrnia Guide for Newbies[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide listing ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this guide as it helps new players out lots and might also be taken as a sign of our times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbobaggins (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasari[edit]

Does a particular type of shoe like this require its own article? I can understand the Air Jordan but not so sure on this one. Metros232 16:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as it stands it is too short, has no evidence and doesn't merit an individual article. Craig451
  • Delete per nom. And how many track spike afficionados are there out there? I'm friends with a lot of college track runners, but I don't think any of them have ever searched for rare spikes. -- Kicking222 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I AM a college track runner and no, I don't search out rare spikes. Cheap spikes, yes; rare spikes, no. Metros232 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as nonsense, just like the last two times. Earth salted. Just zis Guy you know? 16:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jam and Cheese[edit]

Filled with nonsense and complete lack of verifiable evidence Craig451 16:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no relevant Google hits & the article is unintelligible. -- Scientizzle 16:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aplomado talk 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient Weather[edit]

A private company. No sales figures, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Creator is User:Ambientsw - could they perhaps be related? Written in sufficiently florid terms as to suggest vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Asserts notability w/ Inc. Magazine qoute(the magazine, not the article).  :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Edelman[edit]

Created by User:Ambientsw (Edelman's company is called Ambient). User's other edits include linking this in other articles and adding spam links for Edelman's company. CEO of a private company, padded with details about the company stated in florid terms. And apart from that, not much really. A case of WP:HOLE, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How many Edelmans are going to get AfDed in one day? We're up to three now. Aplomado talk 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by RadioKirk with an edit summar of "no purpose." --Hetar 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of central park[edit]

Will never be more than 1 sentence long. Is duplicated by Central Park's article ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious delete as a travel guide. This article's fate is certain. Aplomado talk 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete before we get a flood of "Location of..." articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enderunix[edit]

Seems more of a page that is promoting services, not a reference tool. Yanksox 16:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per evidence of Andrew. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inc. Magazine[edit]

Magazine owned and run by a group of redlinks. Which is not a crime. But here's the interesting bit: I downloaded the advertiser's media pack and there is no circulation figure. Having bought advertising space in the past, that is number one on the list of things an advertiser is likely to want to know. Circulation figures absent, I call vanity. Just zis Guy you know? 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep major well-known magazine. What's with the sudden circulation figures thing? (see also Fast Company AFD) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the circulation figures thing is that circulation is vitally important to a magazine. Which is why I went to the trouble of downloading their media pack, so I could see if this was just garden-variety spam (having found it through the edit history of a vandal). Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, circulation figures are important for a magazine, and every good magazine should include them. But I can't grasp why their absence is somehow a criterion for deletion or suggests vanity for some reason. 3 seconds on Google shows that these are by no means anyone's xeroxed-at-school fanzine... "Fast Company" in quotes brings 6.6 million Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you know how it is, trailing through the edit history of a vanity spammer and vandal, you can get overwhelmed by skepticism. I spent far longer than 3 seclonds downloading and reading their media packs and other data looking for evidence from them which would establish their notability, it never occurred to em that they might consider themselves so well known that they didn't need to announce circulation, only the number of subscribers to their web forum. Call me evil. Just zis Guy you know? 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per everything Starblind says. May, I humbly, with no criticism implied, suggest a Google search on "Inc. Magazine" circulation before the next similar nomination? That gives 663,000 in 1999, 670,000 in 2001, and the last link also answers the Fast Company circulation question, with 600,000 in 2001. AnonEMouse 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major magazine. Definitely worthy of an article. JohnnyBGood t c 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, probably the best-known American small business magazine. Anirvan 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Rob 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, thanks to Andrew. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Company magazine[edit]

Stub article on a magazine whose media pack gives no clue as to circulation. It says how many subscribers the web forum has, but not how many people read the magazine. If the claim that Fucked Company took its name as a parody of this can e verified that might just ab out constitute a claim to notability, otherwise I can't see any claim here. Just zis Guy you know? 17:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs involving computer and video games[edit]

AFD tag added by Nintendude with the reason "Wikipedia is too into standards against song lists.", although he did not create the AFD subpage or list it. Listing now. No vote. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Bad faith nom by Nintendude. With that said, the article is in no way the best out there, and while 1) everything is verifiable, and 2) the list definitely does not have an infinite number of entries, it's still listcruft. -- Kicking222
  • Strong Keep' verifiable, signficiant related to computer and video game culture. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, whatever is going on here..? Despite attempting to comprehend the original user's reasoning for deletion, and looking at the respective talkapge, I never quite found out. Keep due to insufficient dialetic provided by Nintendude. Deletion material this is not. -ZeroTalk 18:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipeida is not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination, interesting and unusual material. - CNichols 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, keep. I'm confused. --Optichan 18:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ! - Phorque (talk · contribs) 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Thunderbrand 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ~ Vic Vipr 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I strongly believe that the "Songs included in games" section should be removed--that would be insanely huge if expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dude, I didn't know there was an article on Pac-Man Fever! -MrFizyx 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: User is apparently trying to make a WP:POINT. Kil 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No good reason for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep per nom's withdrawal and no delete votes. --Hetar 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Kennon Mayo[edit]

non-notable. vanity? frymaster 17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Former commander of Norfolk Naval Shipyard, decorated in Civil War. Hey, and I'm not even American. Grusl 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe tagged a bit too quickly, after only the first paragraph was saved. Wait a little, we're barely into the civil war in his career. Fan1967 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - current incarnation looks perfectly acceptable to me. Ac@osr 19:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - there have been nine edits since the afd tag that have given the article sense. please, in future, do not save draft copies or copies known not to live up the standards of wikipedia! frymaster 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator has decided to keep, can we get a Speedy Close here? Fan1967 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nominator has decided that this article should be kept, and there have been no delete votes. DarthVader 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrumdiddilyumptious[edit]

This thing was prodded, deprodded, tagged transwiki, untagged transwiki, tagged transwiki, and then untagged transwiki again by me. Now it's got an AfD tag on it, so let's put it where it belongs -- and I don't think "where it belongs" is Wiktionary, either. TheProject 17:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per Google with only 461 hits. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. :) Dlohcierekim 18:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:NEO Ydam 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism that can apply to any food product, so not specific enough with anything in particular. Teke 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This hamburger is scrumdiddilyumptious or Your mom is Scrumdiddilyumptious." Possibly BJAODN. Aplomado talk 18:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletearuski. Per reasons above. PJM 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, belongs in Urban Dictionary if anywhere. Punkmorten 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Almost BJAODN. DarthVader 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dediddlyete - Richardcavell 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I get it. Teke 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marzipan JoyJoys (Website)[edit]

I'm fairly convinced that it is the creators of the website that keeps adding this to Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marzipan joyjoys. --Maitch 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Maitch 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per last time this came up Ydam 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable web site promotion. -- Kicking222 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVader 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. ergot 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Idiocy[edit]

Non-notable website (google finds 1 link and 5 mentions). Started in spring 2005 but not launched till December 2005. Delete as not meeting WP:WEB. (If this looks like it will be deleted, I will also put the newly-created category up for deletion.) bikeable (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The test is not legitimacy. The test is notability. Have any reliable sources other than the site ever covered it? First become notable, then get an encyclopedia article. GRBerry 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Fraser Cukier[edit]

Non-notable lawfirm. Shows no notability. Computerjoe's talk 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No question that this is linkspam; Google news search on "Stock Fraser Cukier" results in zero hits. The only possible claim to notability that I could find (which wasn't in the article) is that they have acted as an agent for the House of Lords in an international law dispute. Note, however, that hundreds (if not thousands) of other law firms could make the same claim. I'm not sure whether WP:CORP applies to lawfirms; if it does, they appear fail it. I'm going to give this one a delete as spam and not particularly notable. ergot 14:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, adspam. TheMadBaron 21:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deek hoi[edit]

Either a hoax, or a fictional backstory for a band. The details all appear to be made up; "deek hoi" as a source of music appears to exist, but the only listings I can find are a myspace page (similarly nonsensical) and what appear to be a listings for a handful of local gigs. In other words, the article as it stands fails WP:V quite spectacularly, and I can find nothing to suggest that a serious article on the real "deek hoi" would meet the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. — Haeleth Talk 17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The info on this page is a hoax, so I agree with deletion. But deek hoi is a writer/performer, and I'm working on getting together sources to supply a verifiable bio on them. Thanks! Martillie 19:00 17 May 2006

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

The result of the debate was merge to Led Zeppelin I. I'm not doing it for you, though. Do it yourself. Proto||type 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Time Is Gonna Come[edit]

Every song from Led Zeppelin I has an article and I don't see any evidence of notability/importance, particularly in this article. Metros232 18:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. How about because it's from Led Zeppelin I? Aplomado talk 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every LZ song has its own article, why single out this one? Anger22 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to Keep...keep...keep ramblin' on. PJM 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every song off Michael Jackson's Thriller doesn't have an article, and that's sold over 27 million copies in the U.S. alone. Just being on an acclaimed album does not necessarily make the song notable. And I singled this one out because I happened to stumble upon it while doing link repair, so I nominated it from there. Metros232 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the proposed guidelines state that a song may deserve an article if there is enough information for it to be spun off from a very long album article. Led Zeppelin I is fairly long so the question is whether or not the information here justifies a separate page or could be expanded appropriately. I'm undecided on that. Ac@osr 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Led Zeppelin I per WP:MUSIC/SONG. The Zep I article isn't that long, and the individual articles should be reserved only for the most notable tunes. -MrFizyx 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Nothing notable about the song that can't go into the album article. Aguerriero (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. unremarkable Led Zep song. Lord Bob 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Led Zeppelin I. It isn't nearly long enough to start requiring subsections to be spun off. ergot 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The better LZ song articles are all about famous songs. This ones ... well, filler. -- GWO
  • Merge or delete or something. Doesn't deserve its own article.  Grue  13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam points of interest[edit]

Pointless stub at hoplessly open-ended article name, Delete ::Supergolden:: 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 16:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Madness[edit]

"Link madness" appears to be a neologism; the discussion is unencyclopedic, and appears to include original research ("The only way to escape such an affliction is to let the obsession run its course"). Anirvan 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's a neologism, it violates WP:NOR, and it's simply not particularly encyclopedic (not to mention being made up). -- Kicking222 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. DarthVader 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpines[edit]

This would be encyclopedic if there was any hint of more information on this. But, as the article says, one has to "use one's imagination" to figure out how such a device would have worked. TheProject 19:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Don't seem to find any real references to this word. Possibly made up. LjL 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as with Exicornt. --Sunfazer | Talk 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge (already done it) Proto||type 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Bouvier[edit]

  • Delete Merge: "Ling Bouvier" was only in one episode, very minor and has no information what so ever. mo-- (Talk | #info | ) 19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: Keeping this article will do more good than harm since those who want to know about Ling will get to at least see her and learn general information about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.86.224 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge: it could be merged with the list of one time characters... per Kiyosuki below... - Adolphus79 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ling is mentioned in a single sentence in List of characters from The Simpsons, and one sentence is all that is needed. She only appeared in one episode, and being a baby, there isn't much in the way of characterization. -- Kicking222 21:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or at least Merge...is a Bouvier, an important family in The Simpsons.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klayonic (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge with Patty and Selma Bouvier and a passing, one line mention in one time characters (That is...if that list survives.) I agree that Ling doesn't require her own page since she's so minor, but she's valid enough a bit of information to go along with the Bouvier sisters' own character development. If this gets deleted, I'm saving the page and adding it to their page as a separate section if it doesn't get merged because in a way...Ling is just an extention of Patty's own character, a foot note almost.--Kiyosuki 01:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kiyosuki. Lbbzman 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: She was a character so an article about her is useful. It does no harm to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catbox 9 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with Patty and Selma Bouvier. She should be a part of Patty's section, as their isn't enough info on her yet. And for the record, she's appeared twice. JQF 03:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JQF. Weirdy 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JQF. --Blahm 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Balke[edit]

  • DeleteThe subject is not notable. Only 28 google hits [18]. The film he worked on is not listed in imdb Bill 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because this film is also not notable. It is not in imdb. A google search for gunslinger and the name of the director comes up with 26 google hits [19]:

--Bill 19:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. A nine-minute film that's hoping to be included in a film festival, but they don't know yet. Let us know when you have a real credit. Fan1967 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. No notability at all. -- Kicking222 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Not notable. DarthVader 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this. Delete the film article. Notability not established. Matt Balke is actually speedy deletable under CSD A7. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, redirect to Muslim Jew. Sango123 (e) 19:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Muslims[edit]

The article provides no verifiable evidence that such an identifiable group of people exists, as the only source given is an unreliable website. The content appears to be original research of the article's author. Pecher Talk 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wanted to know, the guy from the pictures on the website was featured in a segment of a History International program called "Children of Abraham", he was just some Brooklyn Jewish guy that converted after meeting some guy in an internet chat room. He seemed kinda of his rockers and spent the 10 minutes preaching how evil Jews really are. Also he no longer claims to be Jewish ethnically or otherwise anymore.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A7. Chick Bowen 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood red rose[edit]

"Up and coming" teen band. i.e. band yet to reach any prominence - Skysmith 20:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They're planning to actually perform, once they get a drummer. Yeah, right. Fan1967 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Clearly meets A7 critera. -- T.o.n.y 20:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appalingly written, a "one-off" gig next month. Not even in the same room as WP:MUSIC. Ac@osr 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This article is absolutely A7 material. Not even an attempt to assert any sort of notability. -- Kicking222 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. CSD A7. DarthVader 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Bear Alliance[edit]

The organization is a hoax, and not a prominent hoax at that. I don't believe this topic to be of encyclopedic value. -- T.o.n.y 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or not, I would'nt want to upset the bears — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.54.11 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datatex[edit]

Advertising. No notability established. Article editor keeps vandalising prod and advertising tags Sleepyhead 20:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Phish Tour[edit]

As per the previous deletion discussion, and resulting delete, of 2004 Phish Tour as being fancruft.
I am also nominating the following related pages:

--MOE.RON talk | done | doing 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - belongs on a fan site. Punkmorten 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, unencyclopædic. This should be on a band tribute webpage.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft to the extreeeeeeeeeme (insert a guitar solo for more rockin' than anything Phish could pull off here). -- Kicking222 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft —Mets501talk 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. Ted 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Phishcruft. -- GWO
  • Delete as above. Cool3 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - default to keep. And looking at the page, there's so much work gone into it (and it's all referenced! Hallelujah, praise Jebus!), I would suggest a keep is the best result, anyway. Proto||type 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newswatch 16[edit]

Mostly adcopy that can describe any local newscast in the country, the rest can be easily merged into WNEP-TV. Kirjtc2 20:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanksox (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The only thing that really should be merged is the newscast schedule, without all that unnecessary fluff. -Whomp 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any (slightly) useful info per nom. -- Kicking222 21:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as much as I realise that this is just-another-TV-show, for the people who live in that area it's as notable as NBC Today. - Richardcavell 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that newscasts are notable, but as far as I can see, this is the only local newscast in North America that has its own article separate from the main station article. Kirjtc2 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually, there are others. Just look for them. CoolKatt number 99999 23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Schwartz[edit]

Claims notability but this "radio personality" seems not to meet our standards. 55 Google hits for Gavin Schwartz, OK, let's try his nickname "Gavin the Loose Cannon", that'll yield more hits for sure. Oh, only seven hits distributed between two different sites (one of them being Wikipedia). Punkmorten 20:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep - nomination was withdrawn. Proto||type 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Digital O-Ring Test[edit]

Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. Philosophus T 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn --Philosophus T 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --Philosophus T 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --Philosophus T 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do withdraw it. The usual way is to strike-through the original nomination by surrounding it with <s>...</s> and to put after it "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". --LambiamTalk 08:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. Fucyfre

This article clearly stands up to Wikipedia criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Wikipedia practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Wikipedia policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Wikipedia criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include information, facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting information - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter

Comment - could we get some more opinions here please? So far there's one keep vote (from me) and that's the lot, since the nominator is now neutral. The talk page for the entry is now expanding. With respect to Richard Malter, the size of this is becoming unmanageable. - Richardcavell 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn so the article will be kept. -Will Beback 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Event (radio show)[edit]

Non-notable college radio show, complete with vanity. Metros232 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also submit for your consideration, the following related articles:

The Viz (radio host)
Gavin Schwartz (Already being considered for deletion)
BJG

There will also be a substantial amount of orphaned images that will come if this group of articles is deleted, so just a word of caution to the closing admin. Metros232 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is more than a university radio show, it has nearly 5000 listeners per week and is a major radio program in Montreal. RyanRider 16 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.158.80 (talk • contribs)
  • Can you cite this claim? A Google search only turns up 134 links for "CJLO + 'main event' + wrestling" and 115 for WWE in place of wrestling. Metros232 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete along with the rest of the Ryan Ryder walled garden. It is not a "major radio show" anywhere because it isn't a radio station. CJLO doesn't have a transmitter or a license. They have closed-circuit broadcast in a dorm, and are streamed on the web. Has to be considered under WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 1,811,793. - Fan1967 21:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong delete of all related articles per nom and per above. -- Kicking222 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, likewise the images; dormcast with a web stream that fails WP:WEB. ergot 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also CJLO, if it doesn't get speedied for having no content. --Rory096 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:AUTO violating college radio show. --Rory096 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. 3 deletes, 1 keep, one condense and merge, but I think the nominator and Zero sharp both made particularly cogent arguments. Proto||type 08:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Critical Mass rides[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article—rather, it is an attempt to use Wikipedia to organize events. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Surely this information exists elsewhere, at most there should be a link in the Critical Mass article to that resource. It does not warrant its own article. Zero sharp 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is now very widespread, and they are informally organised anyway so it's very hard to pin them down. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and Merge into Critical Mass mention some of the most popular events in the Critical Mass article. joturner 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rework to not be announcement of rides, but rather a list of rides that have taken place and notable details/highlights of those rides. (E.g., the new entry I just added for Calgary in Canada.) —GrantNeufeld 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm okay with this, but if this happens, it might be best to merge it until it's long enough to sustain a separate article again. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 23:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Just zis Guy you know. Zaxem 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands by population[edit]

The list in the page is a direct copyvio of the url in the "External Links" section. In addition to being a copyvio, the page it is copied from is an unreliable source - being some random persons collection of data hosted on a free web page provider. The idea of an article of most populated islands is a good one that some editor should take on. We should delete this irrecoverable bad article so someone can do that. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It may need attention, but definitely it shouldn't be deleted. The topic is adequately encyclopædic. — Instantnood 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice vote, you voted before this AfD subpage was written. I suppose that puts you in favor of copyright violations, original research, and unreliable sources then. SchmuckyTheCat 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: No. Absolutely not. Plain figures are not copyrighted. More reliable sources are possible. — Instantnood 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schmucky, ad hominem attacks are unlikely to convince anyone. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if cited, it's a job that categories can't do. Just zis Guy you know? 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is such a list at the UN ENvironment Programme site but their database is still incomplete. While a single reliable source listing all the figures is currently unavailable, we can always find verifiable figures from individual countries official census data. Polaron 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no list of islands by population that I can find at the UN site, but the creation of such a list from the UN data would be great. All the more reason to delete this article so a new version can be written without the bad data in the history. SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no list arranged by population. The UN always has its lists in alphabetical order. But the data is there although some are old and some are missing. Polaron 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Abuse of the AFD tag. This article already had the template:unreferenced tag which is the most appropriate tag for the current state of the article. -- Chuq 23:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The numbers aren't the same as in the page that this supposedly copies; any correctly compiled list would give basically the same list of islands. Izzycat 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
except it wouldn't, this list has islands that nobody else can even prove exists. SchmuckyTheCat 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Potentially useful article but marked as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise. This article cannot be a copyvio. Under U.S. law (which governs wikipedia), you can't copyright mere lists of facts. See [20]: jdb ❋ (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress included in the definition of “compilation” the first express statutory link between compilations and original works of authorship “...that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes a work of authorship.” (8) Cases under the 1976 Act were divided about the continuing viability of the sweat of the brow doctrine. Some circuits continued to apply it, (9) while other circuits rejected it, requiring a showing of sufficient creativity in order to entitle a compilation to copyright protection. (10) The Supreme Court resolved the split in the circuits in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. (11) In that case, the Supreme Court held that the white pages of a telephone directory (containing an alphabetical listing of all residents with telephone service in a defined geographic area) was insufficiently creative to merit copyright protection. The Court held that the requirement of creativity was not merely statutory, but rooted in the Copyright Clause itself. (12) Thus, the sweat of the brow doctrine was laid to rest.

What remains is a thin layer of copyright protection for qualifying databases. In order to qualify, they must exhibit some modicum of creativity in the selection, arrangement, or coordination of the data. The protection is thin in that only the creative elements (selection, arrangement, or coordination of data) are protected by copyright. Explanatory materials such as introductions or footnotes to databases may also be copyrightable. But in no case is the data itself (as distinguished from its selection, coordination or arrangement) copyrightable.

  • Comment - I have just updated all the figures using census data as references. All figures are indicated with both year and source, except for the one with which includes Macau. The original reason for the nomination is no longer applicable. Polaron | Talk 05:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - and note that not only is the information duplicated, but the list on the main article even splits it up into series; this doesn't even do that. Proto||type 08:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Medabot Episodes[edit]

List of episodes found on main article - this is thus rendered irrelevant Craig451 21:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I was just about to propose the deletion of this article too! Someone should check the data against that of the main article and then delete it. Delete --Tmorton166 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, if anything there should be a link from the main page to this. Once the episodes are all correct on this page (perhaps if the edit history of the list on the main page could be sent over with the info? This list may be copied,) the lists on the main one can be deleted (as well as the lists directly above this one on the main page.) However, this list is not split by season. Also, the show seems to be Medabots. Keep under these conditions. --71.212.87.230 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Make an article that's just about the TV series and move this list over there. Problem solved. --71.212.87.230 19:08, 17 May 2006

  • Delete. Listcruft. Info is already listed in the Medabots article, so there's no need for this extra list. Zaxem 11:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phentermine pharmacies mastercard[edit]

I can't tell if this is original research, ad-spam, or what. Claims that Mastercard has stopped processing charges from online pharmacies, which seems to be partly true, though what it has to do specifically with phentermine is unclear and is it really encyclopedic?

  • Delete No verification, poorly written, certainly does not merit an individual article. Craig451 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the multitude of reasons presented above. -- Kicking222 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam-riddled original research, POV in tone and crystal balling at that. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an appropriate article to merge this to? I don't know if we have any articles specifically about Internet pharmacies, although I haven't found anything completely relevant. I think it's at least somewhat noteworthy that someone's trying to shut down sleazy Internet pharmacies, but I don't know if it deserves a separate article. Besides, it needs cleanup and the title is misleading anyway. --Elkman - (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, where to begin? I thought from the title that this was going to be an article about a Mastercard issued by some entity called Phentermine Pharmacies. I didn't see any evidence in the DEA press release linked that the DEA is focusing "in particular" on stopping the online sale of phentermine; their press release ([21]) mentions only "amphetamines, anabolic steroids, and narcotics" (although for all I know phentermine may be one of those types of drugs; at any rate, it isn't specifically mentioned). Perhaps things are explained more clearly on the "Phentermine & Mastercard" page linked in this article; I didn't click on it because its being hosted on an IP with no domain looks awfully phishy. At any rate, this article is littered with external links, appears to be original research and/or crystal-ballism, is so difficult to understand that it could possibly be considered nonsense, is unencyclopedic in tone, and has a misleading title (incidentally, I can't help but wonder if the title was conceived with search engine spamming in mind). So, delete. ergot 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars And Fellows[edit]

This article on a non-notable musician (Various Google searches reveal a paucity of relevant hits. This article has been speedy deleted before, but reposted with no info that meets WP:MUSIC. The article is likely a violation of WP:VANITY as User:Efern211 is quite possibly "Eric Fernandez," the subject of the article. Scientizzle 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, until he becomes more notable. --Sunfazer | Talk 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable; no entry in Allmusic, no titles for sale on Amazon. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion as recreation of previously-deleted material. It was deleted on April 7, but obviously, nothing new has been added. It could also be speedied by A7, as the article does not attempt to assert any notability. -- Kicking222 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Minimates. Deizio talk 22:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Produced Marvel MiniMates[edit]

List of episodes found on main article - this is thus rendered irrelevant Craig451 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could have sworn we'd already deleted this once. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Minimates. I would have done this originally if I had known PRODs were under such heavy scrutiny. Fake User 20:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pheedo[edit]

This seems to be just an advertisement Gil Gamesh 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looserecord.com[edit]

Seems to be advertising, filled with POV Craig451 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Mopper Speak! 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexa ranking of 644,324. Blatant advertising. From the wording of the article and the lack of interwiki links, it could be a copyvio of looserecord.com, but that doesn't really make a difference, as the article is rubbish nonetheless. -- Kicking222 22:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. joturner 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clay 01:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 01:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Araripe[edit]

Vanity page Dr.frog 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks to me like this is just a vanity page created by the person the article is about. Same user was spamming the same content in other inappropriate places, like Category:Calligraphers. Also see user:Araripe. Dr.frog 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intense vanity advertising; from the big # of G-hits, the subject could be notable, but if he is, it certainly doesn't show in this convoluted article. Also, at least the first part of the article is a copyvio of his own site [22]. -- Kicking222 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and advertcruft. Funnybunny (talk/QRVS) 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely happy with the starting point of this AfD where vanity per se seems to be considered a basis for deletion. It is not. See Vanity: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance." We should be considering whether this article is about a subject of sufficient note. From the list of shows and previous mention of google hits, it would seem the subject may well be. In this case we are deleting a subject because it's badly written. The whole point of a collaborative project is to work together to improve articles, and to communicate with other editors.Tyrenius 23:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be rewritten for NPOV but I don't think it deserves deletion. He is obviously a noted and popular figure in Brazil. The lack of article here means that it probably should be on the Portuguese WP (where he also has an account), but now that it's here I think it could be made into a good article. Aguerriero (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know whether Araripe is notable or not; this isn't my area of expertise. I only noticed that this user had been spamming other pages when I was doing some category cleanup, and then poked around to see if he had other edits that needed to be reverted. Certainly the content of this article as it stands now is unacceptable, and there is nothing to revert to. I've also noticed in the past that proposing a problematic article for deletion is the surest way to bring it to the attention of someone who cares enough to fix it instead. ;-) Dr.frog 01:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite of article as above. Tyrenius 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the rewrite. Perhaps tag this for fact-checking and cleanup, as well as being a stub, though. Dr.frog 13:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that to you, having done all I intend to for Mr Araripe ;-). Fact checking certainly. Clean-up? A few wikilinks? Tyrenius 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withrow Park Ball Hockey League[edit]

I can't see anything notable about this league. TheProject 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artice has been corrected, as it had been previously defaced.--Nickison99 04:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of frequently misused English expressions[edit]

Inherently POV and practically begs for original research, or at least it would if anyone cared about the topic, and apparently they don't: it hasn't got past item number one since it was created 2 years ago. --Ptcamn 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 22:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • extremely weak keep. Can probably be expanded and tidied. Don't see that POV is automatic. And I've added a second phrase that qualifies. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously it doesn't seem POV if you hold that POV. :-) If it is kept, I would strongly suggest it be moved to a name that doesn't include the word "misused". Things like List of English words with disputed usage and Disputed English grammar are more neutral (although to be honest I don't even like them). --Ptcamn 11:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I was going to add "To eat humble pie" (which means, to make do with what one has, rather than to become humble) and "To coin a phrase" (which means, to invent a new phrase, rather than to cite an existing phrase), but you know what? Wikipedia is not the Strunk and White manual. So, delete. ergot 15:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- has potential to be really interesting, but does that make is encyclopedic? Can I even spell encyclopedic? And Fowler's Modern English Usage can kick Strunk's arse. Sour grapes is another that no longer means what it used... -- GWO
  • Strong delete - "frequently" is POV, and "misused" is POV. The article's very title makes it entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. LjL 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a pedant and grammar fascist of long standing, I still think this deserves deleting as P.O.V. Innit. Vizjim 14:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 06:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by type[edit]

Wholly redundant with Category:Pokémon species by type. This list doesn't have much context, and cannot have much context. If anyone is worried about its utility as a list of Pokémon: don't worry, we have about a half-dozen more lists of Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as much as it irritates me, I really think that this list will be valuable to many readers. - Richardcavell 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The Category format is much more easily navigated as well, if one was so-inclined. Aguerriero (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I know cross-namespace redirects are frowned on, but someone doing research who has only a passing knowledge of Wikipedia may not be able to find the categories otherwise. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't do anything a category can't do. Dr Zak 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say that we keep it. The other article is very hard to navigate for those of the Wikigoers running on dial-up. Please, tell me why the other article is better than the list by type? Master Mew 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? How so? Dr Zak 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't you see? On the Lise of Pokémon by Species, or whatever, you have to kepp on clicking and clicking, which is annoying on dial up. On the other page, everything is gathered into one, AND, if someone is looking for a specific Pokémon, you could just press Crtl+F and type in the word. See how much easier the other page (by type) is than by Species? For practically everyone? Master Mew 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone is looking for the types of a specific Pokémon, that person can go to the Pokémon's page. If someone is looking for all of the Pokémon of a certain type, that person can go to the appropriate category page. Neither arrangement allows for simple crossreferencing of dual-types. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: The already existing category serves this purpose much better than the list. --Hetar 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; redundant to the category. It's somewhat annoying when one needs a specific piece of information and the first half-dozen search results are all lists that would have worked equally well as categories. ergot 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose that Category:Pokémon species by type. doesn't. Also inappropriate as an article and more appropriate as a category, clearly inferior to the category based on it.--XenoNeon (converse) 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this should be a category. Vashti 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vizjim 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoekbeest[edit]

Non-notable search site that receives only 208 Google hits. Scientizzle 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey guy, what's wrong with you?
Had a bad day or something?
Everybody is trying something to start with ok?
So please let other people try something to! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renamed user 1405 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non-notable Dutch company looking for some free advertising. Ted 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable spamvertising. IrishGuy 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Eivindt

@c 00:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not notable --Strothra 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB BigE1977 04:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Gyre 05:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searched for company name is several notable global catalogs of periodical and newspaper articles, came up blank. Aguerriero (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invisibleshield[edit]

Prod removed by IP w/no comment. Reads like spam, and I don't see how it can be improved - it's about one company's screen protector. Jamoche 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean, "Prod removed by IP w/no comment?" Also, what do you mean by spam? Do you mean that it sounds like advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.41.250 (talk • contribs)

Comment The first comment means that the IP (you) removed the prod without leaving any comment about why. The second comment means the article is advertising spam with no signs of notability or verification as to why this would deserve an encyclopedia article. IrishGuy 00:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be a candidate for db-copyvio, but there weren't any matches. --Jamoche 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment OK, so I think it's pretty obvious I'm new around here, and I want to help build a useful, non-biased resource, so please help me out here. I've been searching Wikipedia and there are many entries on specific products that explain the features/benefits of those products. How do I go about doing this in regards to the invisibleSHIELD without making it sound like spam? I truly believe in the concept and power of Wikipedia and am excited about this new discovery - I want to be a worthwhile contributor! (as for deleting the Prod, it said we could do that after editing the content, so that's what I did. I apologize for not knowing I had to leave a comment every time). --user: otis_pjc 08:42, 17 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deizio talk 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Goo-pple[edit]

Signed personal essay, neologism, original research, etc. Might be more suited to Wikibooks. Might not. Kiand 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ted 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright violation - since the author asserts copyright within the text. - Richardcavell 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this breaks hmm.. let me see, almost every Wikipedia policy, and the most of its guidelines. --Eivindt@c 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Philip Gronowski Contribs 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete wtf? This should be speedied as per EivindFOyangen. --Strothra 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a place for short essays full of undeveloped points, especially, seeing as most of them are based solely on opinion. -- Faero


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogem[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for advertising Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deizio talk 22:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Cunt[edit]

  • Strong Keep this is an encyclopedia site which should make available all correct and historical information on all subject matter (in this case a band called anal cunt) regardless of how any one person feels about the subject at hand.. i don.t particularly even like the band (though i am fond of the genre of music which they were historically a part of).. allow the censorship of any one piece of historical information and you might as well also support (and expect) any and all censorship (hiding/alteration/subjective control) of any and all information..

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND and is not notable. Dominick (TALK) 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Anal cunt is very notable, not necessarily because they are popular, and I am not, but people know of them. Remember that wikipedia is not censored, and a bands name should be no reason to delete it.
  • Strong Delete - I take the liberty of ignoring all rules here. Any band that wants to call itself 'Anal Cunt' ought not to be surprised if people want to delete references to them. They can be got rid of. - Richardcavell 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Moderately notable band - certainly more so than many with articles on WP. If I've heard of them on the other side of the planet (and I am not a grindcore fan, and certainly not a fan of Anal Cunt's music) then that's saying something. Simply having an offensive name is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're real and they are notable per WP:BAND- that is all. "Anal Cunt" = 675,000 hits. My biology may be a bit rusty, but even so I suspect the vast majority of those are in fact likely to pertain to the band. Badgerpatrol 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Also, while I admit that whether or not an article may prove offensive is not a valid reason for deletion, I can't say I will be overly dissapointed if this one is deleted.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article doesn't really asert any notability, aside from the fact that the band attempts to be offensive. I actually have heard of them, but I think I've only heard of them because of their name. -- Kicking222 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not into grindcore, but I have heard of them. Multiple albums for sale on amazon, an allmusic.com bio[23], tours, albums released on Earache Records, Scott Hull in the band, news coverage as per the external links, etc. would seem to meet WP:BAND. Шизомби 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't like AC at all, but they meet the guidelines set in WP:BAND without question and have a small, strong following. Danny Lilithborne 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Meets WP:BAND by having several albums with an important indie label (Earache Records). Also, their allmusic.com entry certainly makes them seem notable. --Joelmills 02:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as above. However, this article does need some work. Watch'd --Dwiki 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Schizombie Zero sharp 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - dreadful band but a clear WP:MUSIC pass. Ac@osr 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Punkmorten 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Anal Cunt meet the "notability" criteria. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can start trampling over all the rules dealing with deleting an article. 02:00, 18 May 2006 (AEST)
  • Keep. Nine albums (according to allmusic; the article claims fifteen), more than half a million Google hits, press coverage--clearly meets WP:MUSIC. ergot 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't see where it meets WP:MUSIC there is nothing about Google hits in the standard of listing. When going down the list, I see marginal qualificiations, if you consider the label notable, I don't see any notable bands listed in the label's roster. The best fit could be, Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. I dont see any frequent publications, only a few mentions. BTW, I don't hunt down offensive bands to AfD, how dare you claim I do. This seemed like yet another vanity listing. Dominick (TALK) 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? When did I claim that? I have no reason to think that you do that, and wouldn't have mentioned it even if I did. ergot 18:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey sorry if I was ambiguous when I made my post but I was refering to "Richardcavell" and "Conrad Devonshire", whose comments make me beleive they only care about enforcing the rules when they agree with them. 203.206.161.209 11:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The band are on the Earache Records label which clearly meets the criteria for being a notable independent; it was formed nearly 20 years ago and has a large roster of acts - 16 of their acts have been considered notable enough to have their own existing Wiki articles, which answers that point. They have also been a regular international touring act. Thus WP:MUSIC is met. I couldn't give a flying one about this mob, believe me, but the facts are the facts. Ac@osr 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My last Comment Earache records qualifies as a notable label because the minor acts/bands they carry have wikipedia entries? Seriously, none are really notable on their own. It seems there isn't enough to eliminate minor acts like this. Perhaps the WP:MUSIC standard isn't notable either. I guess I better go make wikipedia entries on Mario and his all monkey harmonica band Dominick (TALK) 00:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further comment - if you disagreeing with WP:MUSIC in itself, I'm sure there's a process but this isn't it. Ac@osr 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: If you think labels such as Earache or Nuclear Blast eg are not notable, you're opting to exclude entire subcultures from, including death metal and grindcore. You may never have heard of them, but some of these bands have record sales (in total worldwide) in the 100.000s, play regularly on festivals that attract tens-of thousands of attendant (e.g. Wacken Open Air, Dynamo Open Air). Maybe you have miscomprehended what constitutes notabilty. Spearhead 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would guess that the appropriate place would be the talk page for WP:MUSIC, but there might be another discussion going on somewhere. BTW, I would have probably supported deleting this if it weren't for the fact that they have nine verifiable albums. ergot 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - definitely notable. per above Spearhead 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richardcavell. Peter Grey 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above--Bill 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, distasteful band names aren't a reason for deletion. LjL 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Richardcavell M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with Joelmills (I couldn't have said it better myself). Progkeeg 01:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Joelmills. La Pizza11 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's an unpleasant name, but they meet the notability criteria. -- Karada 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They are a well known band and they do get some airplay on college stations, I can speak of at least one that does. Deleting this amounts to nothing more than censorship as the article is fairly well done. Censorship is bad...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidvicted (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep They are definitely a notable band in the heavy metal, grindcore, and hardcore punk subcultures. As for their "offensive" name, Wikipedia has numerous articles with similar or worse-sounding titles so I do not see why this is getting singled out. --EBCouncil Speak with the Council 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It's flat-out infuriating to me that this guy would claim that the bands on Earache aren't notable. If you don't think past/present acts on the label like At the Gates, Entombed, Deicide, etc... are notable you really have no business suggesting deletion here, and a quick glance at Dominick's user page suggests some ulterior motives at work in this delete-nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublickStews (talk • contribs)
    • Funny how nearly everyone who wants this article deleted is either "proud of their Christian heritage" or thinks the rules should be broken because they don't like the naughty words ;-) WepV 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as above. Very notable. Kevin Doran 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Beno1000 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable and influential band
  • Strong Keep Per various notability arguments above. Personally, I have long been aware of this band despite having no interest in grindcore. Some of the arguments for deletion here are nothing short of appaling. N6 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anal Cunt are widely known even among non-followers of extreme music. Earache is a notable lable with many notable bands: Napalm Death, Entombed and At The Gates, in particular as genre instigators/definers with very large record sales, that tour or have toured across the world, including major festivals. Simply because you are ignorant of these bands influence and notability does not mean they are not notable. The purpose of an Encyclopaedia is to inform, so be informed. Easily meets the uneccessarily exclusionist WP. --KharBevNor 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedilly kept due to overwhelming consensus.


Keep: No proof exists either way and their are many problems with the traditional account of the moon landings and gaps in the information that is currently in the public domain. Beisides this it is still very much a phenomenom that exists in popular culture and therefore does not need to be "True" or "false". The entry may need some sort of disclaimer but that is as far as it should go - DO NOT DELETE

  • Your first sentence is patently false. I like better what one user added at the bottom of the page: "Well known belief held by several people." That is true. Wahkeenah 14:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations[edit]

The Wikipedia:Deletion policy mandates that "Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace", the first of those four policies being the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which includes the mandate that NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to pseudoscience. There could be an interesting and relevant article on the belief among some that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax; but in practice, this article has been tended by editors who matter-of-factly refer to the Moon landings as "the hoax" and who clearly give equal validity to the idea that they are a hoax, as if this idea were equally valid as the evidence that the Apollo missions landed on the Moon. These pro-hoax editors have zealously reverted edits that try to replace hoax-as-equally-valid wording with neutral wording, such as by reverting to references to the "landing believer community" and "landing advocates", as if these were equally valid alternatives to their opposites according to the mainstream consensus. It is simply not NPOV for a purported encyclopedia to use such loaded, pro-hoax terminology, that would never be referred to by anyone who does not buy into the "moon landing hoax" idea. Since they are unwilling to avoid reverting repeatedly to blatant violations of NPOV, particularly by presenting fringe views as equally valid, this article has persisted in qualifying as "Text that does not conform to all four policies" and that therefore "is not allowed in the main namespace". Let them userfy it if they want, or relent to contributions by NPOV editors, but otherwise Wikipedia will be far better off once its policy of removing NPOV material from the main namespace is carried out with respect to this article. - Reaverdrop 00:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely Keep this is a totally legitimate page. NASA have officially answered questions on this topic, so if NASA can take this topic seriously, Wikipedia should also.
    • I think most of the answers have come from what might be called "NASA defenders". I don't think NASA themselves are nearly as interested in this topic as the moonbats like to fantasize that they are. Of course, when someone gets in someone's face and assaults them, like they did with Aldrin, they get smacked, and rightly so. Wahkeenah 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this bad faith nomination by a user who wants to push his own POV on this legitimate page. For great justice. 00:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, referenced. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's notable. Richardcavell 00:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just because it's controversial doesn't mean it's unworthy. In fact, deleting it is liable to lead to further conspiracy charges by the moonbats. Wahkeenah 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? How exactly does a desire for a fair and equitable society translate into skepticism about moon landings? Ewlyahoocom 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • AHA! Finally something resembling a "delete", almost breaking the string. Yes, the idea that we did not go to the moon is pure garbagio, but it's a topic of some public interest. If there can be a page for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or the Flat Earth, there can be a page for this silly idea also. Wahkeenah 21:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep within the Van Allen belt around Wikipedia. Whether the state of the article is in question, the topic is plenty notable. ScottW 00:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - It is a notable and worthy topic - but in practice it is kept in persistent violation of NPOV to the point of making Wikipedia’s credibility a joke. I’d rather have a decent article on this, but deleting it would be better than disparaging all of Wikipedia by failing to adhere to the Wikipedia policy that "text that does not conform to [NPOV] is not allowed in the main namespace". - Reaverdrop 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has credibility? Wow, what a concept. I think this article used to have the "controversial" or "disputed" header - maybe it still does - and I would think that would suffice. Wahkeenah 00:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd remind you that there is text on the Roman gods (after whom the planets are named), who are no longer widely believed in and are widely believed to have been a hoax/made up. There's also text on all manner of stupid ideas (alternative medicine comes to my mind). - Richardcavell 00:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of editors have spent a lot of time working on making this article a neutral and well sourced document of who believes what. This is a bad faith nomination that flies in the face of all that effort. For great justice. 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I haven't been involved in the editing of this article, so my comment is based soley on the notability of the topic. From a quick glance at the talk page, there appears to be a fair amount of conflict here. And I suspect that this is one of many topics which will always have conflict. However, I don't think the answer here is to delete the article. If it were to be deleted, it would be recreated and the same conflicts would exist. There has to be another way to deal with this. ScottW 00:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • More to the point, there's a writeup on the Flat Earth. Admittedly, it's not quite so controversial. Our public school system is not a total failure. Wahkeenah 01:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are POV problems, that's a pity, but absolutely no justification for deletion. Scranchuse 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think a strength of Wikipedia is the highly controversial and contended over articles that no one is ever happy with, but which give a fair minded reader a pretty good sense of the arguments on both sides. I worked on the Apollo project during the summers of 1966 and 1967 and know how ludicrous the hoax notion is. But I was impressed with this article as it stands right now. It's far better to vent these kinds of theories than to let their supporters claim they are being suppressed. Another precedent is Holocaust denial. --agr 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! A member of the vast NASA coverup that's more impregnable than the Mafia was. Awesome. So, how does it feel to be called a liar by the moonbats, and to be further told you should be OK with that and not pop somebody in the mouth when they get in your face, like Aldrin did (or should have)? Wahkeenah 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll say this again: Of course it is a noteworthy topic. But there's a huge difference between explaining about belief in Roman gods or alternative medicine or Holocaust denial, and writing about any of these things in a way that gives equal validity to whether or not they are true. I've tried several times to make modest modifications to tone down the pro-hoax bias in this article, and each one was simply swiftly reverted by pro-hoax editors. I think the controversial and contended over articles are great too - but not controversial articles that don't incorporate any contending because single-POV squatters revert anything outside their own single fringe take on it. I think this article deserves to be here, but only if it is edited by the community at large who can make it NPOV, instead of pro-hoax hobbyists camping out on it and reverting any non-pro-hoax edits over and over. In other words, only if Wikipedia's policy on avoiding NPOV violation by giving equal validity to fringe beliefs is actually practiced and is not just empty words. If we can't effectively make that happen then we'd be much better off with no article. - Reaverdrop 04:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It's so pro hoax - the opening paragraph - "The Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are a series of claims alleging that the Apollo Moon Landings never took place, but were instead faked by NASA. Nearly all interested scientists, technicians and space enthusiasts have rejected the claim as baseless." People could come away thinking that equal validity is given! For great justice. 04:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any reference to "landing believer community" or "landing advocates" frames the issue as if hoax advocates were on equal footing and by itself violates Wikipedia's policy against giving equal validity to fringe beliefs. No one would use those choices of wording other than hoax believers, and no one would read them without assuming the writer gives at least equal credence to the hoax idea. - Reaverdrop 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep article content disputes to the talk page of the article. This page is about the idea that if you don't get your way the article should be deleted. For great justice. 05:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up the content. I replied in kind. This page is about whether Wikipedia's policies against giving equal validity to fringe beliefs and that "Text that does not conform to all four policies [including this one] is not allowed in the main namespace" as stated in its deletion policy are adhered to in practice or are just aspirations that no one cares to enforce. - Reaverdrop 05:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be said that choosing truth over fantasy is a point of view. The fact that Moonbats are here actually gives us credibility because it shows that we can't do straw man arguments. It shows that the arguments we are refuting really are the best that the hoax proponents can come up with. Algr 04:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia requires verifiability, not that the information be truthful. There are plenty of references to the conspiracy theories about the lunar landings (regardless of how far fetched they are) to warrant an article in Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 07:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extremely notable. DarthVader 08:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it clearly points out that everyone who is anyone rejects the claims as baseless, the accusations are definitely notable, this is a job for {{sofixit}}. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very notable. And even if it has NPOV issues, they can be resolved. --Yossarian 11:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but do not link to from main Moon Landings article, as this gives the pro-hoaxers the "oxygen of respectibility" Pmberry 13:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I suspect this is a bad-faith nomination. The only way to control pseudo-science is to disprove it. If Wikipedia is to be NPOV, it MUST have articles disproving major pieces of pseudo-science. --M@rēino 14:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some people do geniunely believe this, and since it is a topic that has got a lot of attention over the years and is linked to the landings it should be kept, not deleted because someone doesn't believe it (incidentally I don't believe this article but it should still be kept). Ben W Bell 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is as good a summary as any on the www, and will presumably improve so long as the hoaxters don't take it over.

El Ingles 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator appears to have a legitimate complaint, but it belongs at Requests for Protection, not AfD. ergot 17:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Ruhrfisch 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JzG. Article is notable. Nominator's concerns are understandable, but POV problems require vigilance, not deletion. When the article hasn't been edited by a true believer it provides good information on the subject. MilesVorkosigan 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Apollo hoaxes are an important cultural element, and all accusations are disproven in a desirable way. Nick Mks 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With doubts. I have looked into the hoax theory, and I am convinced that the moon landings never took place. I am also convinced that the thruth will come to the mainline media some day, and Wikipedia should have an article about it until that day. But the hoax article in the Wikipedia is really telling anyone interested that the Apollo program was for real. I mean the opening sentences, the pictures, text under pictures, the longvinded "rebuttals". This article is not showing the hoax claim in a clear and fair way. That is why I am having doubts with "keep". The Apollo believers makes this page an Apollo propaganda page. (Axlalta 19:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • The moonbats' seemingly simple questions do sometimes require "longvinded" explanations. I have also looked into the hoax story (it's not a "theory") and found it severely wanting. But apparently it will remain an open question, at least for a few folks, until somebody decides there's a reason to go back to the moon. Wahkeenah
  • Keep: While NPOV does not mean putting fantasy and reality on an equal footing, the article is perfectly legitimate because it's a real, encyclopedia-worthy pop culture phenomenon. Unfortunately, because the article is about false accusations, it's difficult to keep it objective, but that's a separate issue from deletion. Peter Grey 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. - CNichols 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count at least 23 keeps against the 1 original ask-for-deletion. At what point does this issue get closed? Wahkeenah 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policy is that these pages stay up for 7 days and then an admin makes a decision on the 'general consensus'. Too bad - there should be a way for admins to speedy delete these kind of bad faith nominations, I reckon.--DreamsReign 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 6 days to go, then. It will be status quo unless someone stuffs the ballot box with sockpuppets. Wahkeenah 00:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedily. This article needs editing and serious slimming down, but the moon hoax is very well known (as the links tesify) and the article is very well referenced. This nomination is clearly in bad faith. --DreamsReign 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is an example of bad faith. There is a legitimate question of how to cover fringe group theories without appearing to give them additional credence. AfD is just not the right mechanism if the fringe group is notable. Editors sometimes get too involved (I know I have) and forget that Wikipedia is a group process with a pretty good record of self correction. --agr 09:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic is notable enuogh to merit its own article. Someone please speedy close this AfD discussion. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a part of world history now. User:70.130.179.63 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Informative article, hard to find this info elsewhere.
  • Certainly keep as notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Very notable. Referenced and excellent article.--Ryan! 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. -LtNOWIS 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make plenty of re-directs and links, so it's easy for people to find. So long as this lunacy (pun intended) is floating around out there, shouldn't Wikipedia be a place they can come to find the truth about it? If NPOV reversions are a problem, perhaps the article can be locked. Darguz Parsilvan 12:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a no-brainer. Keep the bloody thing. Squirminator2k 13:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep. Excellent and relevant article for those who are interested in the deplorable state of mind of some of the inhabitants of our planet. DVdm 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course Very good compilation of information on this subject, and a great starting point. Lalala1087 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly keep Lots of info and very much edited after long discussions rendering it useful and interesting. Educative! DrMilton 13:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I prefer to read this online than wait for FOX to rerun that special with that Mitch Pileggi guy from the X-files. Ewlyahoocom 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the rationale for deleting this. I think the accusations are garbage, yes, but I also think we should let the facts speak for themselves. There's no harm in keeping this information available that I can see. 70.132.23.187 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known belief held by several people.--Josh 14:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post goth[edit]

Neologism.

This genre doesn't exist, it was most likely created to advertise the MySpace bands who are linked throughout the article. Deathrocker 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Poorly-defined genre; no evidence given for differentiation between this and a similarly-named movement in the 1980's. The article turns in to an advert for three non-notable bands at the half-way point too, so a failure on all counts.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:NEO--☆TBC☆ 05:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO also fails to provide sources to support article's subject Ydam 12:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DarthVader 12:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per pkbarbiedoll. This article is full of truthiness and little truth. Readers wanting to know more about gothic music and culture should refer to an existing well laid out and explained article, Goth. I agree with the arguments for deletion above (and below, wherever this winds up). 15:03, 20 May 2006

A vandal attempted to remove this from the Articles for Deletion as well as removing the tag from the article - Deathrocker 00:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears to be advertisement for a few bands. Basically, a myspace linkfarm. Non notable. Unverifiable. Also, I put a warning on the talk page of the user who removed the AfD tag and attempted to remove the article from the AfD record. IrishGuy 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity and self promation page. Asatruer 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


this page should not be deleted for several reasons - first i havent gotten a chance to explain the differences between the 80's post gth movementand the modern one - even considering that the 8's post goth label was missapplied and most crtics just claim its all goth, and thats where the modern movement differs - it really i post goth,

as for self promotion - it isnt - the three bands i put in there are all legit notable groups from this genre each with a major national or international following, each with radio eaiplay - they are the lab animals, vhs or beta and unkle.

wiki cant delete articles because one person believes a genre doesnt exist - it would leave wiki uncomplete and out of touch with moden culture which it seems many of the people voting for deletion say -

i submit you must prove that this genre doesnt exist and thereby disprove rolling stones and nme's articles on the subject.

wiki cant afford to let personal taste or selfishness dictate its knowledge base or risk becoming outdated and insignificant.


the page is still uncompleted any deletion before it i finished would do wiki users a disservice and will apply deletion erroniousy

  • Delete - The term post-goth is a neologism. It is not commonly used, and the Google hits on "post goth" don't refer to the subject matter in the article.--Adrift* 12:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


you dint look hard enough on google - i will include the articles when i get permission from the publishers to include their intellectual properties,

wikipedia should be ahead of the curve, not behind it, and now that we have finished the discussion on band advertisements those arguments should be dropped. thanx

  • Comment - None of the bands listed sound even remotely Goth, in fact, they're all fairly stylistically different from one another. VHS or Beta is Indie or at best modern Post-Punk. The Lab Animals put it nicely on their myspace page... they're Down-Tempo. The Glass Project is also Down-Tempo or possibly dancey Synth-Pop with a dash of Future-pop. Unkle77 floats between Avante-Garde Hip-hop and Illbient. The only relation that is obvious is that "Moth" or Dimitri Spanoa is creator of the Glass Project, and The Lab Animals, however there's confusion about this since there are contradicting stories from both this page and the probably nonnotable WP:VAIN article for Dimitri Spanoa. Neologism aside, it's all pretty good music!--Adrift* 03:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - I agree with the points the other editors have brought up. There are no citations to back any of the claims made in this article; VHS OR BETA defines themselves as Experimental/Rock/House on their MySpace page; post-goth is not listed on allmusic.com as a subgnere nor are there any notable websites devoted to "post-goth" bands or the "post-goth" subculture. Any references I can find for "post-goth" via a google search are contradictory and confusing, the label seems to be applied in a haphazard manner to any band the writer the writer can think of (the Vanishing, the Cure, My Chemical Romance, Dead Can Dance, Bauhaus, Devo, etc.), and most of the "post goth" google hits are referring to something other than a music subgenre (which is significantly inflating the number of google hits). Until it can be clearly demonstrated that "post-goth" is an already existing music subgenre (one which is not being artifically manufactured), then the article should be deleted. FilmGal 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FilmGal and Adrift. Also, any non-original-research on this page is already covered (more exhaustively) at Goth.
  • Comment even with the current alterations to the article, it's still not convincing. It still borrows heavily from the Goth article, the term "post-goth" in this instance is still non-notable, and I haven't heard Glow, but The Vanishing are a Deathrock/Post-Punk band. The label they ascribe to themselves is in itself a tongue in cheek neologism.--Adrift* 21:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There really doesn't seem to be enough usage and acceptance of the term out there to prove that this is an actual genre. Also, I checked out the bands, and they really don't have any connection..other than possibly being referred to as "post-goth" somewhere, or having some sort of "dark" imagery. In order for a genre to exist, there should be some sort of underlying similarity in the sound of a number of bands. I don't see it here. Also, despite being well-read and rather knowledgeable on the goth genre and other genres that predated and followed goth, I have NEVER come across "post-goth" being a genre in the 80's. "Positive punk", yes, "post-punk", yes, but not "post-goth". As of yet it's not a current genre, sub-genre, or subculture. Therefore, it has no place in wikipedia. CatZilla 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_16&oldid=1081096888"