Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 May 8 >

Purge server cache

May 7[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugclub[edit]

I can't find any record of a "Hugclub" real estate group anywhere Metros232 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, blatant advertisment. Hugclub gets 806 hits, two deleted hits for the president's name. Utterly fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 00:27, 7 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 per A7 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Shapiro[edit]

This was prodded by Anon 66.167.136.142 with the comment "His notability is unclear." - which isn't the same as "non notable", and google suggests that he may be borderline enough for those in the know to suggest saving. I'm moving it here with no vote. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7. Whether he's notable may be questionable. However, clearly the article does not assert any notability. I'm unable to google anything that really seems to point to the right person. Fan1967 01:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No To Speedy Delete, A Qualified Yes to Delete If the author can be contacted to ask about what makes Norman Shapiro notable, he ought to be. At the least, the "considered for deletion" should be there long enough that if someone knows what makes him notable he has time to explain. If we still don't know a week from now anything notable about him, then...yes, delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K13060 (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete, no prejudice towards recreation. Currently asserts no notability, so it can be speedied, but if he really is notable, a new article can be created. --Rory096 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — It looks like there is more than one Norman Shapiro of note, so there is some ambiguity here. I favor converting this into a disambiguation page. — RJH 03:32, 7 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. --Ezeu 19:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine (Keane song)[edit]

I suggested a merge to Hopes and Fears for this, but I really think it should just be deleted, merging it will add little to nothing to the main article Metros232 00:48, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 06:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendakottai[edit]

This was prodded but im contesting it. if its a real place theyre normally kept. needs cleaning up not deleting. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep no messier than a lot of other Indian village stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Agree with User:BL Lacertae It is probably as notable as Ridgecrest, Florida or some other census-designated place in the US, for instance. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I have cleaned up and referenced using what sources were available which wasn't a lot. Hopefully, a user more knowledgeable than I am about India will expand this in the fullness of time. I have removed sentences using Hindi phrases as I didn't understand what they meant. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand —Mets501talk 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For future reference, if an article needs cleanup instead of deletion, tags like {{unreferenced}} or {{expansion}} are useful. Ziggurat 03:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a real village. JIP | Talk 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep, Wikipedia still at its early stage, i am sure many articles will soon get developed and expanded. Indrajitneogi 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a real place is notable enough and encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's got a good list of schools, which indicates a reasonable sized population. Tyrenius 09:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - real place, and we have articles on real places of all sizes. Metamagician3000 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it needs to be expanded, there is no need for it to be deleted. --Matterbug 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. Sorry to break up the unanimous consensus here, but I can't find proof that this place exists. Google yields 5 hits, of which most are referring to a road, not a town. It is interesting to note that Pattukottai mentioned Vendakottai as one of it's suburbs until May 4 when someone removed it. I think that someone more knowledgeable in Indian geography than me is needed, but I'm leaning to possibly being either NN or hoax from the google test. --Bachrach44 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bachrach. 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grimalkin[edit]

Prodded but i think a redirect may be better. it may even be able to get enough for its own article? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is definitely a term which has has entered our culture and consciousness and become more than just a Shakespearean character name. I get 93,800 Google hits. Could be expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd be tempted to say that just about any figure from MacBeth would be notable. --Allen 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to say use as a redirect, but I think there's enough material out there to expand the stub. Tyrenius 09:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, notable term. --Terence Ong 12:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand tho. Newyorktimescrossword 01:54, 8 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. A redirect doesn't really help since 'What links here' is rather empty. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldspeak (Traditional English)[edit]

strange fork of newspeak; should probably be a redir to english as nobody will ever search for this anyway M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, it took me a minute or two to realize that it was referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four Metros232 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Newspeak ha! the word does exist somewhere on the internet! Whether you know it or not, check out the new updated site for Oldspeak! --Lord X 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
    • Comment huh? you hath confuseth me. What exists on the internet? and Oldspeak is still a redir to newspeak. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:43, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clonoulty[edit]

Another prod candidate (by User:Howdybob) - also marked as a merge candidate, but it's a real place and could be expanded quite reasonably IMO. keep Grutness...wha? 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a stub for future expansion. Zaxem 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The original reason for pording was given as "article isn't substantial". Well, mark it as a stub and use the {{expand}} template if you feel necesarry. All articles started out as small once. --Bachrach44 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. I've seen many articles on towns smaller than this - the article could be expanded, obviously. Kuru talk 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've expanded a bit. Interesting little place, it's seen sex, war and cosmic events. And it has a school! Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expansion was good but needs more. Newyorktimescrossword 01:55, 8 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) 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetta Camera[edit]

Smells like advertising; no assertion of notability for the product. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create a link from RED Digital Camera Company to Kinetta Camera filed under competition rather than just give an external link. How do I flag a page as a stub? User:Xyke

  • Weak Delete. Google for Kinetta gives around 67,000 hits. Google for Kinetta camera around 24,700. Google for Kinetta camera -forum gives 762 hits only. I tend to agree that it is a kind of advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, camera prototype is well known in the indy movies scene. Peter S. 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Sam Blanning(talk) 01:18, 7 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 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echosign[edit]

This looks like a vanity page or a promo page for a for-profit company. There is only one edit of this page, by User:Darciro whose user page also reads like marketing copy. Also, there are no pages that link to this. Clubmarx | Talk 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article creator's User page was created as an article, Browster (now on AfD). —ERcheck @ 10:58, 7 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 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vox (Ask Vox)[edit]

PROD disputed by article author. Appears to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. Alexa rank of over one million. Delete. kingboyk 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom —Mets501talk 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam --Bachrach44 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not provide proof that it meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. - Politepunk 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if the website itself isn't notable enough to have an article, its mascot certainly isn't notable enough to have an article. TheProject 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 01:56, 8 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 both. Mailer Diablo 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteblack and Feelthink[edit]

This is a neologism that is intended to be a sort of inverse of the concept of blackwhite as expressed in George Orwell's 1984. The creator removed the {{prod}} tag, so I am nominating it here. NatusRoma | Talk 01:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reasons, I have also nominated feelthink for deletion. NatusRoma | Talk 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like the author is trying to use these articles to create and promote new words. Wikipedia should be about giving information on things that are already notable, and should not be used to try and create notability. Zaxem 02:54, 7 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; plausible claims made that this is a legitimate genre of music that gets over the notability threshhold. This does not prejudice any future merges. Metamagician3000 09:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital hardcore[edit]

Clearly an advertisement for a tiny record label, vanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superbeatles (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Hm. Yeah, I see that now. In that case, is this a notable sub-genre? Darquis 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the question. Based on an edit on the article, nominator doesn't think so. I'm not much on music since Clapton passed 50, so I have no idea. Fan1967 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article has 9 external links to, supposedly, 9 record labels that work with this genre, which weakens my original merging opinion. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it up!! I just used this page for research. It's a genre, (although an obscure one), not an ad for Alec Empire's record label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.32.47.80 (talk • contribs) .
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly valid. Tyrenius 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and well-documented genre. Jdcooper 10:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Digital Hardcore Recordings - the genre took its name from the label rather than vice versa. If any of the other labels in the links section are notable enough to have their own article, I could sway to a keep.Ac@osr 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Newyorktimescrossword 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Digital hardcore is a notable subgenre, and it is ridiculous to suggest that this is an advert. Dwdmang 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an advert. The DHR label did originally influence the name of the genre, but the genre includes more than just DHR's output nowadays. Davelong 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per my nom, long ago. Superbeatles 02:31, 14 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. BD2412 T 03:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

no chance in hell of this being reality, POV fork, delete as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BEANS, and finally WP:NOR violations--Ham and jelly butter 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Admins? does anybody around here know how to spot an ad hominem? Really, one should think that a VFD started via an ad hominem should be closed on the grounds of that reason alone. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second User:Prometheuspan. The drivers of the nom for deletion have demonstrated NPOV support for Bush as their motivation, indistinguishable from pulling a Coleman - anyone check for an IP matching whitehouse.gov? I'd dismiss the idea out of hand, if several Republicans hadn't already done it. - Reaverdrop 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wishful thinking. Bucketsofg✐ 02:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentAnother ad hominem, however, since it didn't start the vfd, it shouldn't be grounds to close the vfd. This is not wishful thinking, you haven't read the article or you are not paying attention to reality. By the way, 3 different states put forth an effort to impeach. Wishful thinking is actually you, wishfully thinking that this is wishful thinking. Its not. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How on earth do Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose apply to whether this article should be in Wikipedia or not? NatusRoma | Talk 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Survived AfD before. Where else on Wikipedia do we report on impeachment movement activities? That some people are trying to censor this information from being on Wikipedia through the AfD process is sad. --Stbalbach 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure we can really say, in encyclopaedic terms, that there is a properly-formed "movement" for this. Zaxem 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take the time to read the first sentence of the article. It says "for the purposes of this article". Please continue reading the article. A lot (a LOT) of time and effort has been put into this article by many many people to conform to Wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an encyclopedia is going to report on a "movement", it should be a proper movement, not one that requires a "for the purposes of this article..." clarification. Otherwise any disparate belief held a by a few random people can be called a "movement". Zaxem 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment However, any of those alleged movements would lack millions of participants as compared to this movement, so your logic is rendered invalid. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean "held a by a few random people". Polls have shown that a large portion of the U.S. population supports impeachment. Falphin 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But does that mean they're involved in a "movement"? Zaxem 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look here. Falphin 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There a few separate movements noted here. But the title of this article implies that there's one, reasonably unified movement. Which (depite the opening paragraph blurb about "for the purposes of this article...") gives a false impression that I don't think a good encyclopedia should be giving. Maybe the different individuals and groups will become more unified at some point, and at that point an article with this title would be fair. But right now this article, through its title, gives an impression which does not reflect reality. In my view, it's wrong for an encyclopedia to do that. Perhaps my objection is only with the title rather than the info outlined in the article. But I still think that's a reasonable objection for me to raise. Zaxem 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • There are extensive discussions in the archives about the article title and attempts to rename it. Article titles are place-holders, matters of convenience. They do not specify that something "exists". For example you will find encyclopedia articles called medieval science in many encyclopedias, but science did not even exist until the modern era - but we call it that because people know what it means (it was actually called "natural philosophy"). The text of the article is what is most important. Many professional encyclopedias use the phrase "for the purposes of this article" in the first paragraph, commonly done, it is a useful tool. The article really goes out of its way to define exactly what is meant and makes no claim what so ever of a "unified" movement. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nevertheless this article's title gives a false impression about something very current. I still think that's wrong for an encyclopedia of the quality that Wikipedia aspires to be. Zaxem 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes it's a reasonable objection that the title should perhaps be "Movements to impeach..." or something else. Not really a good reason to delete. Rich Farmbrough 13:26 7 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Super-strong Keep. Just because there's no chance in hell of it happening doesn't mean the movement ain't present. And reading through this article, it's pretty plain that it IS NPOV, quite civil, has no personal attacks, no beans, and no original research. -- Grev 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-strong Keep There very much is a movement, I believe there was in fact a few towns somewhere in the general New England area that petitioned their senators and congressman to push for the impeachment of bush. Multiple organizations support this. Falphin 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can this be speedy kept. I know some articles go through multiple vfd's, but the last one was a long debate which was overwhelmingly keep with only a few deletes and a couple merges I believe. Falphin 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First AfD Nomination discussion and results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)
    • that was a long time ago and it looks like it was kept on basis of being cleaned up for POV and soapboxing, from the looks of it, no such cleanup ever took place--Ham and jelly butter 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every POV argument that comes up gets addressed and resolved by people who work hard to make it a NPOV article. Just look at the talk page and edit history. This AfD is bogus, you have provided no specifics. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Über-strong Keep This article has already survived VfD. Articles cannot violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. (Nor do they personally attack Bush in an uncivil manner, but instead cite people and articles who dispute his policies' legality.) WP:BEANS is just an essay, not a guideline nor policy. Furthermore, WP:BEANS only advises us, in a somewhat humorous way, not to do give ideas out on how to disrupt Wikipedia. (I guess, though, we are giving ideas on how to disrupt the govt of the US, but that's not the issue here.) "No chance in hell of this being reality" is wrong. Perhaps you are disputing the chances of impeachment, but that is not what this article is about. This article is about people who called for Bush to be impeached. There are some people calling for impeachment, thus the reality of the movement's existence is at 100%. If the article were titled "Impeachment of Bush", then you would have a point. Now to attack the contentions of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. A read of the article reveals many sources, from which information has been taken and collected in this article. There are some 65 external links in the article text. Clearly, original research just isn't here. There are no personal interviews, personal polls conducted, nor uncited lawyerly thinkings. As for WP:NPOV, this article is as detached from the issue and neutral as I have seen. I believe it provides a third party accounting of the issue at hand. The article has not made assertions that were found elsewhere from reliable sources, but instead simply reports on what other people say. The only possible problem that I see, would be the lack of discussion about the people who are against this movement, however, as some have pointed on the article's Talk page, it is nonexistent, and the article does mention a little bit about a possible response from the Administration. (Sorry for the mini-essay) Copysan 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — AfD extensively discussed already. — RJH 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I'm not usually the sort to automatically adopt the conclusions of previous AfDs, but this was discussed extensively very recently. Reyk YO! 03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grev. -Objectivist-C 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This "movement" does not yet exist. The current wording the page reads more like an attempt to stir up a movement than an honest attempt to report about one. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This movement DOES exist. And this article IS an honest atttempt to report about it.

Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Read the first sentence of the article. Also, provide specific examples of where it tries to incite a movement. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the attempted disclaimer. I find it non-credible. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has been spamming the AfD on talk pages (only on one so far, my mistake). He was also blocked for putting up the George Bush article for AfD. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grev, but this article should be cut down. In particular, many of the individuals and groups listed under "Endorsements of impeachment" could just be named with citations provided, rather than devoting a separate paragraph to the fact that each supports impeachment and the reasons cited by each. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When the "Rationales for impeachment ..." came up on AfD last week, the Deleters claimed that it was unnecessary because this article existed. Fair enough; now this one's up for AfD? Sorry, but AfD shouldn't be a stalking horse for blatant partisan nonsense -- although a glance at the nom's user page is illuminating -- nor for people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between an article which is written in violation of NPOV and one reporting the publicized viewpoints of others. That WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been inexplicably cited leads me (for the very first time) to question the good faith of an AfD nomination. RGTraynor 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Grev and Copysan, fixable problems with NPOV and NOR are not grounds for deletion, and I dont see any strong NPOV/NOR issues here anyways. However, it may be irredeemably NPOV to call it a "movement" so only weak, rather than full keep. (Also, I'd like to strongly echo Copysan's point that the idea that an article can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:BEANS(which is a frackin' essay) is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Smerus 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Copysan. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Moves to impeach George W. Bush. Tyrenius 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mere fact that there appears to be a concerted effort (three AfD's on the Rationales in one month, and now here) to cleans Wikipedia of even the suggestion there are people interested in impeachment, and what they think constitutes an impeachable offense, is disconcerting. Claiming wikipedia policy, so frequently and on such a massive scale, for what evidently is not grounds for any AfD, shows the lack of understanding of current policy, or it might indicate abusing the AfD-proces as form of censorship.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree nescio, this is just gaming the system to censor. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the ever-changing other article. The "movement" is defined by the article, and OR. We don't need multiple articles about this subject under hair-splittingly different titles. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because (you think) there is "no chance in hell of this being reality" does not mean this article should be deleted; I think there is "no chance in hell of" Ragnarök being reality but that doesn't mean we should delete the article. As for your other reasons for deletion could you explain why you think this article violates the NPOV or any of the other charges? Again, just saying it does doesn't make it so. I could say the Groucho Marx article violated WP:CIVIL but without any explanation or rationale as to why I thought that, then there would still be no grounds for deletion. --Stenun 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. That article presents the efforts of politicians, members of the US Congress or of state legislatures and other people to obtain an impeachment of George W. Bush. These efforts are facts and not just words and are verifiable. So there is no bases for deletion of the article. But, calling these separate efforts a "movement" implies that they are concerted, and that is NOT a fact. Maybe the previous editors of the article can rewrite it, erasing any references to a "movement" if they can't provide verifiable source of its existence. --Sam67fr 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. No valid reasons given for deletion, anyone thinking this is not a notable issue should consider the image at the top of the article. This AfD can only cause further problems and will not resolve any issues. Please vote Speedy rather than Strong keep. EricR 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than reasonable in theory even if it has a small chance in hell of happening in reality. Also, WP:BEANS isn't policy, so does that mean we can ignore your comment? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KEEP PLEASE" My son is studying about the US Constitution in school and has gotten very interested in the impeachment process so this site has been very useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.237.92 (talk • contribs)
    • then your son should try reading the actual constituion, not some wiki article pretnding that a state can magically impeach the president--Ham and jelly butter 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, why are you rude? Let's not forget civility, even if an anon user appears magically in this AfD. And you're right, a state can't impeach POTUS. But a State legislature can advise the House of information which can lead to an impeachment procedure. That's what Impeachment in the United States says... Or is this article wrong? --Sam67fr 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no, and in fact, wikinews has an article up now about how in fact, the states have just forced the conversation of impeachment. What we run into here are republican psychological warfare

talking points, not fact or truth. The idea here is to make us believe that impeachment isn't possible. Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve, documents a real and notable phenomenon. Rich Farmbrough 13:32 7 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep. The article, in my opinion, has accuracy and obvious non-NPOV problems, but it's a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Deli nk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (was strong keep, but looking at the "reasons", none are actual policy reasons for deletion; at most for article improvement). This nomination is solely to "punish" keep voters in the child article that has a somewhat more POV-prone title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination), if you'd like to opine there). Utterly bad faith AfD. LotLE×talk 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable movement. --Eivindt@c 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dislike him as much as the next guy, but until articles of impeachment are being considered by a House committee, this "movement" is non-notable Sumergocognito 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are currently bills in the Illinois, California and Vermont State Legislatures, and at least the Illinois bill has 25 co-sponsors. I think that makes it a notable movement. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 15:32 UTC
      • I saw that in the article, but since U.S. state legislatures have no role in the impeachment process I didn't think them particularly significant. In my above comment, I was referring to the United States House of Representatives. Sumergocognito 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It shouldn't be ignored, but it's not worth much more than a stub on another page unless legitimate organization occurs. possible mergers with either george W. or the presidency of george W. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as it is NPOV keep it.Bill shannon 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it needs cleanup, but there is a "movement" of sorts and deserves documentation.--MONGO 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is certainly an issue being discussed in grassroots circles, and might become an issue nationally if the Democrats win a house in congress this fall. --Tjss 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and this is even though I'm voting delete on "Rationales". There clearly is a notable movement. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks a lot like a POV nomination. Tsk, tsk. AnonEMouse 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did not read through the entire article, but I have found that a lot of articles that I need information on have been deleted, and I believe they probably would have had the information I needed. This may come in use to someone and so I believe it should be kept but fixed up.

Fiwtart 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per AnonEMouse and LotXE. Amcfreely 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Bletch 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this a joke? This article has survived AfD before and the timing, with the Rationales controversy, is highly suspect. Notable political discussion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This article has already survived AfD. A host of notable people have whined and complained about impeachment. I would prefer a more NPOV name for the article. --RWR8189 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Rename since article title is POV. Should be called more nuetral 'Arguments for the Impeachment...' since title implies more organization between individuals than proven --MarsRover 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are totally missing the point in such a silly way i am inclined to ask you if you actually read the article? There is a movement to impeach. Collusion between literally millions of people. Those collusions are admitedly weak, but this only strengthens the overall movement. There are literally hundreds of specific efforts any one of which is indvidually trying to to obtain impeachment. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without considering current content, which may well be biased, the topic is realistic, and verifiable, as Democratic congressional candidates have chosen to highlight this possibility in Campaign '06. Certainly, a stub could exist here, or -- at worst -- a merge to George W. Bush is reasonable. Xoloz 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable movement, possibly a 2006 campaign issue, and has survived AfD before. BryanG 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete overbloated, cruft-filled POV fork of Bush. I hate Bush just as much as the next Democrat, but this is really unencyclopedic. Just add a note in Bush's main article until this becomes reality. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This IS a reality. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely INCREDIBLY strong keep I'm fed up to the eye teeth of the "Well we didnt get it through AfD last week we'll try again this week....and next.....and the next after that" mentality that appears to be pervading Wiki at the moment. Jcuk 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - article is not POV it is an article about a "movement" (you try and find a better term) that has a POV. It is well written, well referenced and definitely worthy of an article. How many times does it need to be nominated? - Glen TC (Stollery) 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but a move to "Movements ..." would be fine. This article appears to have enough good editors keeping it well-documented. When I looked at it Sunday night, I saw very little that was even close to crossing WP:NPOV or WP:NOR policies. Topic and content are clearly encyclopedic, though I wish consensus could be reached for any better title and first paragraph. Survived past AfD and deserves to be kept this time. Appears as if partisans would like to simply purge all undesired articles. Barno 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real and significant topic in American politics. Several books published on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Don't violate WP:POINT. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV Check I don't like this article but however this one is encyclopedic. I voted delete on the other because of it soapboxing and similar nature to this article. This one could stand a NPOV once over just to be safe, so all concerns can be laid to rest. Aeon 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an encyclopedic topic.--Tbeatty 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with morton.--Capsela 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename is probably in order. --Mmx1 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-strong Keep - the info speaks for itself; a censure resolution has been introduced in the senate and the republican chair of the senate judiciary committee has dropped the "I" word. Deleting this would be a whopping pro-Bush NPOV violation. - Reaverdrop 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Odd that both this article and Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush have been nominated for deletion at the same time... -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This articles has facts; I actually didn't know about it much. A great amount of research seems to have been done to create it. Patchouli 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep So, the con serving game playing process manipulating denizens have yet again decided to list an article for deletion based really only on their own pov pushing. This article is factual, it covers a noteworthy topic, millions of people are part of this movement, and no WP rules are factually violated. Prometheuspan 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this movement does exist in that millions of people are involved in a movement to impeach. Further, 3 states have now forced the issue to be discussed at least by our representatives. So it is factual, it is currrent, and thats that. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Strong Nuclear Keep. I voted to delete Rationales to impeach, but this is an outrageous bad-faith nomination. The article is full of well-sourced statements by non-fringe politicians and opinion-makers either supporting impeachment outright or advocating investigations to determine if grounds for impeachment exist. If we're deleting articles now because they make Republican presidents look bad, we'd better go after the Watergate scandal article next. —phh (t/c) 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And don't they wish, too. Par for the course from a bunch who cheered when a president was impeached for not a shred more than cheating on his wife and lying about it. RGTraynor 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unsupported attacks on the good faith of other participants in the discussion are not particularly helpful. Please try to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only thing "unsupported" in this discussion are the grounds upon which the article was nominated in the first place. RGTraynor 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Justforasecond 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article as it stands is POV and oversells the evidence it has, but those problems are fixable. The info is certainly encyclopedic. TheronJ 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to wikinews. Seems to be a topic that is changing rather frequently. Seems more appropriate there.... Roodog2k 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename is probably in order. — CJewell (talk to me) 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Change the words to improve on NPOV (when saying movement you object to opinion). How about "Calls For Impeachment for George W. Bush"? LILVOKA. 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If people have NPOV problems with this, then they should work on it step-by-step rather than trying to delete it. Boud 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Definitely. There are articles from sources like Harper's Magazine & Salon.com, and a set of researched & vetted articles of impeachment published by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The movement exists, demonstrably. The article could use NPOV polishing & some trimming, to be sure, but this public issue is as real as other movements Wikipedia includes. This article is an example of what Wikipedia can do that Brittanica can't: provide information about a wide range of topics within public life without waiting for them to become extinct before studied. --Ssbohio 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More rounded evidence could be provided, but other than that, a very thorough collection of information pertaining to this topic found nowhere else in one place.--Zacharias 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Kevin Baastalk 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've read most of the current article and see a neutral reporting of why some people think the President should be impeached. I think this conflict is good for ensuring the thoroughness and accuracy of the article, but the efforts of contributors and editors should not be wasted by deletion. This article is becoming quite comprehensive and has several pages of citations for it to just be a soapbox for the mythological liberal bias. If certain contributors want to impose a FNC style fair and balanced approach, then perhaps they should create an article on the reasons not to impeach Bush. Cfpresley 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. –Shoaler (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the language remains NPOV, I have no problem with this article being here (that being said, there are portions, at first blush, that come close to violating that, but those can be rectified through more thorough editing). --Mhking 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - I agree with Nescio (gasp!) in that this looks like an abuse of the AfD system. I do have problems with this article but they are problems that can be remedied through constructive editing by level-headed editors from both points of view (ideally, from editors neutral on the topic). I've always had a vague discomfort with the title (mostly with the connotations of "movement") as well as the fact that all the examples given are far-left objections. The article should also mention that at 31% approval rating, there are some Conservatives that are calling for investigations on issues like failing to secure the borders, uncontrolled spending, etc. There are a few noteworthy people calling for impeachment and a few in Congress that are willing to listen...and if the Dems win a majority in November, hearings could become a reality. I think it's worthy of an article here, but as presently written, needs to be cleaned up, NPOV-ized, and de-soapboxed.--WilliamThweatt 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV article about a non-notable movement making this unencyclopaedic. Once there are articles of impeachment being considered in the HoR then recreate. Right now, this is just political talk by opponents. And in case it will be asked of me, I came to vote the way I did after reading the first sentence and lead paragraphs where the article disqualifies itself.--Kalsermar 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per obvious majority to prevent Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 from being recreated. Keeping one and prohibiting the other is blatant POV. 1652186 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sockpuppet *cough* *cough* Rex, *cough* *cough* it's one thing to flaunt the fact that you're unblockable, but it's another entirely to use said socks to vote multiple times in one AFD--172.156.202.208 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here too? Same outrageous accusation, same answer: I've been a user for over six months, I have almost 400 edits, most of them in the last month, and all of a sudden you accuse me of being someone else? Nice thing for a person without a name, talk page or history. If I ever find out who you are, I'm going to use all of Wikipedia's measures against you for spreading false accusations.1652186 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point, I mean supposing for a second that someone were among the privileged few with checkuser ability, and at the same time, suppose that person had the ability to browse wikipedia logged out in complete anonymity, such a person, could checkuser whoever the hell they wanted to, then log out and point fingers at the guilty party, without having to get invloved in the whole probable cause business. You're absolutely right, doing such a thing would be unforgivable, and certianly worthy of having "all of Wikipedia's measures" used against them, good thing that's all hypothetical--172.165.245.94 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unlike the "rationales" blah blah blah, this is a possible NPOV article, and it could be a very informative one too. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilliamThweatt, some votes seem to be on the current state of the article, not its possible encyclopedic value. Ansell 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, useful article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! With all of the spiteful acts Bush has done as president, it isn't a hot debate but nontheless notable. It also is quite a controversial debate over his liklihood of being impeached. I am determined to make this second nomination the last. --NicAgent 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as nominator has been banned. --Sneftel 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article is important to keep. Fighting a costly war in Iraq under false grounds should be reason enough, and it's only the tip of the iceberg! --Jaycorrales 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There are many articles concerning various different "movements", why are they not up for deletion? I think that some people are trying to put forth their own POV by deleting this article. VinnyCee 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this article as being viable and worth reading. I do NOT agree with deleting it.
  • - Phoenix7477
  • Reality can not be deleted. There is a movement in this country to impeach a president that has deeply divided the nation at this point in time. To "Delete" does not make it not happening and not current news. It only means that less people will be informed. If there are no factual errors opinions should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Independant (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This is a real movement, whether or not in the end it is successful. I came to this article specifically to find out what efforts had been done to impeach the president, and the article informed me. To delete it would be irresponsible. Safay 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad Faith nomination by a (now) indefinitely blocked user, also tried to AfD the George W. Bush article. 84.145.241.165 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As this movement, has clear basis (see Illinois State Senate Article)Cpeter9 May 11 9:34 CST
  • Keep. Wow, a president can be impeached on the spot for fellatio, yet an internet article is likely to be censored for PROVIDING INFORMATION about a movement to impeach a tyrannous terrorist, what a GREAT country you live in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.234.49.207 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, but I think the article should be moved, 'movement' in the article title seems to be on the edge of POV. —Jnk[talk] 03:10, 12 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 recreation of material previously deleted per AFD. --Ezeu 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thala[edit]

Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Has already been speedied before. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is if verification can be provided for this "nickname", if none can be found then Delete.--blue520 15:34, 14 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 clear consensus to delete. Merged as suggested.--Ezeu 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abasin & Nuristan (Pakistan)[edit]

this article is an exact duplicate of the pakhtunkhwa thread..and adds little to the debate.. --Zak 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikikiosk[edit]

Probable hoax. Non-notable at a minimum. No google results except Wikipedia. Had been prod'd. -- JLaTondre 02:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if it's true (which is doubtful), it's not of encyclopaedic notability. Zaxem 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- very dubious. I doubt it would be worth an article even if it could be verified. Reyk YO! 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it can't be verified. Otherwise I would say weak keep. Tyrenius 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and sounds suspiciously like something made up in school. - Fan1967 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it could be verified, it really is made up in school. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage. Newyorktimescrossword 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "At the current time there are three known wikikiosks in operation." Says it all.--Nydas 11:10, 8 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 wasSpeedy deleted as band with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Elizabeth[edit]

Defunct Band, very little information. Nothing notable. Sirveaux 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A few Google hits [1], but nothing suggests it was a particularly notable band. Zaxem 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7 (band) with no assertion of notability whatsoever. TheProject 04:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:06, 7 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 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realfootball365.com[edit]

Online football site founded in 2004. Alexa rank of 87,374. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. No independent/reliable sources provided. --Hetar 03:06, 7 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. Mailer Diablo 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downward spiral[edit]

Just transwikied this, and I'd like to get an opinion on whether this should be kept, deleted, or redirected to the album of the same name listed on the page. TheProject 03:24, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Struck Jury[edit]

Dictionary definition, and from what I can find, there isn't much more that can be added. If not delete, either merge with voir dire or move to Wiktionary. Jesuschex 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I just discovered a copyvio with [2]. Jesuschex 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That source is The Nuttall Encyclopaedia as stated in the article. It's no longer under copyright protection. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's only a definition at the moment, but it's tagged as a stub and it definitely has the potential to grow beyond just a definition. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been tagged as a stub for almost nine months and nothing has changed. If you think it can be expanded, please, do so. Prove me wrong. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Not only is this a dicdef, it's one that's not remotely close to being in current use in the legal field. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When and where did the struck jury system start? How does it normally work? What juristictions used and still use it? What are the pros and cons? Here's a link that shows current usage of the term and dicusses some issues with it. As a stub, we should be discussing it's potential and not it's current state. Applying arbitrary timeline requirements for turning a stub into a real article seems a bad idea to me. -- JLaTondre 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a dictionary definition. Ted 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be an outdated legal concept. It's useful to noone. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - better to have a stub than nothing. Google Scholar gives 40 hits, most under JSTOR which I can't access. Appears to possibly have another meaning in current usage based on Google Book results. It was in 1902 important enough to be covered in text books for the New York City schoolchildren. Term appears in records of U.S. appellate courts from as recently as the 1990s. Has appeared as a term of importance in U.S. Supreme court cases. Appears in course curriculum descriptions for some U.S. law school courses. "sofixit" appears to apply to those who feel it has been a stub for too long. GRBerry 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "sofixit" applies even more to those who feel it should be kept. I'm not going to fix it, unless you believe that nominating it for AfD is fixing it. I think those who believe that it could turn into a good article ought to prove this and do it yourself. Jesuschex 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You could write an encyclopedia article on it. In theory. Myciconia 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I had the time tonight, and did a major expansion that de-stubbed the article. It certainly is not a dictionary definition any more. GRBerry 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing my nomination ... I believe it's surpassed a dicdef. Jesuschex 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is more than just a dictionary definition, and I think this article could be made into something good. --Eastlaw 05:43, 11 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 and delete. --Ezeu 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echeconnee[edit]

It's just a translation of a native american word. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk YO! 03:31, 7 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 Fifi, rename Fifi (disambiguation) to Fifi. --Ezeu 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifi[edit]

Whatever this is, it isn't an encyclopedia article. It looks like a definition with exactly two literary references. Also nominating Fifi (disambiguation). Fifi (masturbation aid), which has a slight chance of becoming an article should be moved to Fifi. Brian G. Crawford 03:55, 7 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 a copyvio and blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diaka Vodka[edit]

Advertisement, I think. Do a google on Diaka AND vodka. The exact same material shows up on various "financial" websites (of dubious merit, I'm sure) Bayyoc 03:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, complete adcopy and puffery. They lost me at "represents the ultimate expression of luxury". Kuru talk 04:16, 7 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 06:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shuldiner[edit]

Anyone can run for congress. Winning (or even winning the nomination) is far more impressive, and he'll be notable if he ever does either of those two. Until then, he's another wannabe with a webpage. Bachrach44 03:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is a viable candidate who has raised a lot of money and won a lot of support. Why delete this? - Scott Davidson

  • Delete --Bayyoc 04:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Allen 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom phrased it more piquantly than I could. Delete this wannabe pol hard, fast and furiously. RGTraynor 05:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I have edited some pieces of the article and removed some unverifiable assertions. The article contains factual information that wiki users of New York's 19th congressional district may find useful. --SethF 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bachrach - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article appears to supply no information beyond what is on his own campaign webpage. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:01, 8 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 redirect. TheProject 04:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconsfield Mine Disaster[edit]

Already a page of the same event that has more, and better, information Cdlw93 03:57, 7 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. TheProject 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Forster[edit]

This page is an autobiography written by User:Cris Forster Rainwarrior 04:06, 7 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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M j records[edit]

vanity page. Shyland 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vanity page. Notability question as well; NPOV; Reads like an advertisement; etc. etc. If somehow it doesn't get deleted, it needs a ton of work. To the author(s): No offense, best of luck in your musical career but this article's got to go! The creator's ID seems to no longer exist so I couldn't notify them.Shyland 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN and probable vanity. Only six unique hits on UK Google, no evidence of any albums in release on Amazon, and the website given is no longer in operation. RGTraynor 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and suggest to nominator that similar article Dealer inc also be included in this AfD (and vote delete on that in advance). TheProject 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minimal googles, most likely vanity.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:46, 9 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. Tagged the merged section as {{Disputed-section}} per Andrew Lenahan --Ezeu 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAMES Magazine bankruptcy[edit]

I can find no proof of this. This is the author's first post. If nothing else, it should be merged with GAMES Magazine Bayyoc 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've put the contents of this on Talk:GAMES Magazine so the proof can be hashed out there. It doesn't deserve its own article, but it's a good story and if true might belong on GAMES Magazine. - Rainwarrior 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge pending verification per nom: be careful about copy and pasting contents, as failure to copy over the edit history, IIRC, violates the terms of the GFDL. TheProject 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - CNichols 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If verifiable, merge per nom, but if it can't be verified, delete it. I have been reading GAMES Magazine on and off for over 20 years, and this is the first I ever heard about this story. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per WP:V and Metropolitan90. --Slgrandson 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verification is provided. I have been a Games reader since the magazine started, and I have never seen this mentioned anywhere. — Michael J 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is merged or kept, it will have to be a total rewrite, as this version of events is totally wrong. Here's an article with the real story, if anyone is curious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge pn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Newyorktimescrossword 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge otherwise delete--Nick Y. 21:44, 8 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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grapes Bar[edit]

Was wp:prodded by User:Friday, then de-prodded by User:81.155.200.168 with no edit summary, and no mention on the talk page. The reason given for prod was "full of original research and bias, but I'm not sure it can/should be fixed. No sources, no indication of significance for this bar." Neutral SeventyThree(Talk) 04:52, 7 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mithril Hall[edit]

Non-notable band. Formed in 2005, this two-member band has only two demos available, they have never been signed, and they don't even have a website, relying instead on a MySpace page. Delete. Will Beback 05:02, 7 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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karate punch[edit]

Note: This AfD was originally created on April 13 by Angelstorm and was not listed. I am listing this now without a vote. -- Grev 05:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see the point in this article, basics of this are covered elsewhere. Writing style not in line with typical wikipedia quality. Contains unverified facts, and some non-npov comments. Angelstorm

Shimabuku's vertical punch was actually designed to hit at about three quarters of an arm's length's extension. It can be delivered at any range within this point, but it requires that the body-tensing be performed earlier, upon impact wherever it occurs. Timing is critical, unlike with the twisting punch, which thrusts through whatever it hits, if it is not jammed early. In either case the punch is not rising but horizontal. This article does make some unsubstantiated generalizations. I agree with some of them, others don't make much sense. Ultimaely, I have to agree with above. I'm not even sure why the entry for Karate punch should exist. In Karate, there are a number of punches, including straight punches, jabs, crossing punches, uppercusts, hooks, and descending punches. Perhaps there could be a section under punch in general, but I don't think there's such a thing as a Karate punch. It kind of reminds me of the Austin Powers Judo Chop. Erich1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.28.202 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - per Erich1. Article is virtually unchanged since original, which smacks of WP:OR. I'm not even sure which of the many punch techniques this article is discussiong. Looking at Karate, it seems this was originally a section there that was disputed and then removed, so the author took it here. Jamoche 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete come on, what will we have next? Tae kwon do punch? M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR —Mets501talk 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above IrishGuy 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:03, 8 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 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spidescape[edit]

Advertisement for a zip line-like building escape system.

I'd like to see an article on these systems in general, though (including escape slides or escape chutes). I've added a mention to chute. — Omegatron 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertisement, merge useful information into chute per Omegatron ~Kylu (u|t) 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a chute, though; more of a zipline. Probably all such systems could be covered in a single article, though. — Omegatron 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what a tasteless ad! Shorten, Rewrite and Merge if there's an article regarding similiar items. --eivindt@c 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide verification that this device is actually in use somewhere. Until then it's just a neat-looking invention with potential (i.e. crystal ball). Fan1967 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, they've got similar devices actually in use (remember the movie Panic Room?) I don't know I'd say crystal ball, but it's definately an ad. I'd move the link to one of the escape devices article. 207.145.133.34 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean actually used in a movie. I meant in real life. Are there high-rise buildings where this is actually available for an evacuation? Fan1967 19:07, 7 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 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas doctor[edit]

Delete. This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP--Smerus 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR/POV without stated sources. --Eivindt@c 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/POV uncited. The bigotry is palpable. Fan1967 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not very nice to the doctors, who are only trying to help :(. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR/POV —Mets501talk 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not original research. I'm one of the principal authors. Everything in this article is known to members of the first-world medical professions. The phrase "OTD" is standard medical jargon, and it has precisely the meaning given in the text. - Richardcavell 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd be more inclined to keep this if there was a source saying that this is a major issue of contention in the UK. The article would then need to be rewritten to conform to a more worldwide view, as we are an international encyclopedia... And then, it would certainly have to be renamed. Or, it could just be deleted. Grandmasterka 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Weak Keep, upon further review. It would have to be heavily rewritten, though. Maybe it would be easier to start from scratch, under a different name. This isn't too long. Grandmasterka 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to source it - I have a medical library right here at work - but it's going to end up deleted so I won't bother. This is a major source of contention, trust me. Have a look at http://www.qphci.qld.gov.au/ and you will see this is a big political issue here in Australia. Also look at R v Mulhem, in which an OTD in Britain killed a guy and the fact that he was an OTD became a big deal (there is a presumption that a doctor from Syria just ain't as good as a British one). - Richardcavell 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which section of that do I look at? Any news sources you can think of/dig up? Grandmasterka 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This demonstrates that in Australia, OTDs are restricted from obtaining full registration and a provider number unless they're from Britain, Canada or New Zealand. This is one politician's solution - send them to the country. See Peter McCutcheon's first question here, about the regulation of OTDs. It's too much to go through for an AfD, but the Davies Commission of Inquiry Report that I linked above goes on for hundreds of pages about OTDs. - Richardcavell 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the content of the article could be cleaned up, but unfortunately any article with this title is probably just going to become a "term" article. Could the stuff be merged with Brain drain or another article? I'd encourage all participants to recheck the deletion guidelines. I'm not sure "This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP" is a valid reason for deletion. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 8 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 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersurfers Inc[edit]

Article appears to be an advertisement, does not establish the notability of the subject company, which appears to be a standard web hosting company. Original speedy (db-bio) was removed without notice. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: nothing more than ugly spamvertisement for a company that fails WP:CORP. Their website has an Alexa rank of 2,623,279. --Hetar 07:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing to assert notability. Looks more of a cut and paste job off a paper brochure. --Arnzy (whats up?) 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's also an ad (it is now possible for any business to benefit from our solutions) —Mets501talk 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nn spam -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Newyorktimescrossword 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. advertisement : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company. Beno1000 14:48, 9 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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karaboo[edit]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable neologism. Tangotango 08:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even a dicdef since it doesn't explain what it means. --Eivindt@c 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable. Newyorktimescrossword 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's here, and use the title as a redirect to Caribou. Just because what's here is noty really encyclopedic (to be kind to it), doesn't mean it isn't a viable mis-spelling. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 8 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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Stafford[edit]

Non-notable political staffer of not many years' experience. Mtiedemann 09:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • userfy and delete - article created by subject, fails WP:BIO - Politepunk 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Works for someone notable, but not notable himself. Zaxem 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable —Mets501talk 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. - Richardcavell 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. maybe vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete from article-space. No indication of being cited in reliable sources. I'm not persuaded that the political-staffer job nor being an officer of the groups listed are enough to get past WP:BIO. Article creator's only contributions Special:Contributions/Gregorystafford have been to his own bio, that of another political flack, and a group of which both are officers. WP:VAIN. Barno 02:17, 8 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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural icon[edit]

Page consists of 1) a vague and POV paragraph that doesn't contain any useful or relevant information, 2) a list of arbitrarily selected historical figures considered important, together with a possible copyvio from VH1 of dubious importance and notability. why should we be especially interested in VH1's opinions, as opposed to any other source? I can see no way this article can be usefully rewritten, page should be deleted as inherent POV and a redirect created to another page which probably covers what this article is trying to get at in a more sustainable way (please suggest) Jdcooper 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, furthermore, pretty much anybody you can name is some kind of cultural icon to someone, as shown by some of the figures that people have added which have been removed (arbitrarily). This is unsalvageably subjective. Jdcooper 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shanes 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ReeseM 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:08, 8 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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Shrinker[edit]

Non notable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria and a possible hoax as it appears to be entirely a puff piece about the band. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Definitely not a hoax - the CD exists and releasing label appears to be a fairly large independent with a decent catalogue. That said, the copyright notice at the end indicates a possible copyvio and there is no citation for claims of their influence. Ac@osr 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Eivindt@c 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Heavily POV, no assertion of notability, no reason to keep the article. -- Kicking222 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no googles. vanity.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:50, 9 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 -Obli (Talk)? 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Random Chess[edit]

Stanley Random Chess was found to be non-notable two months ago, and nothing has changed to make it notable since then. --McGeddon 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The only sentence in this article is deliberate nonsense ("...apparently predates regular chess..."). David Sneek 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Already deleted once just two months ago, and claiming this variant is older than normal chess sounds pretty nonsensical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, per starblind. --soUmyaSch 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense and quite possible hoax. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a previously deleted article that is also nonsense, original research, and/or hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleting: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Random Chess; conclusion was delete, and nothing has changed since then. -- Karada 12:42, 7 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 Dancing with the Stars. --Ezeu 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dansez Pentru Tine[edit]

Non-notable; rather that being Europe's most popular "dace" contest, it appears to be pretty obscure and has only taken place once. DWaterson 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears notable, I get 53,500 Google hits for the title (in quotes), and plenty of verifiable info, including video of some of the show itself. It makes me feel like "dacing". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge appears notable from google search. I'm guessing here but I believe it is the Romanian version of Dancing with the Stars, if so merge. --Eivindt@c 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dancing with the Stars, my guess was right. --Eivindt@c 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, good idea. In that case, I'll support a redirect, in preference to the nomination. DWaterson 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should every contest get a page? Newyorktimescrossword 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic redirect—if left as its own article, this would merely be a "red dace" (as it were). Ardric47 03:30, 9 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. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 greatest voices in music history[edit]

  • Original research and personal opinion. The list given is hardly verifiable. soUmyaSch 10:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'This dude is smart.-Raju— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.199.146 (talk • contribs)
  • Personal opinion, unverifiable, etc, etc. Delete. Palfrey 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just plain wrong, might even be WP:BALLS. Ac@osr 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR and possibly WP:NPOV too. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, in all of music history, 9 of the best 10 singers are alive right now. Delete. ProhibitOnions 12:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, plus the author of the article can't count Metros232 12:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, or spell. Who is Roger Dalfrey? Kotepho 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. Bucketsofg✐ 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. "Ummm... dunno who else". Jdcooper 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. —Mets501talk 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete title is inherently POV. --Bachrach44 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV and, as it stands, garbage. No Sinatra, no Billie Holiday, no Nat King Cole, but it includes Eminem? Fan1967 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is all opinion Fiwtart 14:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per W:NOT. --Lee Bailey 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Grafkim, and, well, everyone else. Likely could be speedied as patent nonsense, but some define that term very narrowly. Joe 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and inherently POV title. TheProject 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - to me, this qualifies as {{nocontext}}. Grandmasterka 00:39, 8 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 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Browster[edit]

Product advertising. —ERcheck @ 10:53, 7 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 -Obli (Talk)? 13:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jiro Irikian[edit]

Nonsense. Probable attack page (Flask Face).(This can only be accessed from history now) Speedy tag removed by editors of the article. soUmyaSch 11:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. New version is a hoax. Second person to land on moon??? --soUmyaSch 13:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. 5 Google hits [3] for participating in Fantasy Sports. Article is clearly nonsense. Zaxem 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as clear nonsense, completely unsalvageable. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:BIO and appears to be some kids fooling around. Metros232 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense; possible attack or hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 12:43, 7 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 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 1[edit]

Another Keane song that fails WP:MUSIC/SONG. I suggest a merge to the album but I don't think it'd add anything of value to that article. Metros232 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keane - that would help enormously. Failing that just delete this. Ac@osr 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, article even suggests that it's less notable than the other songs on the album. --Eivindt@c 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I would also delete the band (and, I guess, their WP article) if I could. -- Kicking222 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why do some of you advocate deleting Keane? They are obviously a notable band that passes WP:MUSIC standards. Is this just personal vendettas against the band's music? Metros232 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, I'm not actually saying their article should be deleted. I'm just saying that I think their music is crap. They're obviously highly notable. -- Kicking222 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just because a band passes WP:MUSIC doesn't mean every song they've ever done should have its own article. I happen to think the reverse is also true, actually...Ac@osr 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash it quickly. Newyorktimescrossword 02:09, 8 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 redirect. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Indiana Jones[edit]

The article is poorly written, and reads like advertisement. The contents are already covered in the Indiana Jones article.--PatCheng 12:33, 7 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. Royboycrashfan 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Credit Bank Limited[edit]

Nominated as misinformation. There are no Google hits for this organisation other than its being listed here as a fake bank set up by 419 fraudsters. The "bank" has no website and I've found no evidence via Google that the named organisation even exists. The article is unreferenced and orphaned. This appears to be an effort at astroturfing and I'm inclined to be very suspicious about the article's creator's motives. -- ChrisO 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added: There's an alternate version of the same article by the same user at Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). -- ChrisO 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as with the other version of the article, if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.
  • Speedy del, as per nom. --soUmyaSch 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a regular hoax. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam. Executor-usa

I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: OITC did not initiate the original article about it. It is a victim of a misinformation campaign. Replies were written to present accurate facts that will stand up as truthful evidence, and historical facts. You suggest that a pr campaign is being undertaken by OITC. Nonsense. The replies and writings are facts in response to anothers' misinformation and defamation. My comments are mine alone. On my talk page I have stated that factual documents were sent to the parent of Wikipedia, and am sure that the same are available to Wikipedia's parent corporate lawyers and Board of Trustees. I support the writing of a factual, accurate article as a historical necessity. However, if such is to be written, its tenure would be the opposite of the current ideas being espoused that it is either a fraud or a hoax. It is a very important organization, and is quite real. signed Executor-usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor-usa (talk • contribs)

  • delete as above. Thryduulf 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. The article is rubbish, and its creator's WP track record is... spotty, at best. -- Kicking222 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

\ Reply: Most of the people voicing their beliefs here are very young. Please be aware that the people who are knowledgable about OITC and CCB are very senior people in governments, central banks, and major banks.The degree of experience to make such judgements by the majority of the commentors is just deficient. I suggest that you refrain from calling something a hoax, a fraud, or not real, when you have no basis, or knowledge, to make such pronouncements. In the end the facts support OITC and CCB whether you like it or not. Executor-usa

Uh huh. From this post and looking at your talk page, if I weren't convinced already that it's a hoax, I'm convinced now. Hint #1 for creating a hoax: don't name drop - it's a dead giveaway. If the facts don't speak for themselves and if you have to name drop, there's a problem somewhere along the line. Accoring to just about every google result, this is a fake bank that is used for scams. This article should be speedied fast. BigDT 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The intentional disregard of facts and documents sent to Wikimedia and Wikipedia is not a virtue. Perhaps your self description on your talk page as being insane is accurate. Further, if you think Google results will provide you the truth you are very mistaken.Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth.

Admins? WP:NPA? WP:NLT? Can someone speedy the article? It obviously needs it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effi Nazrel bin Saharudin[edit]

non-notable, vanity. Delete __earth (Talk) 12:36, 7 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. Royboycrashfan 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB)[edit]

Nominated as misinformation. An alternate version of Consolidated Credit Bank Limited, created by the same user, and equally dubious (and orphaned and unreferenced). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited. -- ChrisO 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.

KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam, nor a hoax. Executor-usa

I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete as a duplicate/fork of Consolidated Credit Bank Limited, even in the unlikely event that the other is kept there should only be one copy of the article. It isn't even worth making into a redirect. Thryduulf 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above —Mets501talk 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:00, 7 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Maximum[edit]

Fixing another user's broken AFD link - it looks like there's some abuse going on at this article. Two people have said it is a hoax, but the original contributor just removes their warning without comment. BigDT 12:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I googled and can't find the guy BigDT 12:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I saved one of my tabs too fast. Here is the reason why I nominated it for deletion: There is no John Maximum. The book mentioned in the references does not exist: it is not mentioned in COPAC (the combined catalogue of major UK libraries), even though it is said to be written by an English mathematician working in Scotland and published in England. Furthermore, the maximum principle said to be invented by him is in fact already mentioned in Polya and Szego, Aufgaben und Lehrsatze aus der Analysis, published in 1924, coincidentally the year that John Maximum is supposed to be born. In short, this article is wholly untrue. Delete -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete the article and all related crap uploaded by User:Astromoose. Fredrik Johansson 13:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Uploaded image of book cover has been nominated for deletion. —ERcheck @ 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Google knows nothing of the man, the book, or his theorem. Weregerbil 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but may I congratulate the author on a very entertaining read, especially the "Harmonic Neighbourhood Theorem", and excellent airbrush work on the book. Dmharvey 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax —Mets501talk 15:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Article creator inserted assertion (and was since reverted) into the Maximum principle article that John Maximum was the originator. Nice try. —ERcheck @ 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Balcer 16:40, 7 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 Rapture. --Ezeu 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Tribulation[edit]

This article is an unencyclopedic opinion piece and will never be more than a POV fork of Rapture. This article should either be deleted, or, as an alternative, changed to a redirect to Rapture. BigDT 12:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Rapture as suggested, as the term can be seen but there is no need to duplicate information. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect works. No need to merge as the contents are clearly POV. Gwernol 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, way too POV —Mets501talk 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect: As per BigDT, the Rapture article has a section on Pre-tribulation. Any relevant information should be merged, followed by a redirect. —ERcheck @ 16:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since the consensus is redirect, can I blank the content and redirect it myself or does an administrator need to do that? BigDT 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since nobody has said anything, I'm going to be bold and go ahead and blank this page and redirect it. BigDT 20:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well ... never mind ... obviously, I can't do that ... somehow it doesn't seem to work ... can an administrator do it? BigDT 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD' to rapture Newyorktimescrossword 02:11, 8 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, so keep. --Ezeu 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush family conspiracy theory[edit]

Violates WP:NOT, wikipedia is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy, and this article presents them as reality, please decide fairly and remove this nonsense right away--Ham and jelly butter 13:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As long as sources can be provided for examples of when these conspiracy theories have been alleged (to avoid WP:OR) and the article is slightly rewritten to emphasise that they are conspiracy theories, I see no problem with a verified list of things people have alleged. Maybe rename to List of Bush family conspiracy theories. Jdcooper 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can some sane rules for theory inclusion be established and enforced? It would be undesirable to have Wikipedia automatically repeat every idiocy that Alex Jones and his ilk happen to post on their conspiracy blogs. Weregerbil 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rules can be established, yes, and we already have one: No "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." But most pages like this one are full of original research. They rely far too heavily on primary sources and become link farms. For many of these things, there just aren't a whole lot of secondary sources anyway. What can we do? The pages are followed by the people who care most about them, and this is what we get. Wikipedia seems to have, de facto, two tiers: Real encyclopedia articles, and sandbox articles. This is one of the latter. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sure we can't just repeat any old tripe that anyone has ever said, but it seems obvious that people have alleged conspiracy theories about the Bush family, so why can't we detail the popular or common ones? Maybe all that in necessary is a bit (or a lot) of weeding? Jdcooper 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or break out the tin foil hats. Bush Senior killed JFK. The Bush family orchestrated 9/11. Give me a break. Our current President may not be the best we've ever had, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the family is into satan-worship and that they knock off foreign leaders in their spare time. BigDT 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The theory is not that "Bush killed JFK." I think it is that right-wing anti-Castro extremists did so, and that Bush knew them for both business (oil drilling between Florida and Cuba) and political reasons. I don't share this view, but it is one of many theories about the Kennedy assassination. Btw, are you suggesting that Bush Sr had no prior experience with the CIA before he became CIA Director on 30 January 1976 (until 20 January 1977),[4] and that based on this mere 355 days on the job the CIA Headquarters in Langley, VA was permanently named after him? Just curious. No-one credible suggests that "Bush orchestrated 9/11" -- but this false belief is widely held, hence it is important to debunk.
  • Delete WAY to POV for its own article. Filled with randomcrapcruft IMHO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?question?: Why is the Prescott Bush War seizures controversy listed as a conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it is one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a conspiracy theory that the federal government seized his assets during WWII? that's quite a conspiracy theory--152.163.100.66 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This violates WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR. 216.239.38.136 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking about this a while I'm starting to think this is really best classified as original research. The individual claims that suggest conspiracies can be verified — in the sense that the claims have been made in someone's blog or wherever, not that the claims are true. But collecting them into a list that suggests a far-reaching web of systematic conspiracies is unsourced and appears to be WP:OR. This article suggests that a credible source believes there is such a list of systematic conspiracy. This is misleading to the reader, as well as being original research. If there is a TV documentary that discusses seven Bush family conspiracies then documenting that documentary would be encyclopedic; picking seven(ty) random whining idiots' blog entries into an article is just WP:OR. So I'm thinking delete. Weregerbil 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- nominator has also listed for AfD Movement to impeach George W. Bush, List of Republican sex scandals , etc. Amcfreely 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - Having a discussion on all three is not unreasonable. I took a look at List of Republican sex scandals . That article accuses President Bush of rape based on a National Enquirer article? Umm ... that's a tabloid.
  • Strong keep - There is a lot of conspiracy theories around this family, as long as they are all sourced, I don't see a problem with it -- - K a s h Talk | email 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "Sourced" needs to be more than wild imaginations of bloggers + tabloids. BigDT 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - and if reliable sources can't be found, then that particular part should be removed. The fact remains that there are still verifiable Bush family conspiracy theories, why can't they be listed? Jdcooper 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. We don't want articles that will attract every conspiracy theorist like moths to a flame. Capitalistroadster 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is tin-foil hat nonsense. Violates a host of Wikipedia guidelines especially, WP:OR --RWR8189 21:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No credible reliable sources. Violates WP:RS and WP:OR Copysan 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because an article is not neutral does not mean it should be deleted. Besides this article was kept before, [5] and I believe should be still. Perhaps an arbitration comitee should look at these articles, since even if this one is deleted this time, it previously was kept by a majority. Falphin 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Weregerbil. I could see a well-sourced list of notable conspiracy theories, but this looks more like a collection of blog entries, which violates WP:RS. BryanG 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, why couldn't the unsourced ones be deleted? Falphin 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contains numerous unsourced allegations, looks like original work Crum375 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom. --Strothra 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting but allowing it leads to problems. Newyorktimescrossword 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now this is a POV fork. Unlike on the other two Bush links submitted, this article glosses over everything, just tossing out one-sentence accusations without backup or rebuttal. -- Grev 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Partisan blogcruft. Bans all round, for polluting wikipedia with *yuck* blog postings. -- GWO
  • Keep. Other conspiracies and conspiracy theories have articles on Wikipedia, so why not this one? The article might not be well written and could do with a little tidying up but that is no reason to delete it. An article exists on the Clinton Chronicles and despite it being completely discredited no one is calling for it to be deleted, same with the Arkansas Project and doubtless many more. I fail to see how this article is any different from any of those. No one is claiming the allegations in this article as true, they are conpsiracy theories. What is the problem? --Stenun 14:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the absence of good secondary sources, this can never be anything but a "synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this proliferation of liberal anti-Bush cruft is doing more than the proliferation of Pokemon articles to convince me that wikipedia is not serious about its stated purpose. Thatcher131 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many unreferenced statements, and irrelevant references --Astrokey44 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia reports on conspiracy theories, even those that concern Republicans. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nom - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. Who gave these dirty hippies computers? Halliburton, no doubt.--Capsela 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good form. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another political blog that ended up on Wikipedia. Full of original research and unreliable sourcing. Morton devonshire 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above rationale.--MONGO 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, is an owned article.--Jersey Devil 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's sourced, substantial and important; providing that it is kept NPOV, I don't see the problem. Matthew Platts 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article clearly and expressly presents these as conspiracy theories, it does not assert that all are true. (Indeed, it seems to go overboard in this.) Many are widely-believed. This is a great place to debunk any false charges. Actual conspiracies do abound, "tin-hat" pejoratives notwithstanding. Every accusation of a criminal or covert operation is initially a "conspiracy theory" until, bit by bit, the evidence mounts that it is likely true or false. (Some die-hards will always deny this truth, so it is almost never black-and-white. Many actual conspiracies are never proven -- false negatives. So there will always remain a grey area.) Some proven examples include the Iran-Contra Affair (illegal arms sales to Iran as an attempt to free hostages from Hezbollah and obtain money to illegally fund the Nicaraguan contras); the Bay of Pigs; the CIA-supported overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh (who was replaced by Shah Pahlavi, whose repression led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and current rule by mullahs); the CIA-supported overthrow of Guatemala's democratically-elected Arbenz (who won Guatemala's first universal-suffrage election with 60% of the vote, marking the first peaceful transition of power in Guatemala's history); the CIA-supported overthrow (and murder) of Chile's democratically-elected Allende; Enron's manipulation of energy markets with fraudulent business practices like "Death Star"; the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (a fabrication which prompted Lyndon B. Johnson to dramatically increase US troop levels in Vietnam; etc. All of these were denounced as "conspiracy theories," for many years. All are now known to be true. Given the role of GHW Bush as CIA Director, it strains credulity to believe that the full truth is yet known about operations he supported then and as President. The revolutionary beauty of Wikipedia is that it is both a repository of knowledge developed from the grass-roots (unlike top-down knowledge which stems from goverment- or corporate-funded research), and a platform for the development of that grass-roots knowledge. Go ahead and debunk all false claims, this is part of Wikipedia's mission. But please do NOT delete this page.
How could I have omitted BCCI from this list! (Perhaps because without constant vigilance, true conspiracies get forgotten? ;-) )
  • Strong Keep. Some of the theories are nonesense, like alien reptile ancestry of the Bushes, but there are many serious and well substantiated historical facts here. The Bush family membership in Skull and Bones, the manipulation of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections via bogus "felon" disenfranchised in Fla, where brother Jeb is Governor and questionable vote counting and vote suppression, whre the Secretaries of State in key states Ohio and Florida were also the Bush Campaign Chairs, the extension of executive power, Neil and the savings and loan scandal, Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, Cheney's ties to Halliburton, which gets most large military contracts, the Project for a New American Century involvement of many administration officials, GHW Bush employment by the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs, and Prescott Bush's involvement with and profiting from being a banker for the Nazis, are as well established as the Teapot Dome scandal duting the Harding adminintration, or Clintons dalliance with Ms. Lewinski. They are issues of history, not speculation. Put them right onto the main article pages if they are removed from here. Why aren't they on the main pages for the appropriate Bush? Were they exiled to a conspiracy page for future deletion? That is pure spin doctoring, not worth of an encyclopediaEdison 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article discusses actual conspiracy theories. For great justice. 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This article belongs on Wikipedia just as much as "Clinton family conspiracy theory" does
Erm, if there was widespread independent discussion of Clinton Family Conspiracies, then yes, but there isn't. For great justice. 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonsense. Strong keep. a) See Clinton Chronicles, Lewinsky scandal, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Whitewater (controversy), Mena_Arkansas#Clinton_scandal, Barry Seal, Clinton v. Jones, Arkansas Project, David Brock, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Kenneth Starr, Travelgate, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan MacDougal, etc. b) Clinton was a lecher (like many other politicians).[6] Bush Jr. deceived the US public and led us into a war that 2/3 of the US and 90% of the world now realizes was a bad idea. His clan deserves more scrutiny, given the role of his father (both with the CIA and as President), brother Jeb (esp. in Florida 2000), brother Neil (in the Savings & Loan scandal), Uncle Jonathan (in the Riggs Bank money-laundering scandal), and grandfather Prescott. Contrast that family network with Bill: you have Hillary and Roger. That's it. This article belongs here precisely because of the power the Bush family has exercised.
Comment, (Keep). Maybe Clinton and Bush Sr are in cahoots together.  ;-) Ever wonder why they're so palsy, travel together, tsunami, etc? [Maybe]... *laugh* (Just having fun.)
fair enough - so write the article! For great justice. 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT. Jsut a bunch of garbage.--Tbeatty 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles exist on other theories and the Bush family ones are notable. Skinnyweed 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of conspiracy theories. Sandstein 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:V wow.....this one I think takes the cake.....Aeon 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether you agree with the theories, some of the theories mentioned have been taken seriously in the world's media. And in particular the linking of Oil to the Iraq invasion is accepted my almost everyone in the UK regardless of whether they support the war or not, certainly friends of the Bush family if not the Bush family itself will profit from Iraqi oil. I think it is accepted that there are links between the Bush family and some relatives of Osma Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia too. So even if its all rubbish it probably deserves a page, even if it is there to debunk these theories.--Hontogaichiban 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Violates WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NOR and others. This is an amalgam of disparate allegations which does not exist in this form anywhere from any reliable source. This ad hoc assembly of anti-Bush accusations is a POV soapbox and is original research. Merecat 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the recent outbreak of the "delete all information that is uncomfortable to Bush"-virus is unsettling. The fact that all nominations were made by either the sock-puppet crowd or editors who have been indefinitely banned for thisdisruptive behaviour should suffice as argument. Any problems with sources should not be addressed with an AFD. As to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant to delete everything you disagree with.Holland Nomen Nescio 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would be a violation to delete this page, it would illustate the narrow mindfullness of some people who utilise this site. The article doesnt have any malicious nature or claim any validity to the claims. It would be wrong to delete this page. and i agree with the above comment, any article which could be harmfuk to george bush or the republicans must me delteed. THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE STANDS FOR, political preferences shouldnt harm the information given to others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeychild222 (talk • contribs) .
Note The above is user Monkeychild222's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Who's the sock puppet now? hmm? --Strothra 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that there are conspiracy theories about the Bush family is not in dispute. They deserve mention no less than the articles about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, flat earth theory and Elvis sightings. - Gimboid13 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Clearly the article would need a lot of work. The nom complains WP "is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy" which is true, though there would seem to be notable conspiracy theories about the Bushes. Nom also complains "article presents them as reality" but this could be dealt with by differentiating fact from allegations. Also Bush crime family which redirects to this seems to be a more common term (187,000 hits on Google for +"bush crime family" -wikipedia). The concept of a Unified Conspiracy Theory linking all the crimes and alleged crimes committed by or connected to the Bushes, as the title suggests, would appear to be a less common concept. Even the introduction indicates that's not what it's about though by stating "various conspiracy theory allegations." If the article is to be kept, a better title may be in order. Шизомби 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sahasrahla 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rename "Bush Family Synchroncities with 9/11 and the established dominance hierarchies".
Marshall McLuhan said the medium was the message. Whoever gets this far, you know your medium.
A friend played this for me today. For some young American youth this is more accessible than Alex Jone and others.
<snip nonsense>
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.149.51 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Delete - The Bush family supports crime and Satanism please wikipedia take the high road --MarsRover 05:40, 13 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 A7. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codi-clan[edit]

This AfD has been open for a couple of weeks but was never put on the main AfD page, so that's what I'm doing now. — FireFox (U T C) 14:07, 07 May '06

Non notable gaming clan--Zxcvbnm 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:WEB requires that the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of the (WP:WEB) criteria, it doesn't. - Politepunk 13:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Politepunk -- Tangotango 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons as Politepunk. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete God, I'm so tired of people creating articles for their @%$& clans. A group of people playing video games is not notable, and that's coming from a huge gamer. -- Kicking222 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I've said this before... When you see something like this, use {{nn-club}}. Grandmasterka 00:43, 8 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. DS 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Tamson's Bairns[edit]

This claims to be a 'popular adage' in Scotland, but I've never, ever heard of it, and anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is a band with the same name, and they are definitely worth an article, but the adage itself does not. A google search turns up 18,000 hits - but virtually all refer to the band. Recommend deletion after it was deprodded by an anonymous user. Nydas 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we're going to have an article on 'Jock Tamson's Bairns', then we should also have an article on 'wha's like us?' - a Scottish saying that returns a far greater number of Google hits, especially when 95% of the hits for Jock Tamson's Bairns are for the band.--Nydas 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That saying is rarely used on its own as far as I know, but rather as part of a more elaborate toast, which may indeed merit inclusion somewhere. Badgerpatrol 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of idioms and proverbs. Cultural significance isn't enough to make this an encyclopedia article. Brian G. Crawford 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether or not it's widely used, it's still a widely recognised phrase. Where do you think the band's name came from? �The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.254.91 (talk � contribs) .
  • weak Keep, Tempted to vote delete per WP:NOT but the notability and cultural significance of the phrase (and the OK quality of the stub) are such that I suggest we keep it. I would suggest that cultural significance IS a decent metric by which to judge such articles. Badgerpatrol 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no place here. Newyorktimescrossword 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourced, genuine phrase. -- GWO
  • Keep, sourced, genuine phrase. Just because the nominator has "never, ever heard of it" does not mean that it does not exist. It is actually an important insight into the Scottish psyche, and is certainly not trivial, nor a dicdef. --Mais oui! 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. Globaltraveller 12:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HJMG. --Craig Stuntz 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would suggest that allowing phrases and figures of speech into Wikipedia based upon them having been occasionally used is to open the floodgates to articles like a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, crack of dawn, eat my hat, if the wind changes your face will stay like that and don't have a cow, man.--Nydas 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: None of those have any cultural significance, except perhaps the latter. The issue here as I see it is whether or not this particular phrase is reflective of an aspect of the Scottish national psyche. Badgerpatrol 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't there be an article on Scottish egalitarian sentiment, rather than on a phrase describing it? I also note that very few, if any, online Scottish dictionaries and phrasebooks carry this phrase. [10] --Nydas 14:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write such an article, then feel free to do so and then request a merge. I personally feel that an article on the phrase itself, and its background, performs the same or similar function in a much more elegant manner and crucially provides a greater degree of verifiability. As for notability- there are numerous websites discussing the etymology, e.g .[11], [12], [13], [14], and many others. Searching for alternative spellings and phraseology may also be rewarding. This aphorism will be found in ANY worthwhile Scots phrasebook. From the look of your user page it sounds like you may be a Scot- if so, I'm surprised that you are not familiar with this phrase. It is very widely used, and notability is not an issue. Whether of not the phrase is culturally significant is; I do believe however believe that JTB satisfies those requirements. Badgerpatrol 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and suggestion:Those links lead to forum posts, a Canadian church and a genealogy site. Most of which I've already looked at and discounted as evidence that this phrase is 'very widely used'.
Now, look at this. These sites have masses of information on the real Jock Tamson:[15][16][17][18]
As a nice twist, link 11 has the true origin of the phrase.
He sounds more than notable enough to be worth a biography. His landscape paintings are worth thousands and he's in the Tate Collection. But, the article as it stands contains nothing whatsoever about him (in fact, it's somewhat misleading). There's no way this article is going to be deleted, but I would strongly suggest that it be rewritten as a biography (including the phrase) rather than a culturally significant dicdef. He certainly merits it, and it's much more in the style of an encyclopedia to do so.--Nydas 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you've discounted them, although I would agree that they are probably not of sufficient merit to be included as sources in the actual article- they were not intended as such. I agree that hopefully the article will be retained- an additional Jock Thomson article sounds like a fine idea; if and when it's created there may be scope to discuss a merge and redirect. As for the notability of the phrase- I don't mean to press the point if you don't wish to say, but are you Scottish? I make no claims that the aphorism is widely-used internationally, but it certainly is in Scotland. I do accept that a foreigner or one who has not spent a reasonable amount of time in the country or around Scots is unlikely to have come across the phrase. Badgerpatrol 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely keep. It's a well-known Scottish phrase - and surely us Scots should be the judge of that ? �The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.251.247 (talk � contribs) .
I am Scottish and was quite sincere when I said that I had never heard of this phrase. I remain unconvinced that it is popular. The sock puppets that seem to be popping up don't help. --Nydas 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be archaic (but real). Note the dates on the references on this page. --Craig Stuntz 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - initial article created, please expand as necessary. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a phrase I've long used myself and have seen being used, if recalled correctly, in the title for something in The Tramway arts/ theatre centre. Bit rushed to dig up references, but it's part of the Scottish national identity. ...dave souza, talk 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One person's lack of not hearing/using does not discount many other hearing/using the phrase, and it seems to even have quite a legacy (poetry, theatre, popular music). Examination and explanation of its usage adds to the article's viability. Canaen 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Canaen, I am familiar with the phrase myself and it crops up surprisingly often in Scotland. aslessor 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- My late Grandparents both used this phase. It does have a place in Scotland's history.

Keep-definitive & an essential part of the Scottish Ethos.

Keep> Have just found this by chance in a posting today on Runrig Forum, in context of Scotland/England relations. http://runrig.1.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=6714&st=30

(QUOTE. May 10, 2006 02:30 pm) I hope - and trust - that we don't actually 'hate' each other, or not the majority. Sporting rivalry is par for the course and can indeed turn nasty in the emotions and peer-group pressure of the moment, and the temporary psychological need to dramatize the 'us and them' feeling. But otherwise most people would stop short of hate. Resenting, begrudging, envying perhaps on occasion (as with all neighbours), but otherwise rubbing along well enough on a day to day basis. We have far more in common with each other than what divides us. Thankfully! (And Willie, that also applies to Fifers and Sutherlanders! ) ' Willie> I HATE NOBODY : WE'RE ALL JOCK THOMPSON'S BAIRNS . As I've said before it's the Media to blame'''' Isobel R.

Comment: Might be an idea to close this AfD debate slightly early, since consensus seems to have just about been reached and per the main page (which is excellent, btw!). Doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to retain a link from the front page to an article that's up for AfD. Badgerpatrol 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Could have sworn a large part of Wikipedia's purpose was to collect things that may, on the surface, appear to be meaningless bits of trivia or uncommon expression, but the mere fact that their origin can be determined easily through a search on the site is part of the usefulness of the Wikipedia over inprint dictionaries and encyclopedias.


  • Keep - After all, I learned something by reading it

Kether83 06:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I know and use this phrase, and I'm 19! so not that archaic surely. Appreciate the comment about WP:NOT but I think the quality of the stub and the particular relevance of this adage allow an exception. Mendor 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a well known phrase - even if not well known to the person proposing deletion. If Wikipedia was restricted to things I knew about it would be a barren place!--Sjharte 10:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from top of section[edit]

Please keep this entry in Wikipedia. It's important historically as so many Scottish people use this phrase and we must keep it in regular usage to prevent it from disappearing altogether. FB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.212 (talk • contribs)


This is a well-known phrase among Scots above 40 years old (my 83-year-old Scottish mother uses it quite frequently in the context of realizing that we all have "issues" and that we are all basically "good" nonetheless. (Never recommend deletion of something you don't recognise; it is most likely that you are ignorant on the subject.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.110 (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 Speedy delete under A7. The JPS talk to me 15:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Agarwal[edit]

Delete - it is a bio of a non-notable person (though a nice one). I put a prod tag, but it was removed. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a shame, because it's such a nice artice, but delete as non-notable bio. —Mets501talk 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as NN bio, tagged as such. --Bachrach44 15:22, 7 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 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDGEY[edit]

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:53, 7 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 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sucioperro[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 15:01, 7 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 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Adult Business Association[edit]

The article sounds more of a advertisement to be honest, something wikipedia is not. Furthermore in regard to the search results, disregarding the wikipedia mirrors it only returns 89 GHits [19] --Arnzy (Talk) 15:09, 7 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 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequenciação multiplex[edit]

Untranslated text in Portuguese, with not much useful comments at WP:PNT during the last couple of weeks. The content might be worth transwiki'ing out, but I can't tell. Kusma (討論) 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on a machine translation, appears to be an essay on DNA sequencing, which already has a pretty comprehensive article. Someone fluent in medicine and Portuguese would have to see if there's anything worth incorporating that's not already there. Fan1967 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was of any interest, someone would have translated it by now. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 9 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 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RatchetGamers[edit]

Web forum with 117 registered members. Notablitly, please? Thunderbrand 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete entirely NN. --Bachrach44 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... please... now I absolutely love Ratchet & Clank, and all I have to say about this article is: what garbage. -- Kicking222 16:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I have never heard the term "randomcrapcruft" before but it seems a fitting description. Reyk YO! 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:15, 8 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. --Ezeu 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maytime fair[edit]

No evidence given that it's notable beyond the individual school. Bachrach44 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, merging seems like a good idea. --Bachrach44 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should leave it because as a student of the school, i no that it was the first school fair in the southern hemisphere and is the largest of its kind in Australia. It is worthy of its own page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 21:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural superiority[edit]

not encyclopedic Salvor Hardin 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree Computerjoe's talk 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - notable, but looks more of a dicdef. --Arnzy (whats up?) 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be a dicdef, but as written it is more OR, bordering on POV. —ERcheck @ 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Computerjoe's disagreement. I think this article, although worded a bit awkwardly, goes beyond (or, otherwise, can go beyond) a dicdef. -- Kicking222 16:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Culture. I think it's a valid topic, but right now it's not sufficiently substantive and relies on opinion. If it ever expands beyond a single paragraph, it can then be spun off onto its own page. :-) — RJH 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Merge - from the history section, nobody has cared about it in six months. If someone wanted to work with it and make it into a good, sourced article, that wouldn't be a bad thing, but as it is, it isn't worth keeping. BigDT 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move it. Newyorktimescrossword 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, two sentences with no actual content. One link dead, another is someone's editorial, not a scientific source. Pavel Vozenilek 20:29, 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 delete (Deleted by Chick Bowen).--Ezeu 21:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codiac_Transit[edit]

No information provided, just a copy of the routes and fares off the website. Same information can be conveyed by linking off the Moncton Transportation section to the website Crossmr 16:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup, but other transit systems (Metro Transit (Halifax) and Bangor Area Transit in the same general region, for instance) have articles. Kirjtc2 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're also much more detailed. Unless someone can provide a similar level of detail and information for this article I can't see any reason to keep it at this time. --Crossmr 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it hasn't been touched since November ... if someone wants to write a good article about it, they can, but it doesn't seem that anyone is interested in doing so. BigDT 01:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Codiac Transit's website. Possible copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 9 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 and cleanup. --Ezeu 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altars in Latin America[edit]

prodded by somone else as OR. Deprodded by me as it cites sources and is fairly important to ancient Latin American cultures. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reads like an academic essay, but it's not that bad. I don't see it as original research. Brian G. Crawford 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or edit it so that it DOESN'T read like an essay. this is an encyl. not an academic journal. Newyorktimescrossword 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and apply whatever cleanup /rewrite tags are appropriate. JeffBurdges 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up and properly sourced. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 9 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 {{nn-bio}}. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARKETING PROFESSIONALS: Sergii Bratusov, Boots/Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare[edit]

Article about a non-notable marketing manager. Further, the article is VERY poorly named. BigDT 17:24, 7 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 clear consensus to delete, so keep. --Ezeu 22:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Flynn[edit]

non-notable, only played one professional game in the Victorian Football League in 1903, no potential of expanding, Delete Lovemetendernow 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification he played in the Victorian Football League a competition now known today as the Australian Football League (not the one currently known as the VFL). Rogerthat Talk 06:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. r3m0t talk 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essendon are a very notable club but we would need more than one game to establish notability. Unless we can get more verifiable info about him, Delete. Capitalistroadster 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 20:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, it's not really vanity, is it? I mean, I doubt Mr Flynn wrote the article himself, given that he's almost certainly dead having played over 100 years ago. --Canley 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Since it's an article I created (some time ago I might add) I would prefer to see it kept, but it is an established part of WP:BIO that anyone who has played 1 senior game (as the minimum qualification) of football with a professional club is notable. That said I have found it hard to dig up much information on Flynn, with his date of birth and death hard to come by (it would take some research with the department of deaths & births probably). So technically he was notable but little chance of expansion (no-one alive today saw him play). Rogerthat Talk 06:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it meets the (stupid) criteria. Playing one top-level game of anything makes you 793 times more important than the hundreds of US college "athletes" clogging up the works. -- GWO
  • Week keep per WP:BIO. In the absence of any specific inclusion criteria for AFL footballers, I'd err on the side of caution and keep him. Comment - I would encourage the development of a notability test specifically for AFL bios, along the lines of that at WP:Cricket, under Criteria guideline for article inclusion. (or WP:Music) -- I@n ≡ talk 08:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. He is borderline in my thinking, but he definitely meets the criteria, and we apparently keep players that haven't even played one game yet. Having said that, if there really is no possibility for expansion, the article is pointless - hopefully someone can expand it. JPD (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I am not a fan of substubs like this, it does meet the keep criteria. --Roisterer 14:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Just passes WP:BIO. GizzaChat © 11:08, 11 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 15:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Squirrel Collective and Ink (band)[edit]

Recently created independent record label. They have thus far released one album. The article was previously tagged for deletion. The tag was removed without comment. ScottW 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Ink to the nomination, see below comment. Friday (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I admire what they're doing, but I don't see much significance here. A band with one record would not usually meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, and here's a whole label with only one record. I would lean toward delete unless verified and shown significant with third-party sources. Also relevant is Ink (band). Friday (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also Delete (or put up as an AfD) Ink (band), as neither the record label article nor the band article assert any notability at all. -- Kicking222 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've turned this into a combined Afd on both articles. Seems reasonable to consider them together. Friday (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Friday, if they can show that their stance has generated a significant degree of interest, I would change my vote to a keep but 2-3 friends of mine have their own small labels run on exactly the same basis and I wouldn't do articles about them at this time. Ac@osr 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Considering "Red Squirrel Collective" only gets 17 Google hits, and of those, only 7 are unique, and of those 7, one is WP and two are MySpace pages, I highly doubt there's much interest in the label. -- Kicking222 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:20, 8 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. --Ezeu 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furtling[edit]

This is a dictionary definition, and I have serious doubts that it can be expanded. The book cited is a 64 page picture book that aids the reader in furtling. I really don't think there's much to say about putting your fingers through holes in pictures to simulate naughty bits. If somebody could expand it into an encyclopedia article, that would be fine with me, but I don't think that can be done. Brian G. Crawford 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I'm the one who wikified the stub after it was added last year, and the one who remove the prod tag added by Brian. That said, I have no particular objection to having it nominated on AfD and, should the consensus be such, deleted. I do maintain that this seems to be an encyclopedic subject — as in, covered, however briefly, by at least one print encyclopedia — and that it could be expanded. I haven't personally seen either of the books cited (save for the online version), and have no idea where I might be able to find them if I were to go looking for them. Nonetheless, someone could do that, and presumably someone might be able to locate other references to the subject. In the mean time, the article in its present form is doing no harm to Wikipedia. Deleting it, though insignificant in the grand scheme if things, would nonetheless be a net loss for the encyclopedia. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to dic. Newyorktimescrossword 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, this is something that's somewhat significant culturally, and could easily be expanded. Plus, this ever-constant crusade against anything sexual is getting out of hand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a crusade against sexual topics. If you think I am, then you're wrong. Brian G. Crawford 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & expand I suppose. I guess we can't expect an article on a victorian custom to expand very quickly. Maybe start with just giving a couple significant examples? Or say where it happened mostly? At least that would move it beyond being a dic. def. JeffBurdges 11:10, 9 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 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freewave[edit]

Non-notable product. The original text was a copyvio. I placed a speedy tag on it. The original poster removed my tag and changed the text as to not be a copyright violation, thus speedy no longer applies. BigDT 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - What is a non-notable product? AAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7609 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 May 2006
See Wikipedia:Notability BigDT 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do to keep the bulk text?
PS I consider it to be notable as it is known and was sold world wide - sold out of its first edition, plus a lot of interest. AAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7609 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 May 2006
Here are the guidelines for software notability: WP:SOFTWARE ... if it doesn't meet those guidelines, it should be deleted BigDT 19:09, 7 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. Chick Bowen 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of games licensed by Nintendo[edit]

Impossible to maintain list with no verifilablity offered. Metros232 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not sure if I understand the nom here. The list looks rather short and well maintained to me. I also don't see any discussion on the talk page that would indicate problems or conflicts in maintaining this, nor does it seem very different from the +170 articles found in Category:Computer and video game lists. -- JJay 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are hundreds of games licensed by Nintendo out there though. This list is just the cusp of what is out there. It focuses a lot on the arcade games and a few of the NES games, but doesn't include any of the other consoles such as 64 and Gamecube. I think that a category suffices instead of a list. Metros232 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is short because it's not even 5% complete. A complete list would have hundreds, if not upward of a thousand, entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and, perhaps, create a category) I wasn't sure what to think until Metros's excellent explanation just popped up. Now, in my mind, it's clear. -- Kicking222 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to Nintendo's strong legal department, just about every single game produced for a Nintendo console/handheld would be on this list. Using catagories would be better. BigE1977 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a category, per Metro232. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:07 UTC
  • Delete; this list would eventually include thousands of entries, many of which won't merit articles. A better list would be a list of unlicensed games released on Nintendo systems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay AND create a category, no need to destroy a perfectly good list at all. Jcuk 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Do not categorize. EVERY game commercially released for a Nintendo system is licensed by Nintendo. Any game that is not isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Grev 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|>Newyorktimescrossword 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please do not destroy good lists Yuckfoo 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost all games released on Nintendo consoles have been licensed by Nintendo, so that makes this list completely over-broad in its criteria. It'd be much easier to list notable games for Nintendo consoles that aren't licensed by Nintendo; that might be a much shorter list... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the list would contain every game ever released for a Nintendo platform, making the list completely unmanageable. If a list needs to be or should be maintained, it should be through categorization (which was designed for this kind of thing). ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as unmaintainable excessively long list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept, remove the red "no"s as they look like redlinks. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not replacement for company's website and neither it is database. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very redundant list, not unlike list of two-legged people. A list of Nintendo-console games that weren't licensed would be more interesting and useful. -Sean Curtin 03:04, 11 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 16:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Keane[edit]

This is the woman after whom the band Keane named themselves. As this information is already in the Keane article, I propose deletion. Brian G. Crawford 18:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Considering the woman literally has no notability whatsoever aside from mentoring the members of Keane, and considering this info is already in the band's article, this is an easy deletion decision. -- Kicking222 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent explanations of Brian and Kicking. Joe 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable biography; all of the information required about this person already exists, so no need to replicate it.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. vanity. ---|>Newyorktimescrossword 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • D&R to Keane - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:34, 9 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 16:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Eggbeard[edit]

Alleged US Confederate army officer, unsourced, apparent hoax. PROD removed without comment. Anon user then tried to insert two unrelated external pictures to make it look more plausible, but both of them obviously show different personalities ([21], [22]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 7 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 16:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zion Radio[edit]

Delete I deprodded this because I felt consensus was needed to delete an article about a radio station. This appears to be a webcast-only station, which I was unable to confirm at the time of deprodding, since their website was down. It's now back up. It seems to me impossible to confirm listenership or significance, and therefore I vote delete, but would be glad to change my vote if more information becomes available. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No Alexa rank at all, and all google turns up is a few directories of online radio stations. It seems no one's listening to it, and no one's talking about it. Fan1967 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per fan1967. BigE1977 21:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|>Newyorktimescrossword 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. DarthVader 13:33, 9 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, troll (earlier nominated George W. Bush article itself for Afd) -- Curps 00:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush military service controversy[edit]

Do we really need another article that exists entirely to attack bush over his supposed "controversies"?--Ham and jelly butter 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm all for deleting paranoid theories that never make it outside of blogs and tabloids, but this one was on the nightly news every night. (Dan Rather has documents proving that it belongs on Wikipedia.) BigDT 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the dan rather "documents" aren't a very compelling case for anyhting, other than a paragraph in the liberal bias article, which i'll be happy to add once this is deleted--Ham and jelly butter 19:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I know - I was being sarcastic ... my apologies ... sarcasm doesn't get transmitted too well in print. BigDT 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so on this one. It's not like the controversy wasn't well documented during two entire elections. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is clearly notable and was well documented and commented upon during both elections and throughout his presidency. IrishGuy 19:38, 7 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katsis[edit]

This is an obvious speedy deletion candidate as a non-notable bio (with no assertion of notability), but the author (whose username, unsurprisingly, is "Katsis") has twice removed deletion tags. -- Kicking222 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per my nomination. -- Kicking222 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. No assertion of notability. And I have serious doubts about anyone who claims to have graduated magna cum but can't spell it. He also can't spell the sport he played or the position he played in it. Fan1967 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Haha, I thought the exact same thing. Hey, I think my grades are good enough to be Magnum Cumlade, too! -- Kicking222 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete can't spell cum laude, but can spell kinesiology ... go figure BigDT 18:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • magnum Cumlade I mean A7 - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:04, 7 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 a non-notable band. --InShaneee 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merciless Death[edit]

Non notable music band. They released only one demo (check: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=34891) Visor 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete by CSD A7. Not just is there obviously no notability, but the article doesn't even try. -- Kicking222 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And also, Evil in the Night, article about their first and only one album should be deleted with Merciless Death (100 copies, non notable music album & band) Visor 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and tagged per A7. TheProject 21:44, 7 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 to dye. --Ezeu 22:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxidation base[edit]

Page was previously tagged for speedy deletion, due to absolutely errant information contained. Another user, Snoutwood, disagreed with my reasoning, and removed the tag. Essentially, we have differing interpretations on what constitutes Patent Nonsense.

Based on our exchange regarding the subject, we are in agreement that it is best that the entry be tagged for AfD.

To avoid repetition, part of the discussion is posted on my my talk page; the rest of the discourse may be perused at Snoutwood's talk page. --Folajimi 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am not familiar with the chemistry articles on dyes (although a chemist), but it may be that some of this article, if corrected, could be merged somewhere else. Otherwise since it is wrong it should be deleted. --Bduke 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note also that Dye links here and says that "Oxidation bases, for mainly hair and fur" as a class of dyes, which it appears to be not. Note that "hair and fur" is contrary to what is mentioned in the article. --Bduke 23:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep distinctive. meets test and standards. Newyorktimescrossword 02:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with dye (with redirect?) unless it is expanded and the author provides a citation. Otherwise it is fairly useless and factually questionable.--Nick Y. 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to dye, there shouldn't be an article at this title. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to dye. If anything here is accurate, it might be added to dye, but that's a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a web page[edit]

WP's not a how-to Osbus 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BigE1977 21:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks and delete (unless I'm confused as to whether WikiBooks would actually want that, which is always a problem for me). TheProject 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:31, 9 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 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lerman P. Haddleburg[edit]

Seems like a prank. Noone listed in the article shows up on a google search, nor does the publisher. If it is not a prank, the individual is non-notable Ted 19:28, 7 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 as no consensus.--Ezeu 22:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugate quantities[edit]

Another useless User:Enormousdude creation, presumable meant to be similar to Mathematically entangled. An article so pointless and unloved (even by its creator) that it was vandalized for three weeks without anyone noticing. Nonsuch 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article. Please have another look. LambiamTalk 12:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to Google, "Conjugate quantities" is really a term, but this article is completely wrong about what the term means. Using the definition in the article, the any number would be a Conjugate quantity under the unary negation operator. In other words, if you take the number 10, negate it and you get -10, negate it again and you get 10 back. But according to Google, the term "conjugate quantities" means (if I am reading technobabble correctly) two related quantities. In other words, in the field of quantum mechanics, time and energy are directly proportional and so they are "conjugate quantites". An article on the correct meaning of "conjugate quantites" might be interesting, but this article is not. BigDT 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The article has been rewritten by Lambiam so it is now appears to be factually correct instead of patent nonsense. Thus, I am changing from delete to keep. BigDT 12:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per BigDT Nonsuch 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Lambiam has converted the article into a reasonable stub, which may, in time, become useful. Let it live! Nonsuch 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep in present form but expand (you can help). --LambiamTalk 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current entry which is patently wrong does not appear to be correct, at least from anything I've ever learned, but no prejudice against recreation of a proper article. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm pretty sure this isn't what "conjugate quantities" means either. Melchoir 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur and Stifle. -lethe talk + 05:07, 13 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 and delete.--Ezeu 22:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shpitzel[edit]

Unexpandable dictionary definition. Transwiki to wiktionary. BigE1977 19:59, 7 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 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy Theme Song[edit]

Some people misinterpreting the theme song lyrics isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article. The 'controversy' is covered fine at the main Family Guy page and this is a needless addition. Delete Hayter 20:08, 7 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. "I don't get it" isn't a reason to delete, and this is clearly an important sociological concept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positive liberty[edit]

This article appears to be about nothing at all Salvor Hardin 20:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete unless someone can rewrite it and turn it into something meaningful. 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep nonsensical nomination; referenced article by a few trusted Wikipedians, and for anyone wondering, the delete vote cast was an unsigned vote by the nominator himself. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is quite clear and it even has an external link illustrating that this is a valid subject. IrishGuy 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Positive and negative liberty are both very important concepts that we should have on Wikipedia. (Positive liberty is "freedom to [do something]" while negative liberty is "freedom from [having something done to you]"). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:10 UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Paul Dilemani[edit]

Little currently in the article suggests he is notable, googling his name gives no useful results. Also, his supposedly-notable father gives no google results outsidde of that page. The varied claims in the history (married to Keira Knightley, president of Tri-State Economic Development Conference) strongy suggest that the article is nonsense. Delete. Mairi 20:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most likly a hoax, but regardless it is non notable and unverifiable. IrishGuy 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Constantly shifting hoax. An earlier version also claimed that he is the current State Senator for the 23rd District of New York, and was elected before his 21st birthday. All this while getting a BA, a JD and two honorary degrees. Fan1967 21:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and speedy it if it qualifies as patent nonsense (and then move it to BJAODN if it qualifies). You'd think if Keira Knightley ever decided to tie the knot, the tabloids would be all over it immediately. TheProject 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garbage. hoax. crap. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete. Whether true or not, the current version does not suggest that the individual is particularly notable. Isomorphic 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as worthless hoax. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 9 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. --Ezeu 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen Vision[edit]

Only asserion of notability is the drummer once played in a band who is signed to an indie label that has an article. This nth degree of notability does not satisfy WP:MUSIC for me. Delete. Rockpocket (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I had to read that four or five times before I got that. Nobody in the band is notable enough to have an article. Nobody's former band is notable enough to have an article. And to top it off, the band hasn't even released a CD yet. Even I have more notability than that. Delete per nom. (Also, a quick note to User:Talemir that AfD isn't done by "voting" per person, but by consensus of the established Wikipedia community. See this diff for details.) TheProject 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I vote to keep the article for when they do make it. Vincent 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not cover bands "for when they do make it". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and can't predict who will and who won't. Become notable first, then get the article. Fan1967 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about a band who's name is already copywritten, and the article is based on FACT and is not a biast opinion. Vincent 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: first of all, names don't get copyrighted, they get trademarked. Second of all, I've trademarked the name VaniDelete™ -- does my product get a Wikipedia article? (And in case you don't get it, the answer is no, because it's not notable.) Wikipedia is not the patent and trademark office; if we were, we would've reached that millionth article a hell of a lot faster. TheProject 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is considered bad form to delete earlier comments, even your own, from an AfD discussion. I have restored them. Fan1967 00:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am still new to this site and trying to figure out how it all works. You don't have to be so rude. I am also changing my user name, so if you could delete my other or let me know how to then I will do so. User:Talemir. I did not know it was bad form to delete other posts, but as you can see it says it is basically a vote for yes with a descriptive reason why. If the band page really is not notable enough then it will be deleted, votes or not; do they really matter?
  • Comment The votes are merely a guide. The reasons expressed, especially the relevant Wikipedia criteria, are what really guide the decision. Fan1967 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: True, but I thought maybe enough votes for yes would ensure it could stay. I understand how this community works a little better now and I appologize for imposing so much, and pushing the article. But in plain black and white, if it doesn't meet require criteria; then it must go. This is User:Talemir btw, I changed my user name as you can plainly see. You may delete it whenever you see fit, I have saved the info IF they make it. Although it is my personal view from working with them that they will, but only time will tell.

Big Boss Ocelot 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Good luck to them. It may be that you'll have the opportunity to recreate the article in the future, after they've achieved some public success. Fan1967 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for all the help, I will tell them you said that; but I also noticed that there is nothing for super natural? What would I have to do to add that? Since the super natural world is not prooven to the full extent, and most of the 'facts' people have are about personal experience.

Big Boss Ocelot 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Even if you met requirements mentioned thus far, please note that it is still a biased article. No matter how much you know that it is all true, you have yet to prove it. The article has no citations and references to any information outside of wikipedia that isn't a myspace website, and the main reason for that is because outside of your claim that the band was mentioned on a radio station, band has not been mentioned or talked about on any reliable source. No, even if you saved ticket stubs from Unseen Vision shows, they are not good enough. It is probably best to just let it go, and create a website for the band using Geocities or something. Please also note that the supernatural is not proven "to the full extent," as you say, but it does meet Wikipedia's standards. By the way, the Wikipedia standards are available for anyone to read. If you could just read the standards, there would be no debate as to what "the full extent" is, because what is important is the extent that wikipedia has asked for, the extent which has not been met... As it stands it is quite clearly suitable for deletion for an orgy of reasons. -- SB 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks User:Rockpocket I didn't even think of that lol. Btw Sean, I understand and I already said delete it. But the band however does have it's own website. / .com to proove it is all true, you can go see for yourself. www.unseenvision.com, but this still doesn not classify the article or the band to be notable. I understand the rules a lot better today then I did months ago, I will tell you that much! haha

Big Boss Ocelot 08:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Right on. -- SB 20:37, 8 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 G7. The JPS talk to me 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas Moves[edit]

I created this article, but I can not find anything of real substance that is worth adding to it. Delete The Genesis 21:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under G7, which states that if an article has only one editor and that editor no longer believes the page to be useful, that the page can be deleted immediately. I have tagged the article as such for you. In the future, should this situation arise again, tag the article with {{db-g7}}. TheProject 21:11, 7 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 and keep. --Ezeu 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamscape (dream)[edit]

Not sure if AfD is the right place for this, but I think there are three options with this one: delete as neologism, transwiki and delete, or (merge and) redirect to lucid dreaming (see comment on article's talk page). TheProject 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Dreamscape psychology turns up 42,400 Google hits, most of which seem to use the word as it is used here. I think we can go beyond a dicdef with this one, so there's no need for a transwiki (though it is currently a dicdef). —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:14 UTC
    • Comment: of course, it just occurred to me that we could transwiki and expand as well. TheProject 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: it seems to me that if the article is kept, then it should be transwikied to Wiktionary as well, as it can be made into a dicdef, so I'll do that. TheProject 03:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: I was bold and did just that. It is still a dicdef worthy of Wiktionary, even if we vote to keep it. TheProject 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets standards. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
    • Comment: what standards, exactly? Stifle (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary --Zoz (t) 21:38, 12 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 16:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (game shows)[edit]

Is fancruft, and doesn't appear to be a mainstream idea, also contains non-NPOV slant to begin with. Burgwerworldz 21:13, 7 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, since the proposed target article has a different subject. Kusma (討論) 01:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)[edit]

There is already an article "Court of Final Appeal" for the same subject matter. If you want to move the article to another title, discuss in the discussion page. Alan 21:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was confused by the recent cut-and-paste move in the article "Court of Final Appeal". The "court of appeal" and the "court of final appeal" are two different courts. Anyway, this article is too short. Should it be cayegories into "Hong Kong stub" or should it be merged into another article? - Alan 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I see. Move to The Court of Appeal of the High Court. It is short, but stubs aren't prohibited. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Comment: User:Alanmak had withdrawn this AfD nomination hadn't he? If that's not the case, count this mine as a keep vote. IMHO it doesn't have to be moved. — Instantnood 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (modified 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment'. That's not possible, as there have already been nonvotes that aren't keep. --Rory096 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 9 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 to keep. Merge and delete. --Ezeu 09:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton's ordering of the human races[edit]

POV fork Pete.Hurd 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment deleting this article will leave the all the material intact in the J. Philippe Rushton article, and I suggest cannot therefore be characterized as censorship (should this be what you are implying). - Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is not original research. It is a discussion of Rushton's research. It is also not a POV fork, but an article spinoff created because there is not enough space on Rushton's page to hold a fuller discussion of this theory. Dd2 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Odd then that in the three months and 20+ edits since you created this article on an exceptionally controversial, and very widely criticised theory, that you havn't seen fit to add any mention of anything critical about it at all. The full discussion is on Rushton's page. Pete.Hurd 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was not created as a POV fork, but rather as a spinoff article because there is not enough space on Rushton's page to hold a fuller discussion of this theory. Dd2 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If any material is non-duplicative, merge back to J. Philippe Rushton, but it seems little is. LotLE×talk 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge back if there's room for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal to merge and delete as per nominator. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 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 Deleted, way too many socks in this one. Tawker 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamain's World[edit]

Non-notable website; seems to fail WP:WEB. Contested prod. PseudoSudo 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article doesn't show how the subject meets WP:WEB. Since this is about the world of Kamain/Josh Prosser - whi is a non-notable person with no assertion of notability, can this be speedied as WP:CSD A7? - Politepunk 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete: as per nominator. --Ragib 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A shame to delete such a long article, butDelete per nom. —Mets501talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: above five votes deleted by 70.18.20.246 in this edit. I have restored them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This is such a great article and so descriptive... alot of people read and care about this article... please don't leave it in vein!--4.8.15.16.23.42 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ets501talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete You guys have so many articles and this not a mediocre article! It is very long and descriptive. Plus wouldn't a new article just add to your database? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.250.111 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete 88.91.140.175 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.229.248.45 (talk • contribs) .
  • Do Not Delete This article is long and descriptive, and details a site which many, many people have used, or at least browsed. Many people have put a lot of work into this article, and id hate to see it go to waste by deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.11.235 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per WP:WEB. While "long" and "descriptive" are technically words that could be applied to this article, I suppose, it's actually a pretty good example of why nearly all forum articles are deleted. Very little that happens on forums is encyclopedic, or of interest to those outside the forum itself. As a result, forum articles tend to get padded out with utterly trivial trivia. Here's a sample from this article: "Then about 4 months afterwards, Ryan made an account called "imcoolcuzicuff", and pretty much said some revealing stuff towards Dread (For example, his penis is 5 inches, his nickname is Russtard and Rusty Bucket {because his name is Russell}, and Russell Sprouts), and even after that Dread was barely angry at Ryan." Now, can anyone out there think of any reason why the information I quoted, whether factual or not, would be of any interest to anyone outside the forum? I certainly cannot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the article was originally put up for deletion when it was totally irrelevant and advertisement for its forum (the article was later edited by one of the members to include actual information as to avoid deletion), the article is still totally useless for anything except the glorification of the website. (PS. I am one of the forum members of this site, so that should be taken info consideration when reading my thoughts)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.11.235 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing in the article is notable. Also, see this topic, third post down. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it isn't encyclopediac enough? I thought an encyclopedia was about INFORMATION. Oh and the P.S. guy that says he's a forum member. You aren't a forum member. :-p. If so which one? Anyway, if the person isn't notable or well known, now you know him. What if someone wanted to look up Kamain's World on Wikipedia or something and it wasn't there. See, if the article has some stuff, as long as it's descriptive etc, it should stay. You guys are just pompous.

    • You've brought up a very good point there, perhaps unintentionally: "What if someone wanted to look up Kamain's World on Wikipedia or something and it wasn't there." For a moment, imagine that you're someone who's just heard of Kamain's World and wants to know more about it. Which of the following would you most logically use to get your information? (a) Go directly to the Kamain's World website. (b) Look it up on Google. (c) Check a website about forums, such as Big-Boards.com. (d) Check an internet directory. (e) Check an encyclopedia. Here's a hint: the answer isn't (e). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE. Just read the Admins section to find out why. Theonlyedge 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. --Yamla 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine delete it. Delete the effort, I don't care.

  • Strong delete as article does not assert the notability of the site, and in general is very POV in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a little comment: Even though this forum shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, it does not mean that it isn't a great community. But Wikipedia can't include a forum/site of <insert whatever subject here> if it doesn't pass the notability requirements! I could write a great article about myself, or any other person, but that doesn't make him or her notable. Bjelleklang - talk 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:41, 13 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 redirect to Psalms. --Ezeu 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psalmist[edit]

This page is a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied ([24] [25]). It should be deleted. NatusRoma | Talk 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Psalms. Someone looking for information on the authorship of the book of Psalms could potentially use this term, so it's worth considering a redirect. BigDT 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now, with the option to use it if "author of the Book of Psalms" ever gets to be big enough to need to be its own sub-page. There is enough academic discussion on authoriship of almost every book of the Bible to stand as its own article. But this text isn't going to help whomever gets around to writing that one. GRBerry 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:28, 8 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 listed on List of Battlefield 1942 mods already, article deleted Syrthiss 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SilentHeroes[edit]

Page restored after consensus relist at DRV. Page is different from the earlier AFD'd Silent Heroes, tho on the same topic.-- Syrthiss 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Smerge to List of Battlefield 1942 mods. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's an award-winning mod and one of the biggest in europe. If other (and many smaller) mods can have info-pages there is no reason this one should be specifically targeted for deletion. Zarkow 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, your argument does not make sense, many other mods are NOT allowed to have articles if they are non-notable and the previous decision was to delete.--Zxcvbnm 21:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are incorrect: Battlefield_1918, Codename_Eagle, Desert_Combat_Extended, Sengoku_(1991_video_game), Empires and so on. If you by 'non-notable' mean 'not legendary', fine, but don't lie to us and proclaim that this (or some of the other mods) are non-notable. Zarkow 16:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Codename Eagle isn't even a mod page, neither is Sengoku notable and Empires is a different game. I dont get it...--Zxcvbnm 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Codename Eagle is a mod too, based on the original game. Perhaps someone relinked the url from the BF1942-mod-page then. Empires was a mod for BF42 originally. But you are still avoiding the question: how come it can have a page? What is 'notable'? (And you don't say anything about the two other entries.) Zarkow 20:49, 14 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 redirect. TheProject 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Roloff[edit]

Duplicate of Matthew Roloff Gnosbush 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved nomination text from article's Talk: page, where it appears to have been placed by mistake. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:59, 7 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 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extermination: The Series[edit]

Non notable Dunstan talk 21:59, 7 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 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datadwarf[edit]

Vanity/advertisement. Links to a blog and a forum, with the notability of either unestablished. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:14, 7 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 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Carroll[edit]

An author at Realfootball365.com, where this article should be merged if this person is notable enough. However, there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realfootball365.com which indicates that that website is not notable enough, and no other indication of meeting WP:BIO is given. Delete. Kusma (討論) 22:21, 7 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 -- Curps 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Elizabeth Alexander[edit]

  • Promoting a bad vandal who calls herself the queen of spam. Please Delete. Georgia guy 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this nonsense/vanity/spam etc. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The user obviously think this is her personal myspace page. Aplomado - UTC 22:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Duh. Jonathan235 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - and tagged as such. —ERcheck @ 22:54, 7 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 BJAODN. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama sledgehammer[edit]

I listed this page for proposal but the author disputed it. I believe that the article, which claims to describe an obscure act of sexual deviance, is non-notable and unverifiable. It's also possible that the article is a joke. See the discussion page for more details. D. Wu 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save This - This is as valid as anything else, if you delete this it will just show how fascist wikipedia is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingsofdarkion (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC). (acct created today)[reply]
  • SAVE THIS - Everything that needs to be said has been said below. This should be put to a democratic vote. Wikipedia would be doing the service a disfavour by removing this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.119.218 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC). (user's first edit)[reply]
  • Save This! Now I am furious. Does something have to be a pop culture icon to be notable? Isn't wikipedia for the free exchange of all knowledge, however ubscure and remote? Of course you wouldn't be able to find any of this stuff on google because it is an underground thing. If you base credability off of google searches you are not fit to oversee any intellectual exchange of ideas. There is information that hasnt been put onto the internet yet because some people want to keep things secret. I dare you to look into the public records of Pike County, and delete this only if you can prove me wrong, because public records are far more legitamate than google searches. And also, the parade isnt observed on main street Troy. The Troy Messanger published the article, but that is because it was the closest newspaper to the town of incident. The events happened in Banks Alabama. Also the parade is observed by a remote group of locals, and doesnt really attract too much media attention. Does your town newspaper announce every pumpkin carving contest? or every school dance? Please look actually do research before you discriminate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.245.200 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC). (user's first edit)[reply]
  • BJAODN Lives up to expectations, keep for the sake of humor! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.151.49 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. The phrase "Alabama sledgehammer" gets zero, that's right, zero Google hits, an impressive feat by any standard. Aplomado - UTC 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above. Probable hoax. --BillC 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds VERY MUCH like a hoax and if it isn't Googlable it probably doesn't matter anyway. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Absolutely hilarious. This cracked me up: "Ronald Landers was a racecar driver, who had lived a life of fast cars and sodomy." Brian G. Crawford 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the BJAODN, not to mention that the picture is classic. Aplomado talk 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely BJADON worthy. - RPIRED 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable and unverifiable.--blue520 07:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN that picture is a classic! --eivindt@c 11:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. It's great, just not in the mainspace. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Monday, 8 May 2006 @ 11:15 UTC
  • BJAODN. It's classy. ShaunES 04:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Real or not, it is pretty funny. --Breathstealer 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Roflmao. DarthVader 13:13, 9 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 recreation of deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Condor pada[edit]

I think this actually meets Speedy deletion criteria but it is (I think) just song lyrics and since most song lyrics are copyrighted, they shouldn't be placed on Wikipedia to begin with. Delete. DGX 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lyrics is not copyrigted in this case! the song is released for instance at [[26]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabaRera (talk • contribs) .
    • Could you please place a source where it says it's listed into the public domain? DGX 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All information can be checked with the index theatre who have a site [27] with a contact address. The song deserves article, and it is suspected that the real motivation of those who want to remove it is a censorship of unflattering materials that criticize NATO agression. The song has every right to have an article in wikipedia, this is FREE encyclopedia - free from opression of those who supported illegal bombing of NATO (check what Noam Chomsky has to say about that - do you want to silence him too?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabaRera (talk • contribs) .
Ugh.. this isn't a ethnic dispute, ok? Nobody is trying to silence anybody. It has nothing to with what I think about NATO aggression or anything like that, it's about Wikipedia standards for articles. We can keep the part at the top but the lyrics don't really need to be listed. We can provide an external link to it. As for the links your providing, I don't speak the language and can't understand what the page is saying and don't have a translator so I can't confirm any of this. The rights to the song is what is questionable though. DGX 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THIS IS ETHNIC------MOST VOTES(12) WERE KEEP,ONLY 8 DELETE,THEN WHY WAS IT DELETED?!?!?!?!?Dzoni 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For reasons that I already statedDzoni 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is the notability asserted? I don't see it. Aplomado - UTC 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try google, if you think this is a vanity page or a non-notable song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabaRera (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep the article, the song is notable enough. Delete lyrics unless somebody provides some source for rights to the song being released. It can't really be in public domain in Serbia, as that is a US-specific concept. Zocky | picture popups 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can check with the author himself - they have a site [28] with a contac address. Per wikipedia policies, this should be enough - anyone can check the status and weather they agree to release the lyrics or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabaRera (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep Maybe fixing the lyrics part,but Keep Jamal Curtis 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE User has 3 edits. DGX 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, recreation of previously-deleted article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no concensus for delete at ANY time. Someone is badly abusing wikipedia adminship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BabaRera (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia (region)[edit]

Delete as fake/neologism. The name Mongolia has never signified a region. The introduction tries to establish a made-up definition based on an arbitrary combination of criteria, which isn't confirmed by any sources. The second part of the article lists administrative trivia from a very specific time period of doubtful relevance (where all ethnic mongols were under Manchu rule). None of the red links have much chance of ever turning into articles of their own. Almost all of the few blue links are misdirected to other subjects of the respective same names (usually people instead of geographic or administrative entities). I'm not sure what purpose this article serves other than to confuse its readers. Questions on the discussion page to this regard have yet to be answered. Unfortunately, several other language WPs seem to have copied the false definition, though none of the translations has turned into much more than a stub. --Latebird 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the link I just mentioned: "China, which earlier had gained control of Inner Mongolia, subjugated Outer Mongolia in the late 17th cent., but in the succeeding years struggled with Russia for control. Outer Mongolia finally broke away in 1921 to form the Mongolian People’s Republic (now Mongolia). Inner Mongolia remained under Chinese control, although the Japanese conquered Rehe (1933), which they included in Manchukuo, and Chahar and Suiyuan (1937), which they formed into Mengjiang (Mongol Border Land). These areas were returned to China after World War II. In 1944, Tannu Tuva (see Tuva Republic), long recognized as part of Mongolia but under Russian influence since 1911, was incorporated within the USSR (now Russia). The Chinese Communists joined most of Inner Mongolia to N Rehe prov. and W Heilongjiang prov. to form the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region in 1949."
It is clear to me that the larger region of Mongolia has a rich history and is worthy of its own article, and the current one should probably be expanded. Aplomado talk 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the world doesn't seem to be a particular strength of the Columbia Encyclopedia. They still have Mongolia with 18 Aimags, (have been 21 since 1994). And how does the undoubtedly rich History of Mongolia justify the specific article under discussion here? --Latebird 07:21, 8 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. Chick Bowen 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of significant others of Friends[edit]

  • keep :- lists many charecters important to the series that are not listed elsewhere:- many other series would have seperate pages for each of these characters.

Not notable. r3m0t talk 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft/fancruft. TheProject 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to very weak delete -- I still believe this falls under the bar. TheProject 23:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As much as I hate "Friends," there are more egregious examples of listcruft. Not to mention that a a ton of articles link to this one. I'm not in favor of keeping it solely for that reason, but I would say this article is at least as notable as many of the ones that link to it. Aplomado - UTC 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's of relevance to many thousands of wikipedians. - Richardcavell 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, there are hundreds of articles like this on wikipedia. If this is deleted, I suggest taking a look at other articles like this. Falphin 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with all the other hundreds of articles like this on wikipedia that are just listcruft (once they're nominated for AfD, of course). Fluit 00:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought everyone preferred the character lists to the individual articles. This is a valid list. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep - I looked at the Friends category, expecting to find hundreds of characters and lists, but this was one of only two lists, which is not bad for such a popular TV show. I agree with CanadianCaesar that this is much better than individual articles. It's a list of characters from a very notable show, so I think it deserves an article. I could support deletion of The Chick and The Duck, though. --Joelmills 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Doing a marvellous job at preventing all these entities getting Pokemon-style individual articles. We should amalgate all sitcom characters like this. -- GWO
  • Keep interesting list, many played by notable actors like Bruce Willis and Charlie Sheen --Astrokey44 15:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of minor or occasional characters on tv series have precedents at WP. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a subpage of the articles on Friends, wikipedia is not paper. Can we maybe get it renamed to "... Friends (TV)" or something? So that it doesn't sound quite so stupid to those of us who never watch TV. JeffBurdges 11:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Q0 12:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep relevant to friends entry. Expands information available on a wide topic and classic TV series. Interesting reading. Mr.bonus 21:38, 13 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 Chick Bowen 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrinalism[edit]

Already transwikied. Listing on AfD to find out whether to merge and redirect to Doctrine, expand, or delete. Related article Doctrinism was transwikied and speedy deleted as a dicdef, but this article might have a little -- just a little -- more potential. TheProject 22:58, 7 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 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sample recreations[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:WEB on notability grounds. --BillC 23:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also bundled with this nomination, the near-identical articles Scorccio and Sample replay. --BillC 23:24, 7 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 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative gender roles[edit]

I navigated to this page at random to help with clean-up work, as it was included on the "NPOV" list. As it stands, it is not a Wikipedia article at all, but a strongly POV political diatribe. I started to try to rewrite it in a more neutral manner. I Googled the term and only got 396 hits, almost all of them simply uses of the phrase in a discussion.

Upon due reflection, I don't think the phrase merits a separate entry, as it is not a subject different from "gender roles" and is already well-treated in the article of that name. It is not a distinct area of inquiry or knowledge, and treating the phrase with a NPOV appears to require that it be part of a more comprehensive article. Certainly, as it is written, it is unsalvagable; the article must be completely erased and rewritten if the title is kept. I started to do it, but felt (after trying to do some research) that the resulting article would have little if any intellectual value. Apollo 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - since it has something useful to say, but it needs a big cleanup. - Richardcavell 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concept is valid but as Apollo says it really belongs in Gender roles#Gender roles and feminism - the contributor may consider expanding that section, if necessary. But the main reason this article needs deletion as it stands is that it sounds very POV and has virtually no sourcing Crum375
  • Delete - nothing but POV characterization of people the author doesn't like. BigDT 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete topic is encylcopedic, but this is more of an OR essay. Recreation with documented sources tc is desirable. Pete.Hurd 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete - far too POV, no encyclopediac content at present. The term is used in scholarly papers and books, but I can't from the abstracts on Google scholar or the snippets on Google Book tell what, it means, or if it indeed means anything other than traditional gender roles. If it doesn't, "Traditional gender roles" would be a better title. GRBerry 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crum. -- GWO
  • Delete per above. Gender role page is FA and already covers the topic. — RJH 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per good reasoning by the nominator. DarthVader 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay of someone on a warpath. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 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 delete. Notability was never established by those proposing to keep the article -- No Guru 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saampan[edit]

As I said on the talk page, this article is just the band advertising itself with text copied straight from its web site. The creator removed my speedy delete tag without responding on the talk page. Keppa 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - copyright violation if not vanity. - Richardcavell 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI am still working on this page. I also added a stub indicating that it's work in progress. Can you please abstain from deleting this for a couple of weeks. I need to add more to the content and also link to different relevant articles in Wikipedia. Sorry about deleting your speedy deletion tag ... I thought that I could do that once I added the stub. Also, this is not just an advertisement for the band. We are a non-commercial band that is trying to add to the Bangla Band movement in Bengal in our own little way. We epitomize life here in the US for first generation Bengalis in our original songs. We intend to modernize Rabindranath Tagore's songs so that second and third generation Bengalis in the western world are aware of Tagore's gems.Saampan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability. Wiki is an encyclopedia and should concentrate on notable persons/events etc. Wiki is not Myspace. KsprayDad 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very new to wikipedia, and am requesting that this page be given some time. Keppa, the person who put the Saampan article up in afd, has an article of his own called Colors (band) which I feel is VERY similar to the Saampan article. So, I am unable to understand why this article got put up for deletion. Can someone please guide me better? Saampan 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Reason #1 and Reason #2. Aplomado talk 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you saying that the band has to be "commercial" in order to be eligible for a Wiki article? I have mentioned upfront that Saampan is a non-commercial band. It has more to do with the Bengali community in the US. I have also mentioned that Saampan's members are real people with day jobs. They are doing this for a completely different purpose. I really like your definition of "notability"!!! You know what? I think the article should be deleted ... I don't think we want to be part of something where notability is defined thus. Saampan 01:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it doesn't have to be commercial. It has to be notable. How is your band notable? Aplomado talk 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wanted to respond to each person here voting for deletion. For Richard Cavell, this is not copyright violation by any means. The band creates its own music or recreates popular Bengali songs. Where do you see violation??? For all others who are questioning the "notability" of this band, I want to ask whether all other bands listed on Wikipedia are "notable" bands. I can point you to atleast a couple of dozen band related articles that are not ... including Keppa's (Ryan's) six that are listed on his User:Keppa page. Can someone please tell me what I need to do to help this article live on Wikipedia ... rather than simply shooting at it? Where can someone vote to keep the article? Saampan 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are other articles of non-notable bands, then by all means they should be deleted. The fact that there are other non-notable bands with articles doesn't establish a precedent. Aplomado talk 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, first of all, my name's not Ryan. Don't know where that one came from. Let's just refer to me as Keppa, shall we? Second, the four (not six; one of those articles is a Ralph Vaughn Williams song cycle, and the other is an event) bands on my page are notable, if a little controversial. Two of them have been through AfD and survived; of the other two, one performed in the Salt Lake City Olympics, and one has a song on the soundtrack of a major motion picture. Please do not take these deletion proceedings personally. No one here has anything against your band. I understand how that is, as I have had articles that I put time and effort into nominated for deletion as well. As a newcomer it can be hard. But community consensus exists to ensure that the rules are enforced, and your band simply does not meet the requirements (see WP:MUSIC) to have an article. Keppa 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...sorry. —Khoikhoi 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Whatever the copyvio status, the article is an advertisement in very PoV terms for a band that seems to have released no recordings and has had no success so far. If and when it achieves those things, then we should have an article on it. (In other words, this vote shouldn't be taken to rule out an article in the future.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep the article. I say we keep the article and give the band a chance to become notable.20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)~~
    • Comment: Wrong order. You become notable first, then get a WP article. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI love this band's music. Keep the article pleaseAnurupa Anurupa 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usernames of the only three keep votes are the first names of members of the band. Seems kind of suspicious. Keppa 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an avid follower of this band, I would really like this article to be kept. This group has been formed by a bunch of people who would like to evangelize Bengali music.This group strives to revitalize the old Bengali songs among the newer generation -- the music which today, without the help of anybody, will become extinct. User pradips
  • Delete per Stifle and nominator. DarthVader 13:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:37, 13 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 nn-bio. — xaosflux Talk 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi[edit]

Vanity; nonnotable. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 23:22, 7 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) 03:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pseudohistory[edit]

Firstly, pseudohistory isn't, even on the face of the article, a movement or abstract philosophical concept, but merely a pejorative label applied to something one thinks is shoddy. It's a word, not a concept. So, technically, it would be a suitable only for a dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia entry. (well, consider: who would call themselves a pseudohistorian?).

Secondly, nevertheless it's linked from other articles as if it were some sort of movement - for example, the currently vogue Holy Blood, Holy Grail described as being "a conspirational work of Pseudohistory" as if it were some sort of academic discipline, and cross-referenced to the article (but not for long!). That is clearly an unequivocally pejorative reference - as it isn't sourced, it's a non-neutral point of view (though if some notable writer has accused HBHG of being pseudohistory then that's a different thing - but this should be listed in a criticism section, not in the introduction).

Thirdly, it's a snipey, bitchy article, which amounts to little more than original research, wherein editors have just taken potshots at theories they don't like. Now I should put my cards on the table here: I'm a card carrying skeptic, and I think these theories (and books like HBHG) are a pile of rubbish too, but that doesn't mean there is any justification whatsoever for this article.

Consider the following statements from the article, which make up the core of the article, none of which are sourced:

  • Pseudohistory does not do justice to mainstream interpretations. Pseudohistory involves the inappropriate treatment of source material. It typically reflects the effort to justify a foregone conclusion. Pseudohistory often inflates the importance of a few unreliable sources while ignoring mountains of contradictory evidence. Pseudohistory may pull irrelevant facts out of context. Pseudohistory may distort the meaning of legitimate source material. Pseudohistory sometimes manufactures fraudulent evidence. It may blend real history with myth, legend, or rumor.
  • Many people who engage in pseudohistory are sincere in their beliefs. They may believe the surviving body of evidence gives a false picture of the truth. They may have drawn their views from a body of fringe literature. They may be ignorant of proper historical method. They may understand academic standards but regard certain events as exempt from that analysis. Conspiracy theories are a popular theme for pseudohistory. Pseudohistory sometimes serves a political, nationalist, or religious agenda.

Note that, regardless of sourcing, this in no way distinguishes "pseudohistory" from "real" history that one doesn't agree with - each one of these qualities could be attributed to pretty much any disputed work of history, so it's not even a good dictonary definition.

The remainder of the article is "examples of pseudohistory" - none of them carry any citations for someone notable even accusing them of being pseudohistory, and many of the examnples don't meet even the loose criteria set out above, being not controversial published works but "urban legends" or just plain myths (like Atlantis).

In short, this pseudohistory article is rubbish on stilts - pseudo-encyclopaedic, if you will - and it has to go. ElectricRay 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I know, an AfD does not decide whether the article is a good article; it decides whether the topic of the article is one we need. So most of your comment is irrelevant. While one can accuse any author of manufacturing fradulent evidence and depending on rumor and myth, that doesn't mean that it's true; one can check whether the evidence is from good sources or not. Likewise with whether or not they regard certain events exempt from normal historial anaylsis. So the definition is solid. Atlantis is covered in a number of controversial published works; it's far more than just a "myth".
  • Just as importantly, a concept that is seen only from the outside is still valid. The fact that few people would call themselves terrorists or pedophiles does not make those people not terrorists or pedophiles.--Prosfilaes 23:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but whether you think it's a "useful" article, it isn't an encyclopaedia article - it's just a definition, and a poor one at that. Definitions belong in dictionaries. If I were to hack it back to only the sorts of things which are suitable for an encyclopaedia and not a dictionary, there would be nothing left. Ergo, it should be deleted. ElectricRay 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only a definition; it's a field of human activity that has a history and bibliography, among other non-definition things.--Prosfilaes 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for seeming uncivil, but that's utter codswallop. Some Wikipedia users just added some random things they think are stupid. That doesn't give it a "history" (other than - ha! - a pseudohistory) or a "bibliography". Has anyone actually written a book on it? None show up on Amazon (well, it's mentioned in two articles and one out-of-print book, none of them purport to be about pseudohistory per se. I note you have some intellectual investment in the article, since you contributed to it. ElectricRay 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So it has POV issues. Fix it. Aplomado talk 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can only be "fixed" by being blanked entirely. And it's just a dictionary definition! ElectricRay 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not according to the external links section. It looks like a perfectly legitimate article subject to me, although it does need NPOV cleaning. Aplomado talk 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. A notable subject. Falphin 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs to be rewritten though. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep Lots of Google Scholar, Google Book and Google Web hits. Even one Google News hit, which no other AfD I've looked at tonight had. I added the NPOV template to the article. GRBerry 02:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a major re-write. Robertsteadman 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK - you win. ElectricRay in the tiny minority yet again. I'll work on a re-write. I will, however, say pseudo-history seems to amount to nothing more than a label, though, and there is no consistent or externally sourced consensus as to the criteria for something to qualify as pseudo-history. At the end of the day, the concept's value as an formal operator on the sum total of human knowledge is pretty slight (the concept of "history" is slippery enough, so the idea of "pretends to be history but isn't" is slipperier - like I say, the only thing that instances of pseudo-history have in common mentioned in the article as it currently stands are that they have all been labelled as pseudo-history by someone. ElectricRay 18:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed the re-write. ElectricRay 00:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator has withdrawn their nomination (and removed the AfD box from the article, and no other non-keep commentary is above. The next admin along might as well close this as a keep. GRBerry 00:56, 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. Flowerparty☀ 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Burns[edit]

Two bit parts in movies and a non notable band do not make you notable or worth of an encylopedia entry...do they? Delete KsprayDad 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are we going to have EVERYONE that was in that movie considered notable? It was a bit part, she has one other non notable movie to her name and an non notable music career. Perhaps a two line summary of her should be added to the cast listings for the movie itself.KsprayDad 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep. Hannah is not a bit part in 28 Days..., it's probably the third lead. If it were, I'd say Delete. -- GWO
  • Keep - She's doing lots of promo for her debut album and single, and has had quite a lot of press coverage, including the nationals.
  • Keep - Anyone who know's of her career knows it's due for a rise, The band just played at download 2006... surely that makes her more notable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. 5 to delete, 4 to keep &/or rename, and 5 discarded. --Ezeu 09:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Rho Omicron, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable fraternity/company thing. Definitely not notable, at least. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 23:37 UTC

  • Delete as a vanity page. Aplomado talk 23:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Chi Rho Omicron and cleanup for NPOV. This organization actually exists at more than one university, and is on the list of student organizations on several of those universities' web sites, which places it far ahead of the typical student organization which comes up on AfD. --Metropolitan90 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet standards. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Keep. As one of the contributors to the page, we can definitely clean it up and provide a more balanced view of the organization, thereby making it more neutral. ---Pinoyboy 08:11, 8 May 2006
    Vast majority of edits are to the nominated page. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 02:36 UTC
  • Keep. This is definitely not a vanity page. To say this organization is "not notable" is showing some sort of prejudice for an organization that you have no information about. Since this was written by members of the orgainization, it may be considered "Not neutral". However, if someone has a differing facts about the group, feel free to add that information. To delete it, without just reason, is not the solution. If you say that standards are not met, please list the exact standards to which you are referring. ---TwentyThree 12:59, 8 May 2006
    User's only edit. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 @ 02:36 UTC
  • Delete all fraternities. This material belongs on their own website. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page for individual who want to know more about cultural organization like this. I find this article very informative. I recommend more specific information on their project.---puipui1019 20:10, 9 May 2006
User has a total of two edits. --Ezeu 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The organization is well noted in its respective campuses, is recognized by many ethnic and community service organizations, and has been profiled by a number of print and televised media outlets. Article should be edited to follow format of other fraternal organization pages. —Coloursinmyhead 04:35, 10 May 2006 UTC
User has a total of three edits. --Ezeu 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Filipinos are a people with a long history in the U.S.A. dating as far back as the 1500s, yet their achievements and struggles have largely gone unnoticed. This article can undue such an injustice by giving credence to the only existing college fraternity in the U.S.A. dedicated to the largely unrecognized and underrepresented Filipino community. To delete XPO from wikipedia would only repeat the injustice of denying the historical significance of Filipinos in the U.S.A. I do agree, however, that the article's biases should be corrected to present a neutral point of view. Filipinos have endured a long history of oppression, slavery, and degradation. When will they have the chance to let their achievements and successes be seen? s.smith 13:36, 10 May 2006
User has a total of two edits, both of them here. --Ezeu 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First become notable, then get an encyclopedia article. I assume there are significant achievements by Filipinos, but those need their own article. This fraternity doesn't get an article because some other Filipino deserves one - figure out who it is, and write their article, keeping in mind the policies WP:V and WP:RS. GRBerry 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the level 3 section entitled "Pilipino culture, history, and heritage" asserts notability, the three linked to web-sites make no reference to this fraternity. A quick search found no evidence of notability and no reliable sources that could be used to establish notability. There were no links on google news, none on google scholar, two campus guides on google book, and no reliable sources on the top few pages of google web. The practice is, first become notable, then get a wikipedia article, not the other way around. GRBerry 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep - My question is: What is notable? Figures outstanding in numerous non-European communities throughout the world have been overlooked because society has historically been biased towards Eurocentric perceptions. Is not being of the first, if not the only, Fraternities with a Filipino cultural emphasis in the U.S.A., to be incorporated by the state of California -a rigorous and lengthy process- and established at seven major universities in California "notable" enough? I would also ask how credible can Google be in establishing notability for anything at all? If the age of technology is limited to predominantly "Western" developed societies, then the vast majority of internet data would exclude the perspectives of non-European groups the world over. Because of this, internet searches are in and of themselves biased and unreliable in searching for credibility. Look to the respective institutions where such groups would be established, the state of California and the universities for this matter. The representation of an underrepresented group, Filipinos, by Chi Rho Omicron, Inc., is notable enough since they have been incorporated within the state of California and established at seven major universities in that state. However, I do adamantly agree that this page is riddled with biases and non-neutrality and should be purged of them. Keep and correct the page so that it may present a NPOV. s.smith 17:38, 11 May 2006
Users second vote. --Ezeu 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep move to Chi Rho Omicron and clean it up for NPOV. Many fraternity articles read too much like brochures (unfortunately). This one needs a lot of work, both in NPOV and citing sources; however, I'd rather see it cleaned up than lost. The organization is eleven years old and has existed at seven universities, with six chapters being active on campus, today. I guess a lot of my oppinion of "notability" depends on how "notable" it is on those campuses. If it's not, then it likely only matters to a couple hundred people. If it's "notable" on those campuses, it's "notable" to perhaps over 100,000, right? And, most of those people would not be in the organization. My oppinion's not too strong in either direction, but I lean towards keep and fix. — vijay 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Here we go again with the fraternity and sorority Afd noms. In the past I've voted to both keep and delete certain fraternity articles so even though I always edit those type of articles I'm not biased for or against them. I tend to look at their notability and neutrality. In looking at this article, I'm having a hard time understanding how a regional fraternity with 7 chapters lacks Wiki's criteria for notability. Regional fraternities and even some local (i.e. a fraternity with only one chapter. See The William Penn Society) have articles on Wiki and some of them are not that well written in comparison to this AfD nominated article. If you want to see another fraternity that is also Filipino and also a regional fraternity, survived AfD and not even written with the same amount of info as this article please take a look at Zeta Phi Rho. What this article does lack is a NPOV. Fraternity and sorority articles are often riddled with self-congratulatory remarks which is why they often get AfD in the the first place. Keep and fix this --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed on the rename, (Which should be applied to Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc. as well, but that's for another day) Looks like about the only thing left that isn't NPOV is the Evaluation. Other than that, looks OK. Naraht 20:15, 12 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 as no consensus. --Ezeu 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOIPBuster[edit]

Advertisement, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VOIPStunt. Apparantly, this article was incorrectly speedied, but it is still ripe for a regular deletion. BigDT 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--vishaltayal 10:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easily meets WP:CORP. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple press references easily pass the notability test for me. If it reads like an advert, that's reason for improvement/de-POV, not deletion in my view. MartinRe 12:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As of right now, it looks like VOIPStunt is going to get deleted in a landslide. VOIPBuster and VOIPStunt appear to be essentially two VOIP rate plans offered by BetaMax (not to be confused with the VCR format). If one isn't worth of inclusion, why should the other be? At most, the two are worthy of a mention on an article about BetaMax itself. Including either or both articles would be like having an article for every nTelos rate plan. I would be inclined to vote to keep an article about BetaMax itself if such an article existed, but I can't see an article about every rate plan for every telecommunications company. BigDT 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment VOIPBuster, as the above press references clearly suggest is more notable than both Betamax and VOIPStunt. So, while an article about VOIPStunt can be deleted and VOIPStunt mentioned as another variation of VOIPBuster, I see no reason why VOIPBuster should also go along with VOIPStunt. Also, please note that VOIPBuster is not just a rate plan but a standalone VOIP application like Skype and Yahoo! Messenger.--vishaltayal 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator and per my comment above BigDT 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be both verfiable and notable. Why is it being considered for deletion again? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable enough. TruthbringerToronto 13:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per BigDT. Zaxem 04:33, 13 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 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Telner[edit]

Contested prod, prod readded by original prodder (inappropriately), so I'm bringing it here. Prod reason was "the article (which is heavily POV) asserts little notability; "Paul Telner" gets just 431 Google hits, of which only 53 are unique; paultelner.com has no Alexa ranking". For my part, delete and maybe userfy. Mangojuicetalk 23:55, 7 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 moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sororialmon[edit]

Cannot find any evidence to support the official existance of this Digimon: it is not in the Digimon Visual Dictionary which covers all cards up to 2002 and is not on any of the cards released since as far as I can verify. Google search only returns pages on wikipedia; even if it was misspelt, there would be a source somewhere for the misspelling. Shiroi Hane 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following unsourced articles were also all created by the same user, Macdaddyc, around the same time:
The only one I that returns any results on Google is Basiliskmon, and they all seem to be fanfiction (which is understandable, since it is an obvious name). Shiroi Hane 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as obvious hoaxes. Circeus 01:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet standards. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Delete all Hoaxes. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all individual Digimon articles, hoax or not, unless they are particularly notable. I'm aware we keep Pokémon, but that has many times the fan base of Digimon. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BOLD, I've deleted all four hoaxes. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:48, 9 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 and delete. --Ezeu 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

headdesk[edit]

Definition. This might belong in Wiktionary, but notsomuch here. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is. I've used it myself. Perhaps I should have used Template:Move to Wiktionary? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:31, 8 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 a recreation of previously deleted material. --InShaneee 00:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis of Satire of Eric "Erod" Brown[edit]

Hoax article -- bordering on patent nonsense, actually, but since it does at first glance appear to be grammatical, placing here. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 00:14, 8 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. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes[edit]

This page was created a year ago by an anonymous user and has since had only a handful of minor contributions, my own being the longest. I came to the conclusion, however, that it would be wasted effort to put any more time into the article, as it provides no additional useful information. All we see is the episode's title, two actors (frequently not the leading players, but the first two names copied from the alphabetically-arranged IMDb list) and the date of the broadcast. All of that information (and much more) can be obtained from IMDb. Finally, as I indicated in the edit summary, this article has already been tagged as being overlong. Romanspinner 18:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, the article needs improvement, but nom. gives no reason it should be deleted. Mangojuicetalk 15:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much preferred to having articles for all the nn. episodes. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlos. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few additional comments—after having edited hundreds of articles in the past four months, this is the first nomination for deletion that I made. As a lifelong listmaker, I did not make it lightly. The first warning was the tag: "This page is 48 [now 50] kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size". The only articles of that size are (primarily, with a few exceptions) scholarly dissertations on key topics of knowledge. Wikipedia has thousands of lists, but the few plus-size ones should justify their existence with an original viewpoint on subjects that cannot be easily found anywhere else. Otherwise, a link is sufficient, especially as it relates to IMDb, the most frequently consulted film and TV site. There is no need to import wholesale filmographies and lists of TV episodes, unless, of course, they are accompanied by original critical analyses. The Hitchcock Presents list is unique in that it is the only one of that size that has apparently been copied verbatim from IMDb (or one of four books that list the episodes) without any accompanying content. There is nothing similar for any other TV show. Romanspinner (talk) 07:10, 9 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. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour episodes[edit]

This brief and incomplete list was created by an anonymous user a year ago. In the intervening time very few editors have done very little work on it. The same anonymous user created on the same day the extensive List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes, which lists all the episodes of the half-hour show. That list has already been tagged for exceeding 48 kilobytes and, as in this case, attracted very little editing interest save for my own meager effort to improve the cast details for the first season and put links into the two-cast-member-per-episode list that the entry contains. I am a fan of the Hitchcock shows and appreciate the amount of work the creator of the articles put into them, but I had to nominate both lists for deletion, because neither contains any information that goes beyond what can found via the IMDb link. In fact, many of the cast entries list an episode's two minor players (which I corrected in the first season listings), apparently as a result of copying from IMDb without realizing that its policy is to list casts of TV episodes alphabetically. I appreciate rare and specialized lists (such as the same anonymous user's List of Scottish writers), but these two lists use up Wikipedia space without earning their keep. Many entries on individual episodes of TV series have been well done, as witness The Twilight Zone and Star Trek The Original Series and someday I hope the Hitchcock shows will come in for the same detailed treatment, but for now I suggest that the descriptive entry about the show (started by a different user two years ago) is sufficient. Romanspinner 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_7&oldid=1081097114"