Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

Purge server cache

April 10[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 transwiki. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-elect[edit]

This article is just a very stubby version of, and almost a direct port of the lead of, President-elect. President-elect shouldn't be moved to -elect as it is the far more common name, and -elect provides no new information so should be deleted with a redirect. Staxringold 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure there's even a point to having a redirect for this one.--み使い Mitsukai 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef with no possibility for expansion. Ziggurat 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Ziggurat. -Dawson 23:01, 10 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. Sango123 (e) 02:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer alliance[edit]

NN Adcruft, doesn't even make Alexa Pyroclastic 01:37, 10 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. Sango123 (e) 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Widowmaker[edit]

This seems to be flat out vanity. The product described isn't found in the top ten of Google in its own term, and does not seem to be notable by any stretch of the imagination. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete vanirt article →AzaToth 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also not big on one-paragraph entries. Danny Lilithborne 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brewers are all notable. Brews, however, are not. If the brewer had an article this could be merged there (anyone want to make one?) but since there is none, this stub must be deleted. NTK 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Metamagician3000 04:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cool name though ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable enough. If we have an article about the brewer, this can be briefly mentioned there. JIP | Talk 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gimme citations re praise for sweetness, etc. On second thoughts, don't. Colonel Tom 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without confirmation from the company this article is merely original%u2014oh wait, I agree with Colonel Tom and NTK —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:35, 10 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. Sango123 (e) 02:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bardavid[edit]

Non-notable →AzaToth 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. 58 Ghits, first two are Wikipedia. Royboycrashfan 01:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboy. ConDemTalk 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 18:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboy. Fetofs Hello! 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Royboy. Sheehan (Talk) 03:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Should there be a notability standard for attorneys? This guy looks to have been directly involved in an unusual number of fairly high profile cases. Is that just par for the course in immigration law? I hadn't heard of Bardavid, but I wouldn't have rushed to delete this. On the other hand, I do see that the article creator has done nothing else on Wikipedia, which raises the likelihood of vanity. Kestenbaum 01:05, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with removable or interchangeable heads[edit]

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information / Listcruft. Fetofs Hello! 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 02:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because when you get right down to it every character with a head has a head that's removable. Interchangeable, perhaps not, but removable most definately. Sethimothy 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sethimothy's comment is amusing, although I'm supposing that the removable head for the purpose of the list is one that can be put back in place without a fatality. Where's Detachable Penis on this list? Шизомби 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BryanG 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny list name though. T K E 05:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ..........wtf? delete per TKE ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is this a new fetish? -156.34.86.252 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but wouldn't be a bad category. -Jcbarr 08:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely hilarious, though. Aplomado - UTC 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as funny as it is. --Optichan 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are limitless comedy opportunities for people to add the names of political leaders or celebrities to the list. --NEMT 22:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concept is sound. Obviously needs expansion. -- JJay 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's ridiculous. Who in their right mind would write an article about this!?Freddie 01:18, 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. Sango123 (e) 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Nations[edit]

First of all, the term "American Nations" isn't used to describe these entities. Secondly, this info is already at Historic regions of the United States. JW1805 (Talk) 01:52, 10 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 keep. bainer (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League business schools[edit]

Delete. Irrelevant article, only ~500 Google hits on the phrase "Ivy League business schools" (see: [1]). This article appears to be created just to boost the impression of less prominent b-schools by association. Comment: Article creator seems to be interested in advancing an agenda that Ivy League business schools are superior to others. The intention of this article is clearly to advance his POV. MBAguy 10:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. All of the articles included are, in fact, Ivy League business schools. Unlike "Public Ivies," "Jesuit Ivies" or other bogus prestige-by-association faux "Ivies," these are business schools that are part of the eight Ivy League institutions. The real question is whether this article has any added value over the existing Ivy League, business school, and individual Ivy league and Ivy League biz school articles. I think it does have a little, since business schools tend to be compared against their peer business schools rather than the institutions as a whole. This article has some potential. NTK 02:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went to Dartmouth, and even I think this smacks of elitism and boosterism. The schools have their own articles, so there's no need for this list. Brian G. Crawford 02:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with NTK. The question to be considered, I think, is whether someone might find it useful to have one entry to serve as a hub to the individual schools. If it might be useful, then let's keep it. Bucketsofg 03:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Metamagician3000 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep as per Brian G. Crawford. Seano1 04:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the 6 schools have their own articles -- Astrokey44|talk 05:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Move to Category:Ivy League business schools neh? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A poorly research deletion nomination of a factual article. For great justice. 06:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not denying that the article is "factual". The reason for deleting this article is that the topic itself is arbitrary and meaningless, as evidenced by the lack of Google hits. In the world of business schools, affiliation with the Ivy League is devoid of any significance. This list is as interesting and useful as "Ivy League engineering programs" or "Western US Medical Schools" (neither of which exist as articles, of course). MBAguy 08:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These schools, however, are not simply affiliated with the Ivy League but actually part of them. Wharton in particular is the central and defining school of UPenn, and all of the otehrs are influential within their respective universities. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 12:04 (UTC)
[Off topic] I recently spent more time than I should have trying to trace the provenance of "Penn" and "UPenn"—someone simply kept deleting "UPenn" it from the University of Pennsylvania article on the grounds that it was "incorrect." It is so widely used that to call it "incorrect" seems... incorrect. But apparently for the past five years or so the University of Pennsylvania has been very assiduously pursuing a conscious branding strategy in which all nooks and crannies of the University are urged to use the proper logo, etc. and Penn is the official abbreviation. So... if you want to be in tune with what "defines" the University, you probably should get with the program. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a Penngineer I dislike the imperialist Wharton attitude that they "define" the University. It is an extremely prestigious business school at an extremely prestigious university. They certainly are not central to Penn's world-class medical school, multiple Nobel-winning chemistry department, or top-notch psychology department, to name a few divisions of the school that are at the very top of their game. But otherwise, agreed. NTK 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep out of jealousy that will come from staring at the list. T K E 07:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly create Category:Ivy League business schools but keep this as lists and categories perform different functions Jcuk 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jcuk Computerjoe's talk 09:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NTK and others. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 10 April 2006 @ 12:04 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Deleuze 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual articles on these would be perfectly fine. This collective pile is absolutely pointless, as there is no substantive connection between them. Makes no more sense than an ACC Medical Schools article would. Derex 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I fail to see a link that is not served by the category. -Dawson 23:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a "List of Ivy League business schools" or some such list, which might be helpful for navigation or browsing. Outside of the list, the actual content on the page is not worth keeping though. RayaruB 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dislike it. But I don't see any sufficient reason for deleting it. It's verifiable. By defining it as "Ivy League" you at least have some stable, objective criterion for what schools should be included. The dates of founding are mildly interesting to see together, as opposed to picking them out of the individual school articles. It's mildly interesting to note that two of the Ivy League members don't have business schools. It would be much, much more interesting to have an article on the history of business schools in general, and it would be interesting to have capsule summaries of the different characters and approaches of business schools. I thank whatever gods may be that this article at least does not include any rankings. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to add a little more information (at least some trivia) than a category would, or does. Could be expanded a little more, but I'm not seeing a real solid reason for deletion. Kuru talk 00:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep tag for improvement Merecat 06:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly arbitrary (and unused in the real world) grouping. Seriously, biz schools aren't grouped this way by companies hiring MBAs or by applicants to the schools. --Calton | Talk 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do worry about the possibility of articles on "Ivy League theology schools," "Ivy League cafeterias," "Ivy League sexual customs," etc. etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 03:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valuable list/article hybrid. Google isn't everything. Silensor 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Ivy League business schools are the originators of such concepts as "business school," "business degree," and "MBA," as the article mentions. This may be a useful hub for info on those schools. There's a concern with the responses from MBAGuy who nominated this article for deletion. In his response to one voter, he said the "... Ivy League is devoid of any significance." That seems a bit much. He also said this factual article is "boosterism" for the schools - he didn't demonstrate that. After he nominated this article for deletion, he then edited the article several times to try to make the same negative points in the article that he makes in his vote and vote response. Why? One voter, Dpbsmith, was optimistic about this article since it isn't littered with current rankings. Unfortunately, MBAGuy then dumped rankings into the article. Why? Of the many available rankings, he seemed to pick the only magazine ranking that might support his negative cause. What's up with that? That negative approach doesn't seem to be in keeping with the Wikipedia spirit. If this article is not deleted, then it would definitely help to back out the stuff that MBAGuy added to the article AFTER he nominated it for deletion. GO WHARTON 02:27, 15 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. Sango123 (e) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun_Butler[edit]

While the amateur surfing part may be true (haven't bothered to check, as that alone wouldn't be grounds for inclusion in wikipedia), the information about his professional rugby career is entirely fabricated. noizyboy 01:54, 10 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. Sango123 (e) 02:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ R[edit]

Nonnotable DJ, fails to assert notability. NTK 11:19, 9 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 nomination withdrawn; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatafa Hori[edit]

Only ghits outside Wikipedia are for a myspace name. Probably hoax on the part of User:Laceymichelle (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimo Fontenot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigave National Association (soon to come). Delete. Mak (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me, sorry, I'm replying to something you left on mytalk pages about my article on Tuatafa Hori being a hoax, and I'm afraid it may have been brought on by another recent event that has occurred. You see, I just logged on to my talk pages today and suddenly I discover that I wrote this hoax about some actor, Aimo Fontennot something or other? I believe it was my brother's doing, he wanted to get me in trouble with the wiki pedia people, since he knows how often I go here and I wanted my first article to be a success. The Aimo one is absolutely rediculous, so I'm sorry if he brought any doubt to your mind about my genuinity for writing articles.

I love oceanian society, I've always been really interested in it, and Tuatafa Hori is one of my favorites, she is for real, as is her party, the Sigave National Association. (Laceymichelle 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Geocities is a website where anyone can post anything, with no authority or verification. Fan1967 17:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please read WP:RS.--Isotope23 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all I could find, but there she is, mentioned somewhere other than here. I don't think the area of Wallis and Futuna has a very high internet presence for there to be many things on her at all on Google, especially since there are only two people on the island of Alofi itself-- what does that say to you? She is also in one of the books on Oceanic culture that I have. I think it's called The Changing Cultures of the Oceanic Peoples in the Nineteenth Century. She wasn't very powerful then, but still mentioned. I can go find out who the author was, if you want. Laceymichelle 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot find that title on WorldCat. Can you give some more specific information and the exact title of the book, please? Mak (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is the exact title, I just brought it down from my bookshelf. It's written by Cyril Belshaw and I bought it a few years ago at a used and old book sale at my library. Laceymichelle 02:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've found the book in WorldCat (she changed the title slightly), so we now have a source.

Withdrawn as now having a source. Mak (talk) 03:38, 11 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. - Bobet 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigave National Association[edit]

This seems to be a hoax (see also above). No ghits apart from Wikipedia [2]. Delete. Mak (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 02:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Feezo (Talk) 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Royboycrashfan 19:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fake political party promoting a possibly-fake princess --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there is a farthest corner of the world left in this day and age, it might well be Sigave. I suspect this article and the accompanying one need to be deleted as unverifiable. Not necessarily a hoax. I don't see any way to determine whether the princess or the party exist or not. Fan1967 03:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[3] also no ghits for it in French, but the editor has found one geocities site. I don't generally feel that these are a particularly good source. Mak (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is exactly the opposite of Wikpedia rules on verifiability. The article must be verifiably true. "You can't prove it's false" is not a sufficient justification to keep. Fan1967 12:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite so; an unfortunate truism on AfD is the number of people who vote Keep because they don't have enough information to delete. IMHO, the onus is on the article creator and supporters to provide that evidence, and if a few minutes of research can't turn any up, let's Delete until verification of an article's notability or factual nature turns up. RGTraynor 15:39, 10 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 no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bloggers[edit]

Was prodded as (likely) non-notable. Prod tag was removed without explanation by the creator, so it goes here. DMG413 02:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are other pages on Canadian political blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories that seem to be reasonable pages. With a bit of work, this could be OK. ConDemTalk 02:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable enough. [4] Feezo (Talk) 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page seems to have been created by Craig.cantin, who appears to have founded the organisation, so most likely vanity. ConDemTalk 03:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending any third-party verification. No online press results that I can see - has this topic been discussed anywhere else? Ziggurat 03:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, vanity is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Alexa rank of 175,624 is not that good, but 107,000 Ghits is somewhat impressive. Royboycrashfan 03:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is not a vanity piece. Green Bloggers is a legit group of bloggers that I happened to spearhead the initiative of creating it. Blogging Tories and Progressive Bloggers have been around for a couple of years, with 300 members each. We've been around for only 7 months, and have 50 over members, and growing. It's importance will only continue to improve. CTV has linked to it during the election as well. Didn't realize my first Wiki article would cause so much grief. If there are legit concerns, why not edit the article instead of this? Craig Cantin
  • Keep Has some merit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading about Wikipedia's definition of vanity, I see how it would have been considered as such. I have removed the sentence regarding my founding the site. Hopefully that will be satisfactory. Again, as a new user, I would have thought editing that information would have been less drastic. Craig Cantin.
  • Question Having removed vanity, can you provide neutral point of view reasons as to why it is meritorious? Because the next obsticle is WP:WEB, so you have a case to build. T K E 05:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see the reason for the quick nomination, as the blog is owned by the username. However, we (AfD Patrollers) are all slacking in welcoming the newcomers and commenting on their talk pages when tagging articles. T K E 07:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It includes in it a number of prominent blogs, such as Frogblog (being the New Zealand Green parties official blog). --Midnighttonight 09:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn blogcruft. Eusebeus 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'll comment from a Canadian standpoint. The Green Party has fielded a full set of candidates for the past two elections. The share of the vote for the Green Party is approaching 5%. There is a constituency of people who are interested in knowing more, but are not aware that there are 'green bloggers' out there. Green Bloggers fills that role, like Blogging Tories does for the Conservatives. The rationale for creating this article is because there were a couple of links from Green Wiki pages to Green Bloggers...people were going from Wiki to there, according to my log files. I created the page to satisfy what I believed was an interest in having more than just a couple of links. --Craig.cantin 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know I'm bucking the tide here, but I can't see a single thing about this "group" that makes it notable as a group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this "group" is about is that they (a) hold to a roughly consonant political POV, (b) each (supposedly) have a blog, and (c) add themselves to the Green Bloggers list. Do they do anything as an organization? Do they have any cohesion? Does anyone actually vette whether they hew to the party line, provided there is a genuine set of environmental tenets to which they all adhere? If someone started a similar blog-list called "Friends of Pokemon," would that make for a notable Wikipedia article? Would my Livejournal friends' list qualify for a Wikipedia article? This is beyond fuzzy, folks. RGTraynor 15:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles for Deletion is a collaborative effort and both of the pages you've mentioned were brought for AfD (as you already know from your post below) and survived that process due to a lack of consensus to delete (which defaults to keep), my personal opinion is that both of those pages should be deleted, but as I said above, this is a collaborative effort and since there was not overwhelming consensus to delete, both of those pages still exist.--Isotope23 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree with you, Craig, and if I saw those others come up for AfD, I would certainly vote to Delete. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That is a misleading number. Technorati can't judge links based on javascript, nor does everyone use Technorati. It's impossible to logically say there are only 6 links when where are more than 50 members. If I had known how much trouble it would be to offer a page, I don't think I would have bothered. Again, I was only doing it based on the referrals from Wiki to Green Bloggers the site was getting. Craig.cantin 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You are wrong. Technorati can read JavaScript. Every large blog will ping Technorati, or a Techonari feeder site. Computerjoe's talk 18:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's not sufficient assertion of notability according to WP:WEB. I really dislike this kind of promotion on Wikipedia. The Green Bloggers are using the Wikipedia to promote their politics, and many of you are condoning it. I don't see how the poor kids in Africa and Southeast Asia with no library access for whom this encyclopedia is being written should care about Green Bloggers. Brian G. Crawford 16:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If that is the policy, then it should govern all of your pages of this nature. This is the last I will say on this subject. Craig.cantin 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogging group; qualifies as a non-notable club in my book.--Isotope23 16:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context Sorry...I lied. This will be my last comment on this subject. Please take time to review deletion discussions for the Blogging Tories and the Progressive Bloggers (who had two seperate discussions). This discussion should be using the decisions rendered on these three occasions as precedents, if there is actual fairness on Wikipedia. Thank you. Craig.cantin 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both appear to have ended in no consensus opinions (considering that Blogging Tories was accidentally deleted then restored), which leads me to one precedent: those rendering opinions have a hard time agreeing. The fairness in my opinion is judging Green Bloggers on its own merits.--Isotope23 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but that said would it be disruptive to bring back both those other non-notable blogs to AfD? They don't really deserve entries either. Eusebeus 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete comparison of G-hits: "Blogging Tories," 315,000; "Progressive Bloggers," 411,000; "Green Bloggers," 107,000. 107,000 is impresive enough, but looking through the first few articles, most are using the phrase in a general way and not refering to this particular Canadian group. Also, it is irrelavant to our discussion, but author has posted a comment about this very debate on his blog[6]. --MrFizyx 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: charming. I know we're not supposed to bite the newbies, but I don't care for the newbies biting us. Our jobs here are not to be warm and fuzzy and friendly and all-inclusive; they are to be encyclopedic and informative. RGTraynor 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even the delete opinions have been rather WP:CIVIL; this has been all rainbows and ponies compared to some AfD discussions.--Isotope23 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there anything here that you wouldn't learn by actually going to the website in question? No? Then how is an article here on it helpful, other than to promote that website? Derex 22:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks pretty clearly like vanity to me. pm_shef 00:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merecat 06:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Swatjester --Ardenn 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Condem OoskMR 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Condem, Swatjester. I wish it hadn't apparently been created by a principal, but that's not for here; it'd be keepable if it hadn't been. Samaritan 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only website promotion. Radagast83 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's an important group, and Wikipedia should focus more on environmental issues. Munckin 07:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to 'focus' in on any issues. It's an encylopedia. If by focus you mean have more notable encylopedic articles on the envrionment, than that is acceptable, but if you mean that it should "focus" on the environment by politicing Wikipedia, that is not. Radagast83 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable enough for us Yuckfoo 06:32, 16 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. Sango123 (e) 02:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TES-forum[edit]

Notice originally added by User:82.31.27.110. Page for web forum, mostly consisting of a list of members. tregoweth 02:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Aim Fire! 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Listing individual forum members should be a speedy deletion criterion. JIP | Talk 08:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As well as other things mentioned here, the article fails to provide a link to the forum. JIP | Talk 12:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with the weight of the Times newspaper behind this, this is still not notable. And a nice precedent to show all those other people who think their forum is notable. Average Earthman 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need to read the forum pages and take a good look at the content before making such cursory statements such as many of those here appear to be. It is not valid to argue that because certain members have been named because of the usefulness or the otherwise outstanding nature of their contributions ( out of a total membership of some 100, 000 + teachers, university lecturers and educationalits in the UK) the article should be deleted. The forum offers much in the way of information and advice to those dealing with all matters educational.

These people may be using online names but that is irrelevent since most of the individuals posting here are also using similar online names to hide their identities. It is not possible to criticise others where you can be equally so criticised. The views and opinions of those on the forum are as valid and reliable as the views of those people voting here. Maybe more so.

The weight of the Times Educational Suppliment is good enough. This is a paper of considerable note. Many of the individuals on this forum appear to have high levels of qualification and expertise. Valuable expertise.

Much of the forum concentrates on dealing with professional and educational matters . It is a valid and reliable source of information and of advice on all matters educational, all matters dealing with the UK education system, and on many matters dealing with government policy and legislation.

It is an arena of discussion. Sometimes controversial. It is often the cutting edge of policy making debate in education. The TES forum is often used as a source of publication for TES articles. It is probably the largest and most honest collection of educational professionals concentrated into a single place. That has to be worthy of note.

Whilst in its current form the listing is probably inadiquate, I do not believe that the removal of this listing is justifiable under the deletion guidelines. Therefore keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndylou (talk • contribs)

    • Delete. It's worthy of note if those claims of size, validity and vast expertise are verifiable, which they have not been, and we still don't have a link to the actual forum. By the bye, this is my real name: RGTraynor 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet my need to play Oblivion. Also non-notable. --Optichan 16:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:WEB Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by Sceptre. — FireFox • T [20:37, 10 April 2006]

Legion 1818[edit]

NN, local soccer support group founded in 2006. De-proded by page creator without explanation. Article makes no assertion of notability with regards to the support group. Delete. --Hetar 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to inform the people of St. Louis (an extremely rich soccer town) that a new supporters group is active in the sporting arena where a professional franchise does not exist. Why are you suggesting this page be deleted? We are, to date, the only major collegiate soccer supporters group, and we havent even been to a game yet! If this page is deleted, it will only be brought up again once thousands more are members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legion1818 (talk • contribs) .

No matter how rich St. Louis may or may not be, if the supporters group isn't notable enough by Wikipedia's standards, it will be deleted. Even if someone does recreate the article, the page can always be deleted and protected. However, if the group does manage to gain some sort of notability in the future, maybe then it can merit an article. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:16, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual var[edit]

Delete. Self-serving neologism. Advertisement. Prod removed by author. cmh 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concept is becoming more and more common place in the Value Added Reseller (VAR) industry. This is real, and not Advertisement/SPAM. If you contact your local Value Added Reseller and asked if they can remotely service you then they are applying the Virtual VAR concept. --Workopia 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be kept if the concept is only "becoming" more popular, the concept has to be popular. Well, at least popular enough for more than under 200 Google results or a mention from a notable media source. --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, understood, still new to Wikipedia, thanks. --Workopia 05:20, 10 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. DS 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan herrera[edit]

Delete. My prod removed. After searching around on Google this seems to be a hoax. I wouldn't swear to it and if someone can find info on why this page is not a hoax and should be kept then I will withdraw the nomination. Until such time I vote to delete. cmh 03:02, 10 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 transwiki; delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mufljuz[edit]

From WP:PNT, where nobody translated this for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language of this article is unknown. Found loose in the category.--Kusma (討論) 13:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Croatian. KolyaFrankovich 18:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means sponge/freeloader lit. parasite. A wiktionary candidate. --Kunzite 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 02:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PINAS FIRST[edit]

I've listed PINAS FIRST, Pinoy in Austrian Society for Integrity, Reforms and Social Transformation, Pinas first, and Vission and Mission of Pinas First for deletion for the following reasons:

  • They are not notable.
  • These almost certain to be vanity.
  • These are not known in the Philippines, or even in Austria. User:Pinkblue has inserted the links to these articles on several Philippine related articles (since reverted, by not by myself).

Note: The articles were elevated from prod by User:WP. Howard the Duck | talk, 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Not notable/encyclopedic. --Jondel 01:46, 10 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. Sango123 (e) 02:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian television ratings for Home and Away[edit]

Delete - Do we really need a list of television ratings for a specific TV show?, it pretty much borders on WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:20, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Duplessis[edit]

WP:BIO Non-notable academic lawyer. John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article about an apparently non-notable lawyer who teaches at a Canadian school has touched off a flame war concerning his grading policies. Multiple edits have been made to the article over the last few weeks, but no new verifiable information has appeared. "prod" and "verify" tags have been inserted and removed. Threats have been made (see article history). As someone uninvolved in the issue, I suggest just deleting the article. --John Nagle 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --John Nagle 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm in two minds about this, but a google search suggests that he really is a full professor. If so, that alone should may be enough for notability. But let's delete it to take the heat out, if people are actually making threats and no one is contributing anything worthwhile. If an article is created at some time in the future it may be a different story. Metamagician3000 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to the above comments, threats and edit wars do not always merit an article deletion and being a professor does not always merit an article to be kept. Either way, delete the article as it fails WP:PROFTEST and recieves only 95 unique Google results [11]. --TBC??? ??? ??? 04:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This looks like a borderline case to me as far as WP:PROFTEST goes. If he is a full professor at a prestigious university, that is a distinction that would probably might get him over the line. I've been assuming that the University of Ottawa would be pretty prestigious, but I realise it's not Oxford or Harvard or something, so it's open to argument. Notability is borderline. Article seems irredeemable at the moment. My vote stays as it was, just commenting. Metamagician3000 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are votes in favour of it being kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yvon_Duplessis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

Also, the article as expanded 06:20, 10 April 2006 24.43.87.250 should be considered. History BA keeps deleting things out of a personal vendetta on this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

The record will show that I have deleted unsourced material from the article and have explained my reasons why. The editor who keeps adding this material, some of which may well be libelous, refuses to supply a verifiable source. HistoryBA 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, those who voted for the article to be kept on the talk page were all anonymous IP adresses.--TBC??? ??? ??? 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to PROF test, Me. Duplessis passes on item #1 in part as well as #2 and #5 in larger part. He is also notable for his performance in the aforementioned case (which History BA probably has already reverted again) as well as his relation to a Quebec historical personality (also incorrectly reverted by HistoryBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

If so, then please provide a reliable source that verifies these claims--TBC??? ??? ??? 07:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a grading war, i have never even taken a class with him. He has national noteworthiness particularly in eastern canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.87.250 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nom, notability has not been established within the article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and just end the mess. Gotta love rookie lawyering, though. Danny Lilithborne 11:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Being related to Maurice does not constitute noteworthiness. Eusebeus 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (& Can't sleep, clown will eat me).--blue520 12:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We're not going to give an article to every distant relative of Maurice Duplessis, nor to professors who have annoyed students by failing them. HistoryBA 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present I can't see anything offensive in this -- unless people object to a Canadian getting Wiki-space when there are doubtless PBS talkshow hosts in US who are still to sreep into these pages -- Keep -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Delete. Could someone point me to the spot in WP:PROFTEST where being a full professor at a major university alone qualifies someone for notability? Somehow I am missing that; could we see some cites to notable academic papers, theories, awards? Beyond that, no one with only 95 Ghits has national notability anywhere, even if I am a Yankee who must be suspected at all times of harboring screw-the-Quebecois sentiments. RGTraynor 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth (and remember how I voted) see criterion 8 and then point 9 of the examples, which says "Receiving full professorship at a prestigious university, or receiving a named professorship at a reputable university, may be considered an award or honor under criterion 8." Note also that it is says, "may" not "shall", which makes the whole thing even more borderline (hence I've re-edited my edits above), and that I'm only answering the question, not acting as advocate for the "keep" case. :) Metamagician3000 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, in which case this guy wouldn't qualify; is the University of Ottawa really a "prestigious" university in the ranks of the Harvards and Stanfords, as opposed to a "reputable" university? RGTraynor 13:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I honestly don't know what is meant by a "prestigious" university. I'm pretty sure that Charles Sturt University does not count as "prestigious", though it is perfectly reputable, but I would count the Australian National University. I like to think that Monash University, where I hang out, is a prestigious institution, not just a big one. Canadians would doubtless have views as to which of their institutions are prestigious and/or reputable, but these are incredibly vague and relative terms. Metamagician3000 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very week delete He seems notable enough, but there is no article here: there is a world of diffrence between a two paragraph stub and a two sentence stub. Abstain if the article is expanded somewhat. JeffBurdges 13:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No obvious claims to be more notable than the average. Hasn't obviously made a big impact according to google or google scholar. Delete unless something comes out of the woodwork. Ben Aveling 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be deleted, because Mr. Duplessis is one of the best legal scholars in Canada. You just don't know. Get a life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurobest (talk • contribs)
    Agreed, we don't know. But on the evidence we have, we have to make a judgement. If you disagree, it's up to you to persuade us otherwise. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Let me address a few points. First of all, the University of Ottawa is in Canada's capital and is, "Canada's University". It is one of the more important Universities in Canada behind McGill and University of Toronto. Second, Yvon Duplessis is a full professor, who has been published in many French journals. Wikipedia should not be biased against this despite the fact that these journals have smaller circulation due to smaller language population. Third, it is true, if you research on QuickLaw or WestLaw (I may not reproduce it here for copyright reasons) you will see that he did indeed litigate the Supreme Court decision Entreprises E.A. Bourque (Québec) Inc. v. Hull (Ville) [1996] C.S.C.R. no 368. Fourth, I have heard from other professors that he does indeed grade on a 120 point scale and the average grade in most of his classes is usually below 50%. Although not enough to be notable on its own, it is an interesting anecdoate and highly irregular. The man is a graduate of Harvard and I have been told he is related to former Quebec Premier Maurice Duplessis. This is a Strong Keep not because he is highly notable, but because he clearly passes the de-minimus test to be on Wikipedia. Anber 07:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The De minimus test? "De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention." You're going to have to explain that one to me - I don't follow your meaning in this context. I haven't heard of the case you mention. Is it particularly interesting? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's not clear about the use of the term De minimus, if you have seen its use before, or even if you read through its entire Wikipedia article, you'll see that it refers to a 'minimum threshold for non-triviality'. Just substitute that in and it will make sense.Anber 13:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You are saying that although he is not highly notable, he is notable enough. Why not just say that, and make all our lives easier. If you want to impress us, then do so by being clear in your communictaions. Thanks, Ben Aveling 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada's University" is the institution's advertising slogan. It proves absolutely nothing. Furthermore, "I have heard" and "I have been told" do not meet the Wikipedia standard for a verifiable source. HistoryBA 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It`s borderline but much less borderline than a lot of Wikipedia articles. I agree with the writers who say that the context of a French Canadian professor should be considered when interpreting Wiki rules because there should not be a systematic bias against an equally notable segment of the population at large who just happen to be less recognized on internet sites. Remember the internet overwhelmingly more English than it is French; Mr. Duplessis has been published in many print Media.

Also, I noticed that nobody has refuted his involvement in the Hull Supreme Court Case. Coupled with his full status (part of the prof test) and also his bizzare tendencies this seems enough (barely)

  • Comment: A case upon which there are only a handful of unique G-hits and nothing notable off of Lexum; may I ask why you consider this case any sort of a landmark, and why Duplessis was any more notable than the other attorneys involved in the case? So he litigated a case before the Canadian Supreme Court; do you have any notion how very many attorneys do that every session? RGTraynor 03:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all, Wikipedia has a tribute to a Dancing Banana!!!

    • Yes, thank you, I have raised the Supreme Court Case before, but History BA keeps deleting it because he is trying to prove his point.


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). — FireFox • T [13:13, 10 April 2006]

Mushrooms (How I'm Too Short To See The One I Love So I Poison Mushroomed Myself)[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND, wikipedia is not a crystal ball, all but 1 member is redlinked and that one goes to a disambig page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:46, 10 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 deleted by pgk. — FireFox • T [13:10, 10 April 2006]

Baby Mario and the Toads[edit]

does not meet WP:BAND or WP:BIO, not a crystal ball, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:48, 10 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 redirect. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Learns To Rock (disambiguation)[edit]

A disambiguation page to distinguish a band from its eponymous LP - unnecessary. There doesn't seem to be any point in redirecting anywhere, either. Flowerparty? 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and add a see also sentence on the top of both pages mentioned in the disambiguation page --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:TBC. JIP | Talk 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitsukai Learns to Delete. Well, I already knew how to do that, but you get the idea.--み使い Mitsukai 18:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the group. It's a plausible mistake to capitalize all words in the name. Henning Makholm 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the group - Band names always take precedence over eponymous album titles (regardless of title case). The article will have a link to the self-titled album in it. No disambig link required at the top of the page, either. ProhibitOnions 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Onions, although I think a disambig on the page would be helpful. Kappa 10:41, 15 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gandharvas of indian classical music[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:RS, OR

Not being Indian, I don't really know what to make of this, as it's very badly written. But since Gandharva are a type of deity, this appears to be one fan's POV and unsourced list of "musical gods". Some of these individuals appear to have articles (or maybe ought to), e.g. Bal Gandharva, so feel free to move any useful content there before this article is deleted. PROD contested by anonymous user without comment. Sandstein 05:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gods who have superb musical skills though -- Astrokey44|talk 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article will always be OR. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR unless evidence surfaces this is a widely regarded list of the most famous musicians. Googling even the first two musicians mentioned together finds only this article; [12] or [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weregerbil (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless cites are forthcoming (er... is there an Indian version of NME?) Average Earthman 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Balgandharva.jpg
Is "Gandharva" actually used as a title to honour Indian musicians?
  • Weak keep. Would prefer to postpone, actually. I claim no expertise here: but it seems me that at minimum, the information about individual performers should be split up and either merged or used to create new stubs about them; they are probably notable, and getting information about them may otherwise be difficult. The stamp would appear to suggest that at least one musician has been honoured with "Gandharva" being a part of his name. Some information about the use of this divine style as a title, and whether it is conferred by some authority or by popular acclaim, might be in order here. I'm just reluctant to lose obscure (to me) and interesting information. Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can prove that this is the Hindi term for "Gods of Rock" or the like.--み使い Mitsukai 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and recontextualize to list of Indian classical musicians unless someone can prove what Mitsukai says. Kappa 10:39, 15 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. Sango123 (e) 02:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit boots[edit]

Delete - WP is not Urban Dictionary. Wickethewok 05:13, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe D'Ambrose[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloo Toons[edit]

Delete - I don't see any assertion of notable. Wickethewok 05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete - There are many articles on wikipedia that have half the information the Bloo Toons article has, not to mention, Bloo Toons is gaining popularity, it needs its own wiki article so fans or viewers can find information on the site. Flanman772 010:35, 10 April 2006

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as recreation of previously deleted material.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Hendrickson[edit]

Vanity, non-notable bio. Has already been userfied and speedied once. -- RHaworth 05:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, recreation of previously speedy deleted material --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:44, 10 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual internet population[edit]

global perspective, and do we realy need an article about this? Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Hm. I did delete, but rethought before submitting. This is actually an interesting concept, but it needs a lot of work. T K E 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for further expansion. Interesting topic. I don't get the nominator's point about "global perspective" above, can you explain? Lukas (T.|@) 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very US centric Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, can't quite follow you there. The article describes how the Internet was in fact US-centric, which seems true, relevant, and NPOV. Why is describing US-centricness US-centric? Lukas (T.|@) 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Can't quite follow the US-centric claim either, as it's somewhat common knowledge that the net started out as the ARPANET. But I'll be the first to agree that the page definitely could use some sprucing up.--み使い Mitsukai 19:01, 10 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Tunnel (movie)[edit]

from talk: "Non-notable independent film. IMDB cautions "Note: Many of the "reviews" for this incredibly poor film seem to be written by people who actually worked on this film or were hired to promote it." Only 2 actors are not redlinked ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. And of the two non-redlinked actors to this 2005 film, one is a redirect to a poet who died in 1991, and the other is to the author of the original Roger Rabbit novel: so the links may, er, not be accurate. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and spam (see creator's user history). — Saxifrage ✎ 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A few minor festival appearances, pretty much straight to video, terrible reviews on IMDB, Amazon, etc. Can't find any box office figures whatsoever, so strongly suspect it did next to nothing. It might slowly claw its money back from the long-tail of people who like watching extremely badly plotted B-movies (one review I have managed to find congratulated it for the most ludicrous crowbarring of nudity into a film he'd seen). Just because it's a film, doesn't mean it's notable. The internet has enough of b-movies, we don't need to replicate it. Average Earthman 13:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb does not make any such caution as the nom claims. There might be a user on IMDb who made such a claim in their user comment or on the message board for the movie, but that does not make it an official statement of IMDb. Such a user is speculating, or could even be a plant from a rival studio trying to slam the movie (though I would guess the movie is indeed nothing special). Redlinks are AFAIK not a reason to delete an article, nor are bad reviews, etc. I'm not sure if the article should stay or go; WP needs to define by policy in a much clearer way which movies should have articles and which shouldn't. Шизомби 14:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Agreed. This isn't someone's garage movie filmed on a video cam, starring ten people who had never, ever been in anything else. The cast's credits in other works seem to be in bit parts, but those bit parts are in big time movies and TV shows, and the film was distributed by Sony. The degree to which the movie sucked or someone's alleging self-promotion on the IMDB review page is irrelevant. Wikipedia's criteria for non-notability involve no one ever hearing of the subject, not the subject stinking out the joint. RGTraynor 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article would have been accepted into Wikipedia if it hadn't been from all the associated self-promotional spam articles. Yes, the movie is apparently awful. Yes, the high point of the star's career was as a minor character in Gigli. But you can order the thing on DVD from Amazon, and it's in IMDB, so it's verifiable. I suggest keeping this article, but deleting all the other Boothspam. The article will probably need some cleanup for WP:NPOV, though. --John Nagle 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's availiable at Amazon and has an entry on IMDb, notable movie. bbx 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No matter the result of the debate, this appears to be a copyvio. If consensus is to keep, someone will probably have to rewrite. —Seqsea (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merecat 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Opinions and personal reviews are valid but not on an encyclopedia. Death Tunnel is a notable horror film released world wide distributed by Sony Pictures domestic and foreign, Paramount Pictures in Spain, ArtPort in Japan, Imagine Entertainmnet in Australia, Movie Bank in Netherlands. This is also on IMDB. Please keep this in mind. The website has over 4.4 million hits within a year and a half. Bad or Good, Let all the world's people make it's own conclusion without judgemental commentary. This board seems some what bias.
Note that previous unsigned Keep came from User:Csaint. See history to verify. --John Nagle 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is this even being debated?Brian1979 12:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This mess started when, within one day, User:Harlie8304 created Tee for Two Publishing, Tee for Two Music Publishing, Saint (Christopher Saint), The Booth Brothers, Saint and Sinners Entertainment, Twintalk Entertainment, Christopher Saint Booth, Christopher Booth, Christopher Saint, Shadowbox, and Death Tunnel (movie). All this activity resulted in complaints from four people and one bot. Most of those articles have now been deleted or made into redirects. The only ones remaining are Christopher Saint and Death Tunnel (movie), and they're in AfD. Those might or might not be kept; the votes are mixed. The process seems to be working; in the end; we'll have one or two decent articles, not the original copies of press kits. --John Nagle 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. I see how the rampant creation of pages such as those is irksome. However, if rewriiten, the page for Death Tunnel should be kept. Brian1979 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I really don't know how easy or hard it is to get a film on Amazon and Netflix, but somehow they managed to do so. Bige1977 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this film is notable why erase it Yuckfoo 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Nagle. --Rob 06:32, 16 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 deleted by SlimVirgin. Henning Makholm 12:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbox[edit]

another non-notable movie stub from the Booth Brothers. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Booth Brothers article could use more cleanup than a separate movie stub. T K E 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can speedy it if there's no objection. I nearly deleted it last night when I saw it come in, but I decided to tidy it instead. I probably should just have deleted, so if no one minds, I'll go ahead and do that. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and speedy. The user is just spamming. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and speedy wouldn't bother me. It's rather harder to create a person than a movie these days (videocameras are cheaper than babies, and don't smell as much), and we don't list every person on the planet. Average Earthman 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd delete this - it does not seem helpful to anyone -- and sorry for my lack of editing skills. -- JCF
  • Delete like everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll speedy it now. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently part of a hoax/vanity/spam ring (see The Booth Brothers). Her Pegship 23:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (footnote: oops! sorry, I didn't mean to blank all the other comments. Her Pegship 03:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

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

The result of the debate was Delete Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Booth Brothers[edit]

part of bulk afd surrounding Death Tunnel (movie), SHADOWBOX etc. nn stub, much of the articles are hoaxes and/or crystal ball. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable spam. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adcruft, plus all other pages associated with this. Danny Lilithborne 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam, spam, unlovely spam. Average Earthman 13:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like everyone else. TheRealFennShysa 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above (but I don't like spam...). Her Pegship 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Saint[edit]

Along with Booth Brothers, Death Tunnel (movie) et all. Further more Saint%22 MPSE&btnG=Search Google search shows that he in fact has NOT won any MPSE in sound editing. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Note: Assertion of contacts with Bryan Adams and Sweeny Todd band appear to be fake. Bryan Adams was in Sweeny Todd [16], but Christopher Saint does not appear to have been. However, John Booth appears to have been, and given the Booth name connection to this, it appears to be a very suspicious claim, especially given the lack of hits regarding the MPSE ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not seen any clear evidence that Christopher Saint actually worked with Bryan Adams. He was brought in as the replacement for Bryan Adams on lead vocals, but the band was on the decline broke up shortly thereafter. No albums were released with Booth as the vocalist. Performing remixes as a DJ is not qualify as releasing 200 songs. The entire article is clearly vanity and a series of nothing but gross exaggerations. Bige1977 19:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy it all to User:Harlie8304. T K E 07:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Death Tunnel was nominated for BestSound Editing in a Foreign Feature in which Christopher Saint Booth performed this service: http://www.mpse.org/goldenreels/foreign.html Christopher Saint is a AKA for Christopher Booth who was in Sweeney Todd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweeney_Todd_%28band%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csaint (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 April 2006
    • Comment - can you prove that the requirement for nomination is more stringent than it merely being sound edited outside of the US? Average Earthman 13:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Death tunnel was not nominated for BestSound Editing in a Foreign Feature. It is one name in a very long a list of entries submitted by the filmmakers themselves, not by a nominating board or a notable third party. Bige1977 18:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable spam. Note that this is part of a bulk-spam effort by the user. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. --Hetar 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the article on Sweeney Todd, Christopher Booth was not in the band, John Booth was in the band. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article appears to be a copyvio from [17]. I haven't checked the others. It's possible the author of the article is the author of the blog, but that was not immediately obvious to me. —Seqsea (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs editing/wikifying/cleanup/etc, unless it is firmly established as fake, then I will come back and change my vote to delete. --ElectricEye 00:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note: Assertion of contacts with Bryan Adams and Sweeny Todd band appear to be fake. Bryan Adams was in Sweeny Todd [18], but Christopher Saint does not appear to have been. However, John Booth appears to have been, and given the Booth name connection to this, it appears to be a very suspicious claim, especially given the lack of hits regarding the MPSE ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Note: previous comment was deleted by User:CSaint and has been restored. See page history. Please do not make deletions from an Articles for Deletion page; it will not help you.) --John Nagle 21:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweeney Todd
Nick Gilder (lead vocals)
Jim McCulloch (guitars)
John Booth (drums)
Budd Marr (bass)
Dan Gaudin (keyboards)
Clark Perry (lead vocals; replaced Gilder 1976)
Bryan Adams (lead vocals; replaced Perry 1976)
Skip Prest (guitar; replaced McCulloch 1976)
Chris Booth (lead vocals; replaced Adams 1977)
  • Comment Reading on in the article cited, we see this: "in 1977 Adams left the band. He was replaced by Chris Booth. Adams's departure signaled the end of the band. Prest left shortly thereafter to work with the Rocket Norton Band, to be replaced by Grant Gislason, but this version didn't last long and they called it quits in 1978." This may not qualify as notability for Booth. --John Nagle 21:33, 15 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 Speedy delete attack page. Again. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wenzeled[edit]

  • There are only 95 results on Google for 'Wenzeled' (excluding duplicates), most of which are Wikipedia mirrors or links to the forum thread. As such this article, is establishing etymology rather than reporting it.
  • The article is a mess and unlikely to be fixed.
  • The article is an orphan.
  • It appears the article was created as part of a campaign against Wenzel.
  • Charlie Wenzel was deleted at the time[19][20]. The subject is even less notable now. Xtmouse 06:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. I doubt the 1.5million hits. Wenzeled.com is a "under construction" link ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 07:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete three previous deletions were all correct: this is essentially an article which serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vmk spoilers page[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide - Brian Kendig 07:19, 10 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Menengah Teknik Ipoh Persiaran Brash[edit]

I believe that the article is a vanity page, an advertisement, represents little neutral information and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.--Momolee 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup, as per WP:SCHOOL --TBC??? ??? ??? 07:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the page does need real cleanup. __earth (Talk) 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - AFAIK schools qualify for Wiki -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Remove or heavy editing - non-NPOV, sounds like advert like user Momolee said.
  • Keep, and move the stuff about the alumnus into his own article. Kappa 10:15, 15 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 keep top page; delete sub pages. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIPS place code and its subpages[edit]

This is just the tip of the iceberg: I look at New Pages, and was startled to see entries like "FIPS place code/Minnesota (390,351 bytes)" and "FIPS place code/Arkansas (311,887 bytes). These are HUGE subpages of lists of geographic codes. The creator is stacking 'em up, one by one. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, and it's NOT a bunch of lists. Calton | Talk 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a primary source. These are taken from the USGS files, simply cut down to be more useful than the raw data. The primary source is the USGS files and the exact same information can be found there. Paul Robinson 20:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Then leave them there. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Wow, I really don't know what ot say. T K E 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a government report, relevant information, hell I paid for it. T K E 08:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about: the top FIPS place code article is good info and the subpages are deletable as not an indiscriminate collector of information. Weregerbil 08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's sad to see so much effort go to waste, but it's right in FIPS place code that the original list can be downloaded from an official (presumably up-to-date) source. An article about FIPS place codes, maybe keeping a manageable amount of place codes as examples, would be an excellent idea. Peter Grey
    • If there was an automated way the place codes could be added to the article for each corresponding location, that really be neat. Peter Grey 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure RamBot could do it alongside all his census info. Night Gyr 17:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top-level info (i.e. that on FIPS place code, rather than its subpages) can added into the InfoBoxes for the various state/territory. The insanely long complete list is not encyclopedic (primary source) and can be covered with an external link to the USGS branch that hands these things out. -- GWO
  • Delete. I'm likewise impressed at how much work went into this, but what is here that's not on the gov't link? RGTraynor 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikisource is the place for primary sources, so if you want to put this on a wiki, put it up there and link it from here. Night Gyr 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an article on the FIPS place code system as such, if it is a notable reference system. Delete the codes themselves, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we add no value to the world by copying such an immense amount of numeric data; what we do is create a reference which will become out-of-date and therefore misleading. A reference to the primary source is the way to do this. Keep the top-level article. — Johan the Ghost seance 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep top-level article, remove tables from its, delete subpages. FIPS place codes are important in the geographic and demographic industries (such as the Census Bureau, and Claritas where I work), and not otherwise noteworthy. A good two-paragraph article would be appropriate here; the raw tables are not. WP is not for primary sources, excess level of detail, etc. Barno 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep top-level article, remove tables from its, delete subpages. Per Barno and Johan the Ghost. —Ruud 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm with that. A bot for this would be nice, I didn't even know about government produced rankings. T K E 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument in favor by the author: As I am the person who has created this, I would like to make the case why it should stay as is.
  • It is a cut-down version of the complete list, it only includes cities and major unincorporated areas. As is, it just becomes useful as opposed to the complete list which contains practically every location in the U.S. bigger than a hot dog stand.
  • Where do you draw the line? If you want to set some population figure, say, 50, 100,000 or whatever, fine. But what is the criterion.
  • There is the possibility of cutting it by county (borough/census area in Alaska, parish in Louisiana) but I for one am not up to the task of creating circa 3500 separate pages. Now, if you only create separate sub pages if there is several items in a county, but you're still going to have large pages.
  • Most of the bloat comes from having to code them for HTML. I think I could try changing them to flat text and they would be a lot smaller. Actually I wish I had thought of that. I'll see if there isn't a way to have both.
  • I think this is exactly appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should provide, well, encyclopedic content, which I would think means it should provide very broad coverage of a subject or an issue. This also includes providing substantial reference material.

Paul Robinson 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am looking at reformatting the pages. I use a program to create them. I think if I use a wiki table format instead of HTML I can cut the page sizes by about 1/2. But the data within them is still substantial; take a look at a test version I have reformatted for Minnesota and it went from 380K down to 140K. I can see some places for improvement.
  • The creation of these tables was a start, and was subject to improvements later on as I - and others - had more experience in how to work with them.

Paul Robinson 21:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where do you draw the line? How about "none at all?" Seems simplest.
  • Most of the bloat comes from having to code them for HTML It doesn't matter whether it comes from too much starch in their diet or from not enough exercise: they are still a form of raw data that is NOT encyclopedic, IS a primary source of data best handled by an external link to the data supplier, and is grossly inappropriate here. --Calton | Talk 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please tell me WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE? People are saying they think these sub pages are not appropriate to this encyclopedia, so I decided to mark them for deletion. Now I'm being told that what I'm doing constitutes vandalism and I'm going to be blocked! I had the impression nobody wants these pages because they're too long, they're not encyclopedia content and they constitute original material. I disagree with all of these but I decided not to fight the issue.

If the material doesn't belong here then it needs to be marked for deletion. I'm sorry I wasted the effort.

23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, you bastards, you win, I give up; it's not worth the fight. I wanted to make this encyclopedia better and improved its content, but you don't want the content. Fine; I now close the subject and the issue ends. I have deleted the links to the subsidiary pages. Whether you keep or delete the subsidiary pages doesn't matter. I'll null them since it's clear people don't want the fucking things and this will solve. It The original page is simply a table of state entries. Since my contribution is unwanted, I have removed the contribution so as to get rid of the problem.

You may now go about your business on whatever else you want to bother with. I have removed the "Request for Deletion" off the original page as the issue is now closed and the entries are now destroyed.

Paul Robinson 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but Paul Robinson's contributions are appreciated. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Woodard[edit]

NN-Bio, just one appearance in one film, can't find any other relevant Google hits or sources, maybe vanity as submitted by User:Tpwoodard Gu 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable biography - one entry on IMDb.com, WP:BIO and possibly WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY refers to.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at a crossroads with a stake through it. Possible hoaxy vanity too; the IMDB entry is for "Tara Woddard", who isn't even part of the main credited cast for her single appearance in a film so off the radar it doesn't even register box office. No listings for the alleged miniseries or Homicide appearances. (And what, pray, is a fourth degree burn?)RGTraynor 16:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be helpful: Fourth degree burn. Also, Delete per RGT. -Colin Kimbrell 20:59, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time compression[edit]

I don't think using a phrase once in a press conference makes it noteable Gu 08:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is linked to from the Superman (movie) page. Obviously doesn't mean the same thing as written here. -Jcbarr 08:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form, but I would not be adverse to an article on differing rates of time passage as used in Science Fiction. Off the top of my head, its a major plot point in Epiphany (Stargate Atlantis), but I'm pretty sure other examples can be cited. -- Saberwyn 09:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Final Fantasy 8 too, but I'm not sure we need an article describing any of these. Kotepho 09:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing useful. Cedars 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Does it count as a neologism if it's a usage no one else employs that just happened to have its only citation sixty years ago? RGTraynor 16:45, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHCDownload[edit]

Was PROD tagged but tag was removed by original author without comment, new nn software, probably advertising Gu 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising non-notable software, WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware of the fact I can not add an article for something i have developed, I am not trying to advertise for commercial benefit, merely attempting to add an article about it. AlexGW 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, according to WP:SOFTWARE: Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work. If such work is notable, someone else will eventually start an article about it. From the number of unique Google hits and the number of threads in the program's developer forum I simply don't think it does match WP:SOFTWARE criteria for inclusion as notable software. Gu 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- dispute "advertising" :: merely informative; as to non-notability, suggest this depends on one's viewpoint -- SockpuppetSamuelson
    • Delete. Viewpoint: only 36 unique G-hits (and almost all of those are from sites Powered By PHCDownload), Alexa rank #865,096. No reviews, awards, or verifications of industry notability as per WP:SOFTWARE. RGTraynor 16:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising-like article for a non-notable piece of proprietary software that is still waiting for its final 1.0 release. Cedars 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable software that fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Hetar 17:47, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cigoutlet[edit]

Non-notable advertising. Delete. Linkspamremover 08:55, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underwear pervert[edit]

This article appears to have been created about eight days late. The temr barely Googles, and it's doubtful it deserves as much as a passing mention in Superhero. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable term, neologism or otherwise. Royboycrashfan 09:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 13:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-widespread neologism. Punkmorten 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this neologism and its boingboing back into the obscurity they so richly merit. RGTraynor 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe it is not a widespread neologism, but it is well known among comic fans (due to the Marvel/DC patent episode). It needs evolution, obviously. --Chester br 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this one-liner with Warren Ellis, who coined the term on his blog. It's not widespread enough for a standalone article, though that could change in the future I guess. -Colin Kimbrell 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is idiotic and doesnot belong here. Aeon 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable term, at best it should be trivia in either the Warren Ellis artilce or the Superhero article. Glowimperial 19:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If kept, then merge. --Durin 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All said above (delete).Freddie 22:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kretchniff[edit]

I originally prodded this, but the author removed it. I can find no evidence that the subject is notable. I've tried several search engines and didn't find a thing. Delete as non-notable WP:BIO. Royboycrashfan 09:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. you are dealing with a sect in chassidic judaism that does not condone internet use, and therefore lack of finding on search engines, especially since anything you would find would probably be in hebrew, is not a valid reason for deletion. Rebbe 09:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right. Royboycrashfan 10:03, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Watts[edit]

Thanks to Elefuntboy for picking this article out.

The user's main claim to nobility is candidacy in the California recall election. There were over 100 candidates, many identifying themselves as Green Party candidates. He could be incorporated into a group article on California recall longshots, since as a collection of eccentrics they were notable, but not as an individual. Delete as vanity.

Lotsofissues 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Exceptionally nn, even in this election. Peter Camejo, the primary Green Party candidate, got over 100 times as many votes as Watts, and he only got 3% of the votes cast. Watts finished far behind Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman and porn-actress Mary Carey. Fan1967 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it's a bit of a publicity thing as he's running for AS President. Good reasons listed above, thanks again, lots of issues. Elefuntboy 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion First I don't see any evidence of this article being created by the subject, and secondly as a recognize candidate on the ballot, it is of relevent historical nature to allow information on any ofthem to be included. Alex 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deletion It is of relevant historical nature, as the California recall can be seen as an important point in California history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.160.176 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete, NN. By that criteria, the names of Tricia Nixon's puppy's first litter are important points in California history, and probably just as many people would care, too. RGTraynor 20:37, 10 April 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! Proto||type 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A contestant on Wheel of Fortune who placed 39th in a recall election? Doesn't seem notable to me. Royboycrashfan 10:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his fifteen minutes seem to be up. Just zis Guy you know? 11:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a list of candidates from that election? Because methinks that's the only place that merits a mention of this guy. Danny Lilithborne 11:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's this list, which says he got 0% of the vote. Royboycrashfan 12:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to have been notable at any time MLA 14:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Royboycrashfan has it right on the total.CA Sec. of State Getting 2,021 votes out of 8 million cast is not really a notable achievement.Montco 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually according to his website [23] he finished 40th overall, not 39th as the article claims. --Tdl1060 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should never have been relisted, four deletes and one keep (discounting the unsigned one) is a consensus. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have had plastic surgery[edit]

Subjective and crufty orphaned list that will never be anywhere near complete, impossible to maintain, currently contains just 7 people, and is a POV magnet. Was tagged for proposed deletion, but tag removed. Listcruft = delete Proto||type 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cruft-o-rama. A list of Hollywood stars over the age of 30 who have not has plastic surgery would be more pertinent. Just zis Guy you know? 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 11:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surgically remove...or just delete. PJM 11:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--blue520 12:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Gu 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so this list contains a large number of professional boxers? Random list of things. MLA 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Impossible too maintain, way too broad a topic. No apparent criteria. 23skidoo 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Joe 20:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just the natural byproduct of our keeping List of people speculated to have been syphilitic and People speculated to have been autistic, etc. Perhaps we should just rename it to List of people speculated to have had plastic surgery and all would be well (as I thought might be permitted under WP's loose with the facts regime; see my comment on[24]) . Yuck!!!! Carlossuarez46 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've spot-checked four of the references provided and they all seem quite reasonable. References seem to have been in place since the article was created. Hopefully the editors will keep the article on their watchlist and make sure that only items meeting the verifiability policy are included. Provided the list is kept honest with respect to verifiability, I see no reason to delete this, even though I think it's silly, and even though I think a category would do just as well, and even though I will shed no tears if it is deleted. By the way I really like the Jamie Lee Curtis reference... check it out. If, over time, it deteriorates into a list of names that are mostly unaccompanied by references, it should be renominated for deletion at that time. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - is it churlish to point out that Jamie Lee Curtis had botox and liposuction (as confirmed in the reference), which are cosmetic surgery, and not plastic surgery? Proto||type 12:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a side note, cosmetic surgery currently redirects to plastic surgery. Perhaps cosmetic surgery merits its own article? Kurieeto 13:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mentions of a few examples in the main article are enough. Golfcam 04:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding issues of speculation, the article was always intended to be entirely referenced with claims of the noteworthy people themselves acknowledging that they have indeed had plastic/cosmetic surgery. This would address any issues of maintnance, POV, and subjectivity cited as reasons for deletion. Also it is not that all individuals with plastic surgery in the world should be on this list, only those who merit a Wikipedia article and have acknowledged that indeed they have had this procedure. This is all outlined in the initial paragraph of the article. Perhaps a better article title would be List of people who have claimed to have had plastic surgery.
If in plastic surgery we can list people who have had it done to them, I don't see why a seperate article list, fully referenced, does not belong. Additionally we have a list of people with breast implants. The subjects of both of these articles are surgical procedures. Again, if fully referenced and details for inclusion are made more clear, such as moving to list of people who have claimed to have had plastic surgery, I don't see why this should be deleted. Kurieeto 13:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does not give enogh information and there are enogh people mentioned in the main article.--Go Sox 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons.Freddie 01:18, 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 Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZEBO[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. The site in question is the first result on google, but it is the only relevant result out of 332,000. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Was tagged with {{prod}}, but it was contested)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Draft busts[edit]

Due to the success of a similar AfD, I am nominating this and other similar lists for deletion discussion. If someone wants to create a list like this one but with less subjective criteria, I think it would be much more welcome. Grandmasterka 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per previous AfD: there is no obvious objective definition of the term "bust". Just zis Guy you know? 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Plus, the article is unsourced and as it stands violates WP:NOR. PJM 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There article could well have sources, but overall it's a fine subject for an article about the NFL Draft. Players like Ki-Jana Carter and Todd Marinovich are compared by stats to more successful players, and so it satisfies my criteria for being objective.--Mike Selinker 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Using stats is fine, but that's not enough to evaluate a "bust." Jeff George, for instance, put up OK stats but never won anything and was considered a horrible teammate. So is he a bust? --cholmes75 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nominator and per the discussion on the AfD for NFL Draft steals. Fluit 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom, PJM, and the steals AfD. Joe 20:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The very nature of sports, along with any other entertainment, involves intangible superlatives. Carry this sentiment to its logical conclusion, and Arnold Schwartzenegger kicks Clark Gable's backside as an actor, because he's made more money at it. RGTraynor 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objectively meaningful criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as "failing to live up to expectations" is inherently subjective. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's unfortunately POV and mine would be a different list which tells me that it's OR and has to go unfortunately MLA 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I voted keep on the other AfD, but other users convinvced me that there are no objective criteria for a "steal"; a "bust" is no different. ProhibitOnions 15:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fundamentally flawed and hopelessly POV. -Colin Kimbrell 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with some others that say that draft bust cannot have an article of some sort, but a subjective and hyper-inclusive list isn't the way to go. youngamerican (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 18:25, 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 no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Years[edit]

NN--Zxcvbnm 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Normally albums would be notable, but I'm having trouble finding any information that would qualify it under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Part of the problem is that it seems to have been self-published under the artist's own label. --Alan Au 22:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak Keep. I don't see any guidance under WP:MUSIC regarding albums. I think the artist qualifies for a page based on his tour schedule appearances with other comedians etc. Does that mean a page for his CD is an automatic in as well? I'd like to see criteria. I don't think independent publishing and distribution via. CDBABY, etc. should be automatic rejection. Many good artist start out in that mode these days. The article certainly lacks substance. --MrFizyx 21:55, 6 April 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!
Sceptre (Talk) 10:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This CD is the work of an apparently notable person. [25]. PJM 12:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no information there save a track list. RGTraynor 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all uncommented track lists. If there is something encyclopedic to say about the album, let's postpone having an article about it until somebody says it. Henning Makholm 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one can keep and expand this article properly, then I will vote for a delete.Freddie 01:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep notable but article needs work OSU80 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge No reason these tracks can't be listed on author's Mike Birbiglia page. OSU80 03:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album by notable comedian. Kappa 10:12, 15 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL Draft steals[edit]

Due to the success of a similar AfD, I am nominating this and other similar lists for deletion discussion. If someone wants to create a list like this one but with less subjective criteria, I think it would be much more welcome. Grandmasterka 10:51, 10 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 deleted by pgk. — FireFox • T [13:10, 10 April 2006]

Concept of Life[edit]

Nonsense POV rant, Delete ::Supergolden:: 10:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Tagged as such. Grandmasterka 11:19, 10 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Stearman[edit]

Only 470 odd hits on google [26], yes she's another one of them reality television contestants, but hasnt really done anything notable since her one and only single that hit no. 20 at peak. I'm not sure whether that just passes WP:Music or not, but personally I dont think she needs her own page and that either merging any notable info into Popstars or Popstars Live would be sufficient. I've placed this up to get a view of other authors or music fans here. So for now, NO VOTE from me. --Arnzy (Talk) 10:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep if you can prove she charted in Australia. Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone proves that she did. RGTraynor 20:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Keep if the single charted, but I can't find confirmation of that. -Colin Kimbrell 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Closing admin please note that all the keep votes are conditional on verification of the single being in the charts. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep reality show contestants, keep people with charting singles. Kappa 10:11, 15 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. Sango123 (e) 15:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHL draft busts[edit]

Due to the success of a similar AfD, I am nominating this and other similar lists for deletion discussion. If someone wants to create a list like this one but with less subjective criteria, I think it would be much more welcome. Grandmasterka 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Its opening paragraph clearly explains that the subject is inherently subjective. Also, this article lists no references and as it stands scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft and per PJM with regards to no references.--Jersey Devil 12:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly again it's OR. I'm conceptually in favour of articles on busts/steals but they need to be demonstrably not OR. MLA 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per nominator. It feels like deja vu all over again. Fluit 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the related AfD's etc. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. -Colin Kimbrell 21:11, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarth[edit]

Delete as nonsense or maybe Transwiki (but I can't find any source) Gu 11:09, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countess of buchan[edit]

Isabel, Countess of Buchan may possibly deserve her own article, but not this ill-informed and misnamed one. Delete ::Supergolden:: 11:11, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Eyre[edit]

This page was originally deleted by me (see previous nomination). I'm relisting this page on the basis of meatpuppery Sceptre (Talk) 11:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am copying my comments from the original AfD. IMO, it is a borderline case, so when you vote, my request is to please take a close look at the mentions about him online before deciding one way or other : Borderline case, but on the right side IMO. Is reasonably known in the internet because he was an editor in Cricinfo for six years and ran the daily Cricinfo 365 which was popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s (discontinued when the internet boom got over and cricinfo cut costs). Currently, among other things, runs the site Cricketwoman.net which is probably the most informational site solely dedicated to women's cricket. The site seems to be down at the moment, this is the from the google cache from the last week '' Tintin (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and violates WP:V with no sources to mark notability.--Jersey Devil 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not particularly notable IrishGuy 13:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO in my opinion; and on a side note, article is not WP:V sourced.--Isotope23 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. JIP | Talk 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'll repeat my Delete from the first time around as a NN blogger. RGTraynor 20:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Derex 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article declares that he is notable, that's about it. Aplomado - UTC 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely, totally nn. Bed-Senior 8:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: User's first and only edit Sceptre (Talk) 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: So what? I guess when someone lodges their first vote in an election, that vote doesn't count eh? There are some politics being played out here I think. Bed-Senior 11:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yes, their "vote" doesn't count. AfD is based on a consensus of Wikipedia editors. The opinion on non-Wikipedia editors is irrelevant.
    Comment: Sure, and how do these 'Wikipedia editors' who apparently possess so much wisdom make their first edit - if you can't first edit without being a 'Wikipedia editor'? Get a grip, this guy is majorly nn and one guy here seems to be playing games to keep him listed. Bed-Senior 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly nn. NTK 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to antiproton. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pbar[edit]

I think antiproton is enough. Perhaps it could be a redirect, but I think it'is better to delete. Just the antiproton links there. -- Harp 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless somene explains to me the harm in doing so, redirect to Antiproton. PJM 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. —Ruud 13:54, 11 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 Speedily deleted as per author's request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bill Bailey[edit]

NN-Bio, vanity (created by User:Drbillbailey) Gu 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn and vanity.--Jersey Devil 12:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- now this is advertising!! --

SockpuppetSamuelson

  • Other podcasters and bloggers are listed in Wikipedia, why is this one a problem?
  • Delete nn and vanity as per above IrishGuy 13:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry that this was considered "advertising" and I would like it deleted now, I did not understand the policy. I am the original author of the entry. Thank you, and it was not my intention to offend anyone. User:Drbillbailey
  • Speedy delete CSD G7 (as per author's request). Fetofs Hello! 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Metamagician3000 14:30, 10 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 all four. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Changer, Voice Changer Software, AV voice changer software, Music Morpher[edit]

Delete this quartet of advertisements. Originally and arguably still copyvio from http://www.audio4fun.com and other pages within, the several redlinked editors to these two articles and AV Voice Changer Software, already speedied, are clearly just promoting their software (one editor is even User:Voicechanger); they all only edit these articles, and on Talk:Voice Changer speak of "we". Note that if you follow that link, the two terms in the titles of these articles are names of products on their website. I tried PRODding the first two, with predictably little success.

The articles start of sounding genuine but quickly come to discuss clearly proprietary questions in enthusiastic language. I do not think this walled garden of articles should be cleaned up: WP:NOT for advertising, at any level whatsoever, and these should be deleted to make that abundantly clear. -Splashtalk 12:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had some interaction with the creator, but none of the concerns I raised have been addressed. I don't expect that they will be, and if they are, I can then change my opinion from Strong Delete all per combinations of WP:SOFTWARE, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOT and simple spamvertising. Colonel Tom 13:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Hooperbloob 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AV voice changer software & Music Morpher as blatent advertising of non-notable software. Merge anything salvageable from Voice Changer Software to Voice Changer. Edit (and I will do this if it survives AfD) Voice Changer to strip out list of vendors, etc so it is an actual encyclopedic article and then monitor against further adspamming in the article.--Isotope23 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "Voice Changer" is not a thing, it's just a name for a piece of software. We already have a lengthy featured article on Speech synthesis and these articles provide no additional useful information because they are so keen to promote themselves and do so in a simple quick-fire factoid manner. -Splashtalk 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: non-notable software spam. --Hetar 17:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. Golfcam 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merecat 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and improve: this is a notable topic (alterations to vocal sounds) however you're right... these articles are too commercial.--Keycard (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a featured article already: Speech synthesis. There's no need to pollute that article with these pieces of astroturf. -Splashtalk 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Don't think it can be salvaged. Sohum 00:40, 14 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mayer[edit]

Hoax. Besides that I can't find anything about Alex Mayer (1942 – 1999), the article claims he studied with G. H. Hardy who, however, already died in 1947. It also claims "In 1961 he studied at Göttingen, Germany under David Hilbert and Edmund Landau". However, Hilbert died 1943 and Landau 1938. Gu 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Hoax. The only person who was not a posthumous teacher is Bertrand Russell (Sommerfeld died in 1951). Secondly there is a chance that it may fail WP:BIO.--blue520 13:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a hoax, but beyond that it is not notable IrishGuy 13:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — article does not support notability; does not pass Google test; possible most probably a hoax -- Argon233 T @ C  U ∠  15:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full disclosure - Article created by User:Mv5869, but only contribs so far are the subject for this AfD and a link to this article; see this link. I added a request on users talk page asking for more information about the only possible point of notibility (the proported Mayer technique) at articles talk page and recieved no response to date. -- Argon233 T @ C  U ∠  15:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable or hoax Anonymous anonymous 21:24, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prangstgrüp[edit]

Vanity page. Several link-websites linked to this prank group's videos a while back, but it wasn't an internet phenomenon. I see no reasonable claim for notability. Grocer 13:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! This group is well known amongst my friends, and I was wondering who they are since there isn't any background info (or even a note about what school they are at) on the site. If anything this article could be expanded.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Stebbins[edit]

The interview here indicates that it is a NN-Bio Gu 13:17, 10 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 Deleted by Sceptre at 15.39.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Div3rse[edit]

Very likely a speedy delete candidate for nonsense, but maybe it means something to somebody? Gu 13:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy no assertion of notability. It appears to be a list of members of a gaming clan and so would be non-notable even if an attempt to assert notability was made. MLA 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD A7 - group (gaming clan) + no assertion of notability.--blue520 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [28] they appear to be what they say they are, but seriously we don't even need articles on the clans that place first in cal-i/o. Kotepho 14:37, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexidate[edit]

Advert for a non-notable swinging website, created by an account which has done nothing but add wikilinks and external links to his website (see Special:Contributions/Noam55). He stopped spamming after being given a last warning, but removed the prod tag on this article, so AFD it is. Delete. Sam Blanning(talk) 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. advertisement / uninformative. User:Daybot 18:44, 10 April 2006 (BST)
  • Delete per nome. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather of a pity it couldn't be deleted under G5 (Banned user) but Noam55 was blocked after the article was created (doh!) so AfD delete it is. Petros471 18:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 217.132.248.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (probably the original author as a shadowpuppet) keeps removing the AfD tag every few hours, so please check that it's still there. I've warned him up to {{drmafd3}}. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the interests of fairly presenting all views expressed in this discussion, that particular IP said "Sexidate should stay at wikipedia and NOT be deleted! Adultfriendfinder and sdate are here so sexidate should also be. This is an open directory that is made by the public and this article has interest for at least 10,000 or more and this is a great reason for itself to keep it." on Talk:Sexidate. Petros471 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add cats such as BDSM. This article is well-written, mentioning relevant encyclopedic matter, like the sexual revolution. I couldn't have done it better myself. GilliamJF 06:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article is poorly written and site non-notable (Alexa ranking over six million for goodness sake) - Glen T C 07:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a duplicate article at Sexidates, I have redirected it to this one. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....Well, Delete. Advertisement of a non-notable site.Freddie 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad --Jaranda wat's sup 05:53, 15 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 no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Abdul Hakeem[edit]

Delete.This individual fails to meet the criteria listed in WP:PROFTEST. Please see the deletion discussion of the article for Shah Mahmoud Hanifi for an example of how articles about professors should be cited in order to prove notability.[29] I have placed a deletion warning on the creator's talk page. Strothra 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless additional evidence of notability, influence in his field is provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Pakistani academic with 2500 Google hits under his romanized name, with no one here knows how many under a native language search, can safely be said to presumptively meet notability requirements. Nominations like this are bad practice, and the resulting deletions damage the Wikipedia project. We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article. In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of this professor, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for him, so I wonder if there's a problem here. Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about Pakistan, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" The problem is particular acute with regard to non-Western subjects, particularly when new, non-Western users are involved who are reporting information regarded as common knowledge in their own communities. Monicasdude 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for future reference, I am a student of Middle Eastern and South Asian history & politics. You also do not know my personal background so please do not attempt to judge it. Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH; it seems that you have a serious problem following these policies but they are not just good policy, they are decent practice as a human being. Further, I nominated the article based on its merits as a Wikipedia article not based on the assumption that users will see an inadequate article on Wikipedia and go to google then search for the individual. I nominated the article because it clearly does not meet the standards set forth by the Wikipedia servers in which it is located. I have notified the user of the AfD and that user has the ability to update the article according to Wikipedia standards by the time this discussion closes. I am sure that users voting would be more than willing to change their vote if the appropriate updates are made to the article. --Strothra 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had a hard time replicating the 2500 hits, but it does look like one that should go through talk first. Jonas Silk 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion Jonas. I feel that the user has an appropriate amount of time to update the article before discussion on the AfD closes but I will keep this in mind from now on. Please note, however, that you are voting to keep an article which does not stand up to Wikipedia's standards and are basing it on responses to Google searches. --Strothra 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject to verifiable expansion. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Delete can't find much on google that is actually about this person and their notability is not sufficiently asserted or supported MLA 08:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I object to such short articles, but this is clearly notable enough to keep even as a two sentence stub. JeffBurdges 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are creations which must have expandability. His notability, if any, certainly does not exist in the quantity which would enable this stub to be epanded. It's not even worth as a stub.--Strothra 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good practice to state a reason for deletion. Might I be so bold as to inquire? Sandstein 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well he was the creator of the article. --Strothra 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He did not create this article, i created this a while ago without knowing that other people and places have the same name Abdul Hakeem. The main article was made a disamb page and the article about this person moved here by ICheetah.
  • Delete for lack of WP:RS alone, Google does not immediately establish notability. The burden of proof for notability and verification is on the author. Sandstein 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, this person is not just a professor, but a very important and influencial shia scholar in Pakistan. He has influence over a large number of Shi'ites and is known very well in pakistan for stopping Shia retaliation against sectarian attacks.--Khalid 18:18, 14 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual exhaustion[edit]

A combination of original research and nonsense (eye floaters???) Tyhopho 14:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Type sexual exhaustion to google and see there is no reason to delete this important topic. It will take time to expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinyangparantaja (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Floaters are real, but whether they ever have any connection to "sexual exhaustion" I have no idea. Шизомби 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC) The article seems to be a combination of pseudoscience and religious teachings about sex. WP doesn't bar such things necessarily, but if that is all the article is going to contain, it needs to be much clearer about who makes these claims with references. Шизомби 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term seems notable [30] but the article lacks sources. PJM 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This reminds me of Gen. Jack D. Ripper's crazy speech on "purity of essence" from Dr. Strangelove. It's interesting to note that Latin has words for this concept, defutatus or ecfutatus, but that's really irrelevant. The belief that sex saps your energy force or essence is really bordering on schizophrenic paranoia and is clearly crankery. Brian G. Crawford 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Candy/Is dandy/But sex/doesn't rot your teeth." Samizdat graffiti popular around a university I attended in the sixties... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice pending sources. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 22:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. One of the two "references" provided is merely an online forum. The other is a website that does not seem to me to come close to meeting the guidelines for reliable sources; Intelihealth it ain't. "Eye floaters" seems like a joke to me. It is certainly an indication of unreliable information. Floaters are due to physical imperfections in the vitreous and you will note that our article on them does not mention any connection with sexual activity. I think most people know these days that masturbation does not make you go blind but maybe it is still possible to convince the gullible that it causes floaters. (It does grow hair on the palms of your hands, of course). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Danny Lilithborne 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merecat 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total nonsense. Probably half of it is made up! Freddie 01:23, 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 no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with breast implants[edit]

Subjective and crufty quasi-orphaned (linked to by another AFD'd list) list that will never be anywhere near complete, impossible to maintain, and a POV magnet. Note that the 'sources' the list provides for each claim are at best, dubious standard (blogs, forum posts, etc), and often contradictory (Mary Carey 'may' or 'may not' have had implants). Listcruft = delete Proto||type 14:20, 10 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 no votes accounted for; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Magtira[edit]

NN-Bio with less than 20 Google hits, vanity from User:Mcmagtira Gu 14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It appears that this person does meet WP:BIO, as they are an editor of a publication with over 5,000 copies in circulation (Their website states they circulate over 50,000 per month). Although it does appear the subject in question created the article. Gonna hold back on a vote for the moment. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment although the magazine is only published every three months [32] it still makes more than 15000 copies per month. I thought WP:BIO refers to published editors not employed editors, if not than the article should stay and be wikified. Gu 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have created this re-deletion page to severely and mercilessly cut any moronic pages that pertain to people, who want wikipedia as a quickie "instant-celebrity" kind of webpage. 15,000 copies per month is not that big. As noted from the previous notes above, the magazine only boasts few copies per month. the guy doesn't even have sturdy credentials and notes to back himself up. I'm sorry, please delete

This is Marlon Magtira. Please delete this entry. My son (11) and daughter (9) was tinkering on Wikipedia and it was them who actually made the entry. I'm very sorry if this entry has made an issue of self-advertisement/self-friendstering/self-wikipedia-ing. I am insignificant but definitely not a moron. Please delete.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bow Gamelan Ensemble[edit]

This page was listed as a PROD, but I am bringing it here for a fuller discussion. Although this is a musical ensemble, its membership includes two notable artists, inclding a notable performance artist, which in my mind, makes this more an article about performance art rather than a "band", making WP:MUSIC an irrelevant standard. Keep Dsmdgold 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Agree that this group falls between the cracks of WP:MUSIC. They are an idiosyncratic, vanguardish project with a limited audience, so numerical tests miss the point. Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be an ensemble of people who are notable enough. --MrFizyx 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sensible extension of WP:MUSIC - seems relevant enough. Kuru talk 00:47, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis J Musenstein[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable, likely hoax. Apparently great musical innovator, yet nothing on google. Claimed sources pamphlet handed out at carnival (containing a detailed gossipy biography??), obscure research piece, and a 24-year-old yearbook. Weregerbil 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the view of Jami (as we knew him)in this piece may give him more ability than he displayed. However he did exist and we well remember seeing him perform at the Black Horse in Hounslow in '79, but his combination of Lute and Reggae could only be said to have been greeted by a mixture of scepticism and sarcasm. It is however still a night we recall with affection.
  • Keep This guy isn't very famous but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. He has quite a niche following and died in 1986 so it's no surprise that there are no mentions on google. But within a specific segment he made a decent contribution, and had an interesting life which deserves to be noted here. Are you saying that anyone not of the modern era and not on google as a result should be deleted?! If you go read that manuscript listed on the page there's a massive chunk about him.User: rf263
  • Comment If he is admittedly not famous and there is nothing at all about him on google, then he is by very definition non-notable and therefore isn't deserving of an article. Beyond that, it strongly appears to be a hoax. IrishGuy 01:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone is not famous it does not mean that they are non-notable. Borodin, Lobov, and Lozovsky aren't famous, but they are still clearly notable. Such arguments should be disregarded as the rubbish they are; this issue should be judged upon facts not prejudice. Driller thriller 03:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find absolutely nothing on this person through online searches. That doesn't mean the person doesn't exist...but it does lean heavily towards non-notability. IrishGuy 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. But wow, you really must admire the creativity. --MrFizyx 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Only contribution/edit of author. Danny Lilithborne 04:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film amateura[edit]

Nearly no info around except from the IMDB entry. Also from the homepage it looks like a NN film Gu 15:04, 10 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 Speedy delete as a short article with little or no context. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Tickets[edit]

Text too general, might refer to a business like this but in the present form it should be deleted Gu 15:20, 10 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 Speedy delete, only contents are external links. Stifle (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casienate[edit]

Might be wrong spelling of Caseinate but contains only two links Gu 15:39, 10 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 consensus not clear; redirect to geopolitics. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitical system[edit]

It is unclear what this page is about. The author has included several (conflicting) definitions from textbooks or other sources, but there's no indication that there is encyclopedic merit to be had here. Recommended transwiki at best. —thames 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to geopolitics and merge any useful content there. Smerdis of Tlön 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author seems to be actively trying for a dicdef. I don't think there is any useful content, per nom, so I recommend delete as unsalvageable. If someone can salvage something to merge per Smerdis, of course, please feel free. GRuban 13:46, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetster[edit]

Advert. Non-notable. Around 80 Google hits. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete this ad.. It is legitimate and informational. I am the creator of the ad, new to Wikipedia, I was editing the article in multiple windows when the "delete" ad notice appeared.Thank you.
  • Delete advert, WP:BALLS refers. Stifle (talk) 23:52, 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aajonus Vonderplanitz[edit]

Aajonus Vonderplanitz was created last October by an anonymous user, 212.135.222.212. On January 28 it was nominated for deletion in a shared AFD, along with the related article Primal Diet (Mr. Vonderplanitz is apparently the inventor of Primal Diet). The AFD discussion concluded with a delete result applied to both articles, although Primal Diet was immediately recreated as a redirect to raw foods diet by one of the AFD participants. About 6 weeks after its deletion per AFD, Aajonus Vonderplanitz too was recreated (by an editor who was likely unaware of the previous versions and deletion). This recreation was speedily deleted, and the editor appealed for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. In this discussion, which I have just closed, a substantial majority felt that the speedy deletion should be reversed (± relisted on AFD for discussion). I am listing the page here as there are good arguments on both sides of the issue, and I hope we may come to a consensus on whether the subject merits an encyclopedic a entry. Regards —Encephalon 16:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete crank proponent of crank theory (including raw meat in a raw food diet, stating that it confers total health). Most references seem to be blatant promotion. Just zis Guy you know? 22:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to Wikipedia rule the truth of a theory has no importance respect to the presence of it in wikipedia. Aajonus Vonderplanitz has a strong (wide and stable-many years) base, mainly in California, plus his work is influencing raw food diet. Aajonus Vonderplanitz is very well known in raw food circles, and deserve his space on this encyclopedia. Was a major figure in changing the law in California legalizing raw milk and there are plenty of references to his work from his books to interviews he gave (and the legal papers of the previous trial). I also want to point out that there is a serious effort from User:JzG to keep this article and its sister primal diet article from appearing. While someone else (always a different person!) keeps on making it again. The presence of so many people who independently desire this article should be reason enough for it to be given a fair chance to exist long enough to collect the necessary information--Pietrosperoni 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a serious effort from me to keep all minor crackpot theories and their proponents from appearing on Wikipedia. I know you take this issue personally, the fact that some people are strongly non-neutral is one reason the articles are problematic in the first place, but do not make the mistake of believing that this particular crank theory gets any more attention from me than any other. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's a published author who's obviously had enough exposure to qualify under WP:BIO. Mangojuice 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Aajonus Vonderplanitz is a published author and his name frequently turns up in searches for raw food diet in major search engines. It would seem amiss if Wikipedia did not cover this person. Also there are people who adhere to this raw food diet. This diet is not mainstream and that in itself makes it interesting enough to warrant keeping it so that it can be available to people who want to find out more about it. Admittedly the Wikipedia article on this needs work, references and etc, but more time is needed to do that properly. Gtlim75 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Aajonus Vonderplanitz has a valid California nutritionist's license and he has very practical nutritional protocols that work excellently for a large proportion of people with whom he consults. I have been eating his raw food diet for over 8 years and have greatly improved health as a result. His gound-breaking and far-sighted work merits a place in Wikipedia.-=thetasig=- 21:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crackpot, but notable as such in my opinion. Article will probably need constant monitoring to make sure it's not de-NPOVed. -Colin Kimbrell 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable crackpot. The presence of an article on a marginal theory does not endorse the validity of that theory. This guy has generated just enough noise to make himself interesting, if unbelievable. Xoloz 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Good thing I checked the article again! No one notified me that it had been relisted. I started the article (apparently for the second time, as I had no idea it had been started and deleted previously), therefore obviously I support keeping. BTW, IMHO while Vonderplanitz certainly might have some unusual ideas (at least from some individuals' perspectives), he is certainly not a "crackpot." Just misunderstood. ;) SouthernComfort 21:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone else stated he is a published author that meets the criteria that is listed under WP:BIO. As the article now stands it briefly tells who Aajonus is and does not promote his diet. It seems quite objective at this time and should be monitered to make sure it stays objective. The person asking for it to be deleted claims that it is a "crank theory." In science, theories are not proven, they are disproven. Please disprove with "neutral" evidence.DJCupples 23:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject appears to satisfy the inclusion guidelines at WP:BIO, barely. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 14 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John E.L. Tenney[edit]

This appears to be an autobiographical article (contributed by Jtenney) that does not satisfy WP:BIO. Verifiable (130 Google hits) but none appear to be from widely circulated independent media or mainstream websites. The incident described with candidate George W. Bush could possibly be viewed as “notoriety for involvement in newsworthy events” if it can be shown that this was reported in the media. However, on balance, this article seems to be an attempt by the author to gain notoriety for himself and possibly enhance his marketability on the lecture circuit. Accurizer 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. I didn't see the Bush incident Accurizer mentioned in the article, but as far as I can tell it was never reported in the mainstream media outlets, just a few UFO research websites. Otherwise I don't see any WP:V sourcing. Offer a userfy since it appears to be an autobio.--Isotope23 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The incident with George Bush was described on a UFO website that I found when trying to verify the article, see [33]. Accurizer 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 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 speedy delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great river school[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- This page is vanity and irrelevant Bill Sayre 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)-- blue520 16:47, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KERRIE[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- Non-notable, advertisement? Bill Sayre 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)-- blue520 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spam. Sandstein 17:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete web site artist with no particular notability claimed. Can't find wrestling career of "Aussie Blonde Bombshell WWE" on google. Should cite verifiable sources if any exist. Weregerbil 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't claiming a wrestling career. Kotepho 20:57, 10 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 Speedy nonsense DELETE Just another star in the night T | @ | C 17:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F10 Crew[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- Nonsense article, delete, wow I am owning today! that must be at least 4! Bill Sayre 15:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)-- blue520 16:51, 10 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 Speedy delete per your choice of a half-dozen CSDs. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Yates[edit]

non-notable, vanity, delete Bill Sayre 15:20, 10 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 Speedy delete as an attempt to communicate with someone. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haydon, Somerset[edit]

Nonsense, vanity? delete it Bill Sayre 15:26, 10 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Figgeroa[edit]

slander, bad jokes, etc. deleteBill Sayre 15:45, 10 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 Speedy delete as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The art of touching yourself[edit]

Nonsense, bad jokes? ok, I'll admit I laughed at it, but it's not for an encyclopedia Bill Sayre 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - CSD G3, vandalism.--blue520 15:37, 10 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 Speedy delete - patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Sezame[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- Nonsense, delete, just telling it like it is Bill Sayre 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)-- blue520 16:53, 10 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 speedy delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party institutionalization[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- redundant Bill Sayre 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC))-- blue520 16:55, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seditio[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- Advertisement, delete Bill Sayre 15:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)-- blue520 16:57, 10 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 Speedy Delete.--Adam (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred evensen[edit]

Non listed AfD, step 3 not completed. User nomination was -- -Delete :Article is too short. Anonymous anonymous 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC) blue -- 520 17:15, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lessno[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:WEB, WP:NOT (advertisement)

Advert for non-notable website that was created last week (see history). Sandstein 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and thank you zzuuzz for marking it unsinged.--blue520 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just updated the page so it is more down to the facts - all of them can easily be verified. Yes, I am involved in this website but I also think it is a usefull website and therefore deserves it's little page on Wikipedia just like the bigger travel search engines do. Regarding the low Alexa ranking... but, of course, a site launched so recently will not have millions of visitors daily. Did wikipedia.com or even google.com had a giant number of visitors in their first weeks of life??? Nedyalko Terziev 16:04, 12 April 2006 (EST)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a fine website. I've used it already and deserves a place here as any other. Nikolai Tasev 15:28, 14 April 2006 (EST)
This user's only contribution is to this AfD. Sandstein 12:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is encyclopaedia, it's purpose is to record the effect a thing has on the world, not to produce an effect. Create an article after the site becomes encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 13:22, 15 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of density estimation[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOR

Er, is this textbook original research or what? Either that or copyvio. Sandstein 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination.--Isotope23 17:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Septentrionalis 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain The page gives a useful illustration of density estimation, thus supplementing the parent entry. Given that it fulfils that purpose it should not be disqualified through the use of real data, which is published. [email protected] 23:28 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, eXtreme original research. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 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 was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Price Card[edit]

First nom. In the 3 months since this was on AFD, nothing has changed. It still reads like an ad. Wikipedia is not a directory, or an inidscriminate collection of information. Extremely strong delete Ardenn 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Usgnus 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it is today (I did some cleanup), I'm changing to Neutral. --Usgnus 04:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It needs work but it's a national and very well-known program across Canada. Retailers everywhere have the SPC sign on their cash registers. BoojiBoy 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I agree, the artical does need a lot of work. But as Boojiboy said, it is a very well-known national program. I'll see what I can do. -Royalguard11Talk 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up before this AfD ends. Right now it sounds like an advert for the card. Kimchi.sg 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I've tried to do some cleanup on the article. I know it does need somemore though. -Royalguard11Talk 20:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. The reasons given for deletion seem a wee bit hyperbolic, but the article is quite a mess, what with the large number of templates tacked on to this article, practically screaming out for attention. Nevertheless, the subject matter has some encyclopedic value. If people like Royalguard11 spend time on it, it seems to me that this is salvagable. If not, no great loss. Agent 86 20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the criteria for products and services in WP:CORP. Moreover, it had a major "overhaul" on July 12 (according to the history), but it still reads like an advertisement. --Skeezix1000 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up, especially bearing in mind that the cleanup contemplated by two of the people in the last AFD doesn't seem to be evident. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Look, I wrote this page because the Student Price Card program is widely accepted in places throughout Canada and deserves to be acknowleaged. This is my first fully written article, so if it needs to go, it needs to go. Spyco 06:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to contact members from various Canadian city wikiprojects and see if they can help. We have made it cler that the SPC program is well known throughout Canada. I've been asked by many travellers what SPC stands for. Now that we know that most say keep, let's just expand on it, shall we? Spyco 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep I agree that this is a well known national program (thus notable) but that this article needs lots of work. Add clean up tag, don't delete. Quepasahombre 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris carrington[edit]

No assertion or reference/source for "regional fame". Does not appear to meet WP:BIO nor WP:BAND. Was deleted once before from another article ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:04, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HomeBulletin.net Moving Directory[edit]

Advertising.➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete perhaps I was a bit quick in listing it as a speedy though Robdurbar 18:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable. ...Scott5114 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created as part of a spam run. --GraemeL (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. Fails WP:WEB. Spam. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous last words[edit]

  • del. It is for the already existing Wikiquote:Last words, pure and simple. Completely nonencyclopedic content. there is also a verifiability problem. Nothing is referenced. Nearly all contributors are anons. A large infusion was made on April 1 and no one bothered to double check the incoming bullshit. `'mikka (t) 18:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Wikiquote:Last words can be expanded, if required. There is no need to replicate information.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge. Why sort through 4/1 nonsense? Danny Lilithborne 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect only because "famous last words" is a well-known phrase, although perhaps slightly OT. ProhibitOnions 15:55, 11 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animenfo.com[edit]

This is spam that fails WP:BIO WP:WEB. It was marked as speedy, which I removed because it doesn't qualify as a speedeletion candidate. I PRODded it, and the prod was removed with an overhaul of the article, but it still doesn't make it, IMO. JDoorjam Talk 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Forum looks busy enough, but without verifiable notability, non-notable enough to delete per WP:WEB. Google only shows one hit ↑. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • abstain. I defer to superior knowledge of the subject. Could still do with some sources and references. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a correct link to a google search. It shows 562,000 hits for me. Beltz 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa rank: 14,019. The fact that Google only shows one hit is likely because Google is directing the name to the most likely domain that matches. "Animenfo.com" (note the quotes), however, will get you a 399K Ghits. In any case, this is a significant and high-traffic otaku site.--み使い Mitsukai 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Along with Anime News Network's Encyclopedia and Anidb.info, AnimeNfo.com is one of the most referenced websites for anime information. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can you dig up a reference or two for that? I think this article's biggest current weakness is a lack of cited, verifiable claims of notability. JDoorjam Talk 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AnimeSuki almost always links to it to provide information about an anime series. When searching an anime title on Google, the page is usually the first or second real information or nonfan page listed along with ANN's Encyclopedia. A Google search for "AnimeNfo" excluding AnimeNfo.com results in 225,000 hits—compared to 228,000 for "AnimeSuki", 225,000 for "Anidb", and 27,210 for "Anime News Network Encyclopedia"/"ANN Encyclopedia". --TheFarix (Talk) 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheFarix and how is this supposed to meet WP:BIO? You can probably find some references in Newtype and such. Kotepho 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TheFarix. pfahlstrom 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all keep comments above. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this website is very notable, and fits criterias parallel to that of imdb, gamespot or other important media database websites. Beltz 13:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have been dealing with anime and manga suppliers and references across the internet for the last $DEITY knows how long, and I had never heard of it until it popped up on here. Shows you how popular it is :) In accordance with JDooram, I do remind you that even in its present condition, this article fails WP:WEB Thor Malmjursson 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? I've know of this site for ages and I'm always run across it when searching for information about an anime. Now it has gone through a redesign a few months ago (from the old blue and white to the current gray and black) and when I first saw the new layout, I thought it was an entirely different website. As for the current state of the article, everyone appears to be waiting for the results of this AfD before doing any more edits the article. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am perfectly sure. If you read the criteria for Web Content on WP:WEB, IMO at least, it does not match up to any of the 3 main criteria. 1: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - 2:The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. - 3: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. And on top of that, the article must prove that it matches one of those 3 criteria, which from what I can see, it hasn't done so. Thor Malmjursson 12:07, 15 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 keep Misplaced nomination. `'mikka (t) 19:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Moya y de Contreras[edit]

This title contains a not-likely-to-be-duplicated typo. There is no "y" in the man's name. This is a redirect page, and the actual article exists under the correct name. Rbraunwa 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination is erroneous. Please look into WP:RFD. By the way, there is quite a few google hits for this "not-likely" typo. `'mikka (t) 19:16, 10 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 no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Steele credit report incident[edit]

A minor "incident" in a minor campaign. It is more than adequately covered in a single paragraph in Michael Steele, it doesn't need its own slightly-larger-than-one-paragraph article. I attempted to merge, but the article's author objected, claming it is an "ongoing investigation and current event". But this is pretty much history now and there is nothing left to happen; the relevant parties have been fired, quit, or pled guilty. Delete because there's nothing here that isn't or can't be covered in Michael Steele. Gamaliel 18:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep the plea agreement and the ongoing nature as well as the details warrant a separate article. There is no "paper" lost by having a separate article. Err on the side of caution and keep as separate article until completely resolved.--Tbeatty 19:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Tbeatty, though I think it'd be better off merged into the main article.--み使い Mitsukai 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is virtually a recreation, under a new name, of an article which was just deleted yesterday, Lauren B. Weiner. This brief material does deserves to be covered, but in the Michael Steele article (where it already is). Relatively short articles, such as Steele's, should cover cover important events in that person's life. A brief sub-article, like this, is useful only if the topic warrants enough discussion that it would be unwieldy in the main article. This sub-article is just a couple paragraphs, and there is no real prospect of expansion. It's not a matter of wasting "paper", but of having a coherent organizational structure for articles; it is counterproductive to write a physically distinct article for every minor incident for every minor figure. It belongs in the main article. Derex 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merged the details, sans Weiner, into this article as was stated in the delete log. This sub-article touches on two things that makes a better separate article 1) DSCC practices and 2) Michael Steele. This should be mentioned on both pages and it is just easier if it is kept as a separate article. It is much more difficult to keep up with details across two articles. This is the whole concept of "main article" referencing. --Tbeatty 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you actually moved all of the material from the deleted Weiner article there. I deleted a bunch of that, like her alma mater. What's left is about a paragraph. If we made every paragraph into its own article, wikipedia would be pretty hard to read. Derex 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: there is a similar article on Katie Barge, another player in this incident. If Lauren B. Weiner's article was removed per AfD, Barge's article should be considered, too. - Rynne 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's in the Michael Steele article, and that is totally sufficient. Ziggurat 20:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "paper" lost by having a separate article. Using this logic, let's remove every section from every article and make them all their own articles. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a serious breach against a notable person. Merecat 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aplomado. It's notable, but sufficiently covered in Steele's article. GRuban 13:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pertinant information is already included in Michael Steele. - Rynne 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Mention in Michael Steele if desired. Stifle (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge'. Kappa 10:00, 15 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmeliel echo[edit]

A textbook case of original research. According to the article, the term was made up by the author. Dforest 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, textbook case of bad original research. Sandstein 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Research, schmesearch, it's a neologism, no source citations are provided to show any significant real use. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS, I guess. Stifle (talk) 23:18, 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 both. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Lederer, The Red Only (novel)[edit]

Non-notable/vanity/etc. See google results for this name[34]. "Richard Lederer" matches are not him. JackO'Lantern 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Lederer was in, Filmmaker magazine, 2004. October issue, interview. [35]
He IS a real film-maker, and The Red Only is an [unreleased] novel, set to be published in January 23rd, 2007.
bikeable (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - come back when the film and novel are released. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreement - That sounds reasonable. I'll bring the proof and stuff when the film & novel are released. sounds cool, al'right talk to you later. TheRedtypewriter
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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}}, I guess. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy[edit]

  • del. A nobody rappper. `'mikka (t) 19:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity Where (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete this article now...ur just gonna have to do more work when he comes out with his own single and album and type all that shit over again...trust me...he won't fade..and even though he is a nobody right now...he won't be for long — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.92.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:BAND. I'll take the chance, as I for one will certainly not be the one to type this in again. Sandstein 21:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. If he does take off, feel free to re-add. Danny Lilithborne 05:00, 11 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autointoxication[edit]

Dictionary definition of material already covered in Colon hydrotherapy, medically questionable concept, appears to be plagiarized from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9252839&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum Brian G. Crawford 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete copyvio, tagged it.  RasputinAXP  c 19:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Send it to copyright problems, it is over 48 hours old.--Adam (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put the proper tag on it.--Adam (talk) 20:03, 10 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catamaran Construction[edit]

Contains original work and advertisement Alex 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Might make for an interesting article about Catamarans but this is more advertising than an objective overview of the subject. Change to keep and cleanup if the article can be rewritten in the next five days.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a lot of useful content, if you want to remove the advertising use the 'edit' button not AFD. Kappa 09:58, 15 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 Speedily deleted by Alabamaboy as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parranda cruise[edit]

Uh, we don't have a speedy for this, but non-notable boat. I don't think I'd ever have expected to say THAT in a nomination. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, You might want to check out the authors other contributions. Seems to be all sales copy, and probably worth of deletion too.Orangutan 20:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speedy delete the article b/c it is a copyright violation (in addition to being linkspam).--Alabamaboy 15:41, 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 Deleted by Rmhermen at 21.54.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apple computer pranks[edit]

Listcruft (well, not yet, but will be). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:55, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men Who Have Defeated The Undertaker[edit]

This little bit of trivial information doesn't warrent it's own article. At the most, it should be merged into the Undertaker article because alone the article isnt encyclopedic enough to hold it's own. If it's not important enough to keep; then delete. Moe ε 20:03, 10 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 keep (as per concensus). — FireFox • T [18:42, 12 April 2006]

Donkey punch[edit]

This is a very problematic page that violates WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:WINAD. Let me state that I am not at all motivated by any desire to censor Wikipedia. There are plenty of sex articles I would never dream of deleting, because they have been properly documented in psychiatric and medical literature. This is different. I'm nominating this because its existence clearly violates policy, and it is a very attractive target to vandals. I also don't like having what are supposed to be factual articles that are filled with speculation, fiction, and outright lies. A couple of days ago, this was added to the article:

"The most unique and hilarious variation, however, is the one where it is said that immediately upon being punched, the partner taking it up the ass contracts so forcefully, the active partner's penis is ejected three winks prior to ejaculation. At this critical juncture, a delicate BABY is also evacuated, and it immediately begins to eS the Dee of the repudiated partner to finish him off. If the baby is a good girl, she will swallow. Male babies never never nerver swallow. Good luck to everyone!"

I don't know what kind of person it takes to come up with this stuff, but I suspect it's not the kind of person we need to write articles. I've tried to edit out the fiction, but without any success. One user repeatedly puts back information that he really can't be bothered to provide sources for. Other editors have repeatedly removed the information, and it has been put back. One such piece of information is the idea that punching someone hard enough in the back will cause their rectum to prolapse and form a so-called "pink sock." I'm not a physician, but I know that simply being punched does not cause rectal prolapse. I'd like to see this article deleted, but perhaps it and its kind could be put on one page, perhaps titled sexual urban legends, to make it easier to monitor vandalism, to give all these terms context, and to limit the amount of trivial references to movies, cartoons, TV shows, and video games each one inevitably attracts. At any rate, I'm done with this article. Monitoring it and others like it is a thankless job, and no one seems to care anyway about whether it is factual or not. Comments directed at me personally during this discussion will not be answered on this page, and should instead be directed to my talk page where they will be promptly ignored. People crying "censorship!" will not be taken seriously. Brian G. Crawford 20:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep your laziness in not wanting to vandal patrol is not a reason to delete an article. A simple google shows the term is quite frequently used and as such BELONGS on wikipedia. Stop being lazy and verify the damn thing rather than spending the time to rant on AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 20:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep indeed. WP:AFD is not a soapboax. Vandalism is a problem in every facet of Wikipedia, and we already have tools to deal with it. Deletion is not one of those tools. Silensor 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a very well-known phrase/concept, and is appropriate to Wikipedia. The vandalsim you quote is irrelevant to whether or not that article should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford has repeatedly attempted to blank and remove this article. — Linnwood 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening debate to gather a wider concensus, seeing as I closed it too early the first time. — FireFox • T [21:46, 11 April 2006]
  • Keep. Consensus seems to already be established; if Brian isn't interested in watching the article, I'm sure others can take over. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI Brian G. Crawford has deleted his Wikipedia account over this matter. — Linnwood 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep, bad faith nom. Could do with more references though. Badgerpatrol 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Cleveland steamer, Dirty sanchez, et al into Invented extreme sex acts or something of the sort. Since nobody can find any documentation for these acts being carried out (and people referring to them with these phrases) anytime before they became a popular internet meme, it's about time we started treating them not as legitimate phrases that any sexual researcher would use, but as the toilet humor they were intended to be.GT 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'm not convinced that this should have been re-nominated so soon (arguably a bad faith nomination), so currently support the previous decision. Fourohfour 17:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this is truely ridiculous. It's a common term, and one of the many reasons people love wikipedia. Themindset 17:37, 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 redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Street Hall[edit]

Vanity Cceleung 20:47, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Hecker[edit]

Non-notable salesman Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - The only dealersjip owners that I consider to be really notable are Mike Piazza and John Elway. Who knows though, some of these car dealers make such asses out of themselves in TV commercials that probably everyone in Minnesota knows his name.Montco
  • Delete - In my mind, if one's level of notability is "Locally Annoying TV Guy", probably nn. MarcoTolo 01:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to be verifiable or pass WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 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 speedy recreation of deleted nonsense article by the same hoaher. The author is warned. `'mikka (t) 21:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Turner[edit]

Unverifiable, does not google, unsourced. Prod'ed, tag removed by original contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 21:18, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Pageantry[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOR, WP:NOT (whatever this is)

Just silly blather. I guess original research comes closest. PROD contested, of course.Sandstein 21:19, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid lurker[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:WEB, WP:VAIN, WP:NOT (web directory, crystal ball)

Vanitycruft about a no-name website that's not even up yet. Sandstein 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del nn. `'mikka (t) 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. -- Scientizzle 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indeed the site haven't been up yet, but we got up and steady forum board ready for new users, while waiting for the main site to launch. Koppy 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--blue520 23:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many good things have come from this forum, such as the infamous relationship between forumite's Azimio and PinKkFloyDd. Are you serious? Delete this nonsense. Aplomado - UTC 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MarcoTolo 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh c'mon, the forum is up and the site will be too very shortly and do you have no sense of humour Aplomado? Seriously. CKY 00:08 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of. And speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This user does have a sense of humour (with a u!) but still insists that articles must be about notable subjects. The only notable matter here is that CKY removed the AfD tag from the article. -- RHaworth 08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to be a speedy (A7 applies to people or groups of people, this is a website), but see also WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.67.190 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment LOL! I have no idea. If it could be demonstrated that Liquid Lurker is notable I would be happy to enter a keep vote in the spirit of assuming good faith, but I don't see anything that would justify my vote and I would end up looking like I am not acting in good faith. Likewise, I cannot enter a delete vote because it is possible this is notable. Not trying to disrupt anything, I only came here in part of my routine of checking up on new users (User:CKY) who I have welcomed to Wikipedia. --ElectricEye 08:41, 14 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dale_M._Houstman[edit]

  • Delete, Non-notable, vanity, and promotion.

Dale Michael Houstman is non-notable and unknown to be accepted for an article on Wikipedia. Anyone can get their creative work, poems, writings, etc, published for a fee and placed online. Upon reading the article, this Dale Michael Houstman has posted to Usenet newsgroups, does not make him a credible topic for inclusion on Wikipedia either. The article subject, Dale Michael Houstman is so unknown, I cannot find any legitimate reference sources to validate this person or their work. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place for promotion, nor is it to be used as a shortcut to being considered as noteworthy. Classicjupiter2 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator --Strothra 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The books he claims to have written are not listed on Amazon.com. Seano1 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is a rather clear case of vanity. Danny Lilithborne 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but drastically rework. Article is too subjective. Nomination is incoherent and self-contradicting in a number of ways. Statement "[a]nyone can get their [sic] creative work... published for a fee and placed online" doesn't make sense because implication seems to be that publication of creative work is in print form (particularly where this involves fee), so what is the connexion to placing it online? Furthermore, summary dismissal of self-published items (this is begging a question that I think might not be correct in this case) doesn't acknowledge that many prominent works of the past were initially self-published -- this claim (if indeed it is intended to be applied to Houstman, which I'm assuming) needs both source citation and a more rigourous analysis. That Houstman has "posted to Usenet newsgroups" is completely irrelevant to this article, or at least I'm missing the connexion. Also note that Classicjupiter2 has never seen fit to explain what he means by "legitimate reference sources" (he really just uses this as a shorthand for reference sources he likes). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable birthday coincidences[edit]

I really don't know what to say. Listcruft-to-be? How many notable birthday coincidences can there be? Is two people being born on the same day notable? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nip it in the bud before someone creates a bot and we find out some large number of barely notable teeny bopper artists and teeny bopper athletes share birthdates. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -- Scientizzle 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln: February 12, 1809." There you have it people, the complete list. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No...just no. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I just added another one. Abeg92 12:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what on earth is notable about Wolf Blitzer and Andrew Lloyd Webber sharing a birthday?! [smacks forehead] -- Scientizzle 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research and a list set up just for the sake of having such a list, and apparently of interest to only a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN since it made me literally LOL. 1) Wolf Blitzer is funny by default. I mean, it HAS to be a joke... Roodog2k 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per stifle. irrelevant. Munckin 07:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete all as blatant copyvios. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse cruise, Alta cruise, Galapagos Explorer II, Lammer Law cruise, Isabela II cruise, Beluga cruise[edit]

Relevant policies: WP:NOT (advertising), WP:C

Wikipedia is not a gloss brochure for cruise ships. Likely adverts and/or copyvios from various sources, just search for any text. Sandstein 21:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speedy delete all of these article because they are all copyright violations. This editor has been warned before about doing this and, as such, I will be blocking them for 24 hours.--Alabamaboy 15:43, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReZ_,_AZIF_,_Morris_,_1_/_Wan_/_One_,_Asif_,_Mosieur_Rezwan[edit]

Unnotable subject, not encylopedic, strange title. no idea what this is about really Ianb 21:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This thing is a mess--a rambling essay about a completely non-notable subject. -- Scientizzle 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:PN. Danny Lilithborne 05:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense although not patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 00:08, 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 equal consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-African[edit]

Where to begin? This article is a highly POV fork of articles such as Whites in Zimbabwe and Culture of South Africa, packed with unreferenced original research. Much of it is a possible copyvio, lifted straight from here - my attempt to clean up earlier today were rv almost immediately without comment. The term Anglo-African itself is a non-notable neologism: no entry in my 1996 Oxford Dictionary of South African English and, while it garners an impressive number of Ghits [42] I cannot find any relevant ones apart from Wiki mirrors and Urbandictionary entries. The article itself states that the phrase "Anglo-African" originated with Luke Jones, who appears to be both Rukaluka (talk • contribs) and 84.69.76.113 (talk • contribs) and is probably also the user Ruks who submitted the phrase to Urbandictionary and the owner of the website here linked to from the article. So that's original research, advertising, vanity and lack of notability/neologism. - Humansdorpie 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I won't comment on the content/POV issues, as this is not a matter for AfD. Note also that "Anglo-African" does seem to get some Ghits in a historical context. However, the article (as good as it looks at first glance) does appear to be a composite of WP:POVFORKs and original research (WP:OR). It also lacks (WP:RS), plus its forky cobbled-together nature is evidenced by nuggets such as "Ja, I smaak it!". So delete unless sources turn up. Sandstein 04:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork / original research. — mark ✎ 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain/Keep - Sorry, I'm not sure what the right protocol is. Maybe it's just "Don't delete"? :) I've just read over the article, and it is terrible - lots of POV, is very badly written in parts. BUT I think it's an interesting topic, and deserves to be tidied up rather than deleted. Unless there's already a better one on English-speaking South Africans?

Joziboy 12 April 2006, 21:21 (UTC)

  • Retain/Keep If we're going to stop racism, we need to identify the roots of everybody. Munckin 06:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also found an orphan article called European - Africans (now renamed) - this could be a good place to move salvageable content from Anglo African. Humansdorpie 13:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds fine. Although it might be nice to retain the separate articles since there is template of the various ethnic groups of South Africa and English-speakers shouldn't be left out. White Africans, while obviously more than only Anglo Africans, is a name I've heard used a lot more than Anglo Africans. Joziboy 13 April 2006, 13:59 (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 nobody declared anything; relisted on 15 April AfD page. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate_strategy_development_method, Organization design, Business planning[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with SP-KP that some contextual analysis could be entered in the entries of the Method Engineering Wikipedia Project, but I see no reason why this whole project and all the articles should be deleted (according to the opinion of Sandstein). Wikipedia is indeed a free web host and a Wikiproject such as the scientific-based Method Engineering helps to reach the much-wanted high quality on Wikipedia. I see absolutely no reason to delete this, just because of the fact that it is a scientific-based project. Written by Dwolfs 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The consensually accepted policy WP:NOT states clearly that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and nothing else. I hasten to assure you that we value your contributions to the encyclopedia. As per the consensually accepted policy WP:NOR, though, original research is forbidden. Please read those links. Sandstein 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles at the Wikiproject are indeed not original research, and I've retracted my nomination to delete the project page. The three articles at issue here, however, are WP:OR insofar as they seem to propose a method for specific business activities in a "how-to" manner, instead of encyclopedically describing a specific notable standard procedure. Maybe this could be amended, but note that WP:NOT also states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, it says that Wikipedia is not for "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." Maybe Wikibooks would be more suitable than Wikipedia for this content. Sandstein 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet convinced that these three articles deserve separate treatment from the project as a whole. I propose we move the discussion to the project deletion proposal. SP-KP 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a happy ending after all, considering the fact that Sandstein retracted his nomination to delete the project page. Dwolfs 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "hold on" comment there though. We still need to work this one through. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the concerns I've raised at the project deletion proposal. SP-KP 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the Wikiproject and its articles (specifically, the three at issue here) merit separate discussion. The Wikiproject now seems (to me) to be a bona fide attempt to organise encyclopedic contributions. As such, it can stay even if many of its articles need verification, cleanup or deletion, as you noted in the MfD discussion. Let's focus on these articles' issues here. Sandstein 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in saying that the deletion proposal for these three articles can be withdrawn? So we can focus on the points for improvent in style, content or maybe even language? Dwolfs 08:30, 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 no consensus; keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Western[edit]

Content is already available at South West Trains. RFBailey 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Talks about a possible merger, but WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sandstein 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, that the franchises will be merged has been announced by the DfT, with invitations issued to bidders. See [43]. The content that is currently at South West Trains should really be moved here to save duplicating it at the Island Line, Isle of Wight article. Thryduulf 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current franchises are both due to expire in early 2007. There has been comment that the new franchise is going to be South Western as it covers the SW region. This article shows the definte merger and also shows there is a need for expansion. The merger IS going to happen. This article is not predicting, it is showing... Simply south 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I know that the merger is definitely going to happen (that wasn't my point). As the new franchise is essentially just incorporating the Island Line into the South West Trains franchise, and there is a full description of what's going to happen can be found at the SWT page, so this article is just duplicating that information. --RFBailey 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the information should be in this article rather than at South West Trains. If Stagecoach win the franchise and continue to run it under the South West Trains brand then it would probably make sense to merge it into that article. However, speculating on who will win the franchise and what the brand name of it will be is crystal ballism. Thryduulf 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no point in having this article until the process is sorted and we know what exactly the full details of the new franchise are (such as who's going to operate it, what it'll be called etc). Using Southeastern as an example, that was kept as a section on the South Eastern Trains article until the new company was virtually up and running. At the moment, it'd be much better to keep what few details are known as sections on the South West Trains and Island Line pages. Hammersfan 12/04/06, 18.45 BST
  • Keep, likely search term, if the details are better somewhere else should be a soft redirect. Kappa 09:52, 15 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 keep - passes WP:MUSIC. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flaw[edit]

Delete. Decent article on describing the band but the band seems to have contributed little to nothing major to music or its genre. The band is not notable and the article actually tells why the band is not notable. Many bands try to make it get to a very low level of prominance then fail miserably. This one is not special. Strothra 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable band #3,893,321,620 listed in Wikipedia. Aplomado - UTC 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defunct minor band. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unknown Blink484 22:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was not totally unknown, was played on mainstream radio, and at least the first of its albums was quite popular. In an interview with Chris, he notes, "Almost every show has sold out and were getting a chance to play a lot of cities that we haven't been to yet." Indeed, the band was up there touring with the big names and even used the same producer as Tool. I know it's not the most successful band in history, but I would think this is enough influence to be worth a Wikipedia article. Wild Bill (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two albums on a major label passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 09:51, 15 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Shirley[edit]

This vanity page is of a non-notable composer. "Jacob Shirley" composer search in Google gives 10 or so non-Wiki hits. Article was created by Mjmartin7, a name suspiciously similar to Shirley's collaborator, Michael J. Martin. Not unrelated, the entry for Michael J. Martin was created by a user named Jshirley. I will also list Michael J. Martin for deletion. -- Scientizzle 22:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "His music reached a wider audience when he composed the theme for the Fiction Factory's production of In Search of Lost Time, which was aired on BBC Radio 4 in spring 2005." This is his biggest claim to fame? Delete. Aplomado - UTC 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Martin[edit]

This vanity page is of a non-notable composer. "Michael J. Martin" composer search in Google gives 170 or so non-Wiki hits. Article was created by Jshirley, a name suspiciously similar to Martin's collaborator, Jacob Shirley. Not unrelated, the entry for Jacob Shirley was created by a user named Mjmartin7. -- Scientizzle 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm sure some low-level production company would be impressed by this resume, as for the rest of us I can't imagine who would give a damn. Aplomado - UTC 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Jshirley. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 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 and WP:BJAODN. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton's paradoxical quandary[edit]

This does not exist on Google outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. I also searched for anecdotalism, but the results appeared to all be about anecdotes, except an odd Geocities site. Finally, this appears to be Gregory C. Hundemer, the father of Anecdotalism. -- Kjkolb 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to Dalton's Paradoxical Quandary (referred to by followers as DPQ) anything imaginable and unimaginable both exists and does not exist at the same moment in the same plane as us." Huh?? Delete this as a likely hoax. Aplomado - UTC 22:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, move to BJAODN: That way it both exists and does not exist in the same plane as Wikipedia. Peter Grey 05:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five.Bolt.Main[edit]

This is nothing more than a pamphlet. Aplomado - UTC 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, vanity -RayaruB 00:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded this in Feb, nothing changed on the page since then has changed my mind MNewnham 18:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carama[edit]

Vanity page, non-notable vocal instructor, only 204 google hits, I can't see any real reason to keep this article--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 08:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable person, vanity article. JIP | Talk 09:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think a Juilliard faculty position is a strong sign of notability, and there is solid evidence he's viewed as notable in his field: [44] [45] [46] This isn't a field that Google covers well; 204 hits is pretty good. There's a big world out there that isn't well-represented online. Monicasdude 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:02, 6 April 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!— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has lots of credentials and if controversial in his field. Seano1 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has POV issues and fails to meet standards set in WP:PROFTEST. It is pointless to use Google as a determining factor in AfD debate. If the individual is notable then update the article accordingly. If the article cannot stand on its own merit then delete it. The article must properly cite any claims to notability.--Strothra 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but needs to get rid of all that "great acclaim" stuff. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. please note that the article still fails to meet WP:PROFTEST and that POV issued added to that make this article a very strong candidate for deletion.--Strothra 15:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article author to support a keep Comment left above is erronious, I believe that Fred Carama does indeed pass the WP:PROFTEST and I describe as follows: --Having held full professorships at no less than four accredited and prestigious universities, as well as a top-ranked summer school/festival, qualifies Carama as an expert in his field, in that each of these independent schools thought enough of him to pay him handsomely for his expertise. --Carama is indeed held in high esteem by others in his field: a current vocal instructor at The Juilliard School (arguably the most prestigious US conservatory), Robert White, is a STUDENT of Carama's and famed American mezzo-soprano Marilyn Horne consistently refers young singers to Carama and believes him to be the greatest teacher teaching today. I am a good source on this subject as I know Mr. White and Ms. Horne personally. If you are unsure of Horne's credentials, check out her own large wikipedia article! --Carama has been teaching for over 25 years and has taught hundreds of singers, a few of the most successful ones are listed in the article, as well as the aforementioned Robert White. As for POV, I have mentioned that he is controversial and not acclaimed by all. massenetique

You need to cite these claims you are making using INDEPENDENT sources. Also, there is not evidence that Robert White is a notable individual. --Strothra 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable. Clean up tag maybe? JeffBurdges 14:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof test[edit]

  1. The person is regarded as an expert in their area by independent sources. No evidence is given.
  2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. No evidence is given.
  3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). No evidence is given.
  4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work. No evidence is given.
  5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. No evidence is given.
  6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements. No evidence is given.
  7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. Perhaps, this needs to be confirmed by INDEPENDENT sources.
  8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. No evidence has been given.

You need to cite your claims with independent sources IN the article. Not simply in the discussion. Your article has far more POV problems than simply stating he's not liked by everyone. No one is liked by everyone. I already removed one POV when you stated that some of his students have gone on to "great acclaim." That was very obviously subjective. --Strothra 15:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of sources. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps you could cite any part of the Wikipedia deletion policy which supports this as grounds for deletion. I would be surprised, however, the policy calls for a good-faith attempt to locate sources and improve articles, with deletion as the last resort. Monicasdude 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are the one assuming bad faith. I have attempted to find sources which would establish this individual as notable and could find none which succesfully met Wiki guidelines. It seems that other in this deletion discussion have done so as well. Please do not insult other users by assuming bad faith in their deletion efforts to clean up Wikipedia. --Strothra 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Please stop distorting what I said. I described the applicable policy -- and you do not dispute the accuracy of my description -- as requiring good faith effort to find sources. The post I commented on called for deleting the article without making any effort to find sources. I didn't allege bad faith in any way; I pointed out that the post was inconsistent with governing Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 03:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You insinuated that other editors were violating Wiki policy and committed a bad faith deletion in that they did not seek sources to improve the article. You stated "I would be surprised, however, the policy calls for a good-faith attempt to locate sources and improve articles, with deletion as the last resort." Thus implying bad faith. The user apparently found no sources to mark this individual as notable and thus found that there was nothing to contribute and rightfully voted for deletion. There is no violation of Wiki policy in this vote. --Strothra 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Please stop distorting my comments. I was responding to Stifle's comments, which do not conform to the consensus deletion policy. Monicasdude 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stroha. Ben Aveling 10:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. Kappa 09:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please strong signs of notability Yuckfoo 06:30, 16 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Bill[edit]

Eagle Bill has played a very important role in the develpment of the vaporizer- system in general and has played an even bigger role in the promotion of vaporizing as an alternative to smoking (medical-)marijuana.

The 'crack pipe'(?) he disigned is available from Dutch pharmacies, and is recommended by physicians.

Thousands of people around the world know his name and respect his work!

Non-notable. Delete Arm 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has 24900 Google hits ("Eagle Bill"+Vaporizer has 14700 hits) and he seemes to be the inventor of the 'Eagle Bill vaporising system'. Notable for me Gu 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whats so notable about him? He created a vaporizer for marijuana that looks like a straight copy of a crack pipe. Having alot of Google hits isnt enough to justify a keep to me.--Arm 23:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NTK 21:31, 8 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arm's expanded comment, which should really have been given to start. "Non-notable" is a crap reason to call for deletion. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah your right Stifle. I always forget putting in the comments. --Arm 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a lot of the google hits appear to be third party sites discussing the product. Kappa 09:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep please many third parties discuss it Yuckfoo 06:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What third parties discuss Eagle Bill? And no, I dont mean commercial sites trying to sell something. Wikipedia is not an advertising space. --Arm 08:54, 16 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pow Sows[edit]

I restored an older version of the article. You may look into its history for some unwise decisions and what links to it. I am inclined to vote delete as a foreign dicdef, but I can change my vote to whatever smarter decision suggested. Also, IMO other language wikipedias must be notified about whatever decision is hade here, since it looks like that they simply translated this English version without much thought. mikka (t) 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless cleaned up and verified. Stifle 23:08, 31 March 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2Tuff[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC; not notable re Wikipedia criteria —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that my nomination is of the article as it stands, not the subject matter. If verification is provided for the touring claims, then we should keep it. If anyone knows someone in the DC area who might know about this band, it would be great to hear from them.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verification of international touring can be shown.--blue520 16:08, 6 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antenna selection[edit]

Appears to have been abandoned by its creator, and currently doesn't actually give information that its title suggests. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible merge? Is this information which could be rewritten and inserted into an article for antennas? George Bluth 16:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Text does not relate to title, and is poorly written, although it may be relevant to other article as per GB Bridesmill 17:22, 5 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravelly Shoal Light[edit]

National Weather Service station on Lake Huron. No claim to notability, only 34 Google hits. SCHZMO ✍ 19:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I think I will just withdraw this AfD nomination. SCHZMO ✍ 20:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have or will have articles on most every other lighthouse in Michigan. Besides that, it seems pretty inconsiderate that this article barely existed for before being nominated for deletion. That is just incredibly short-sighted. Whatever happend to {{prod}}? Addendum, not sure what Google search Schzmo is using, but I get 200 hits for "Gravelly Shoal Light", and 509 hits for "Gravelly Shoal Lighthouse". Not a huge number by any means, but not completely insignificant. older ≠ wiser 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deletion within seconds of creation is annoying, rude, and does not allow articles any chance to develop. For great justice. 19:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per nom. --Alan Au 20:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable weather station. No reason to have an article on each one of them. The deletion process includes weeding out entries about things that are not set apart for others of their general class. Johntex\talk 00:46, 6 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 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 keep and rename. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward 40's hands[edit]

Cruft--Zxcvbnm 21:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I actually think this is a notable enough drinking game. Very common. Not sure how I could verify whether it's common outside my region, but I've heard of this numerous times. Here, it's called "Edward 40-hands". Grandmasterka 03:40, 6 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the information and notability can be verified through the use of reliable, third-party sources. -- Saberwyn 11:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey... How's this for some sources! I will work on the article bit by bit. Grandmasterka 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, I wikified it and added a picture for starters. Also... If this gets kept it should probably get moved to Edward 40 hands. Grandmasterka 12:52, 11 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 13:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest (Mage Knight)[edit]

Cruft, possible copy+pasting--Zxcvbnm 22:00, 5 April 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!
— Rebelguys2 talk 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's majorly cleaned up. -- Grev 04:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably a copyvio as well; delete either way per WP:CRUFT. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 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 speedy keep. — Apr. 15, '06 [22:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Gay Nigger Association of America[edit]

Nonnotable troll organization. Rhodio 22:12, 15 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 keep.  Grue  13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Sessions (disambiguation)[edit]

Redundant to category. There were hundreds of sessions and many of those have been released on CD; if the recording justifies an article it belongs in the category. Delete. kingboyk 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Page moved from Peel Sessions to Peel Sessions (disambiguation) and AFD header updated, so editors can see "live" my alternate proposal. --kingboyk 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense, or if not, as listcruft. pm_shef 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On reflection I think this might be intended to be a dab page (so the red links and category membership should probably go). Although I'd prefer a redirect to John Peel and use of the category, it is hard to argue for the deletion of a dab page. I'd already raised the issue on Category talk:Artists who recorded Peel Sessions so hopefully some interested parties will turn up soon. --kingboyk 03:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Peel and keep the Category MLA 08:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - before I cleaned it up in March, there were a number of links to Peel Sessions, The Peel Sessions etc. for specific albums. The list isn't meant to be a list of all Peel sessions, just those that were released as albums under the title "Peel Sessions", and are likely to deserve articles one day. (I'm under the impression that this would number in the high tens or low hundreds, rather than the thousands of actual recordings.) It's a useful disambiguation page, and a redirect to John Peel won't do the job. The category and the list complement each other here (as the category doesn't show redlinks). However, I note that there is a longer list of releases on the Strange Fruit Records article - probably the two lists ought to be merged. — sjorford (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation page - we need some way to separate the articles. Perhaps move to Peel Sessions (disambiguation), even, to avoid confusion. Flowerparty? 13:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as dab page per kingboyk. - Rynne 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Chairman S. Talk 00:16, 16 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Winstein[edit]

He seems like an interesting guy and a very accomplished person;however, I'm not sure his accomplishments to date are significant enough to make him a noteworthy journalist or computer scientist according to the usual criteria for these subjects. For now, I recommend delete, but I think this is a particularly interesting case for AFD and I may change my mind based on ensuing discussion. C S (Talk) 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, i don't see anything more notable than 10000 other mit alumni that aren't listed, give the gentleman a few years to develop his fame and then he can might qualify.--Buridan 11:52, 5 April 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!
-Obli (Talk)? 23:40, 10 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 Speedy delete -Obli (Talk)? 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (CS)[edit]

Patent nonsense. RayaruB 23:42, 10 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 speedy keep. Don't be ludicrous. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Texas[edit]

Certain persons have instigated proposals for deleting Republic of New Hampshire under the logic that that article should be either forwarded to New Hampshire or else deleted, because South Carolina got the same treatment.

In order to be fair, if Republic of New Hampshire is to be deleted or forwarded on this basis, then Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii should be treated similarly. Those who believe these should be kept are encouraged to go to the Republic of New Hampshire vfd to post a similar sentiment with that vote as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citizenposse (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This nomination is in bad faith, WP:POINT. Speedy Keep. -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:13, 11 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 speedy keep another bad faith nomination. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Hawaii[edit]

Certain persons have instigated proposals for deleting Republic of New Hampshire under the logic that that article should be either forwarded to New Hampshire or else deleted, because South Carolina got the same treatment.

In order to be fair, if Republic of New Hampshire is to be deleted or forwarded on this basis, then Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii should be treated similarly. Those who believe these should be kept are encouraged to go to the Republic of New Hampshire vfd to post a similar sentiment with that vote as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citizenposse (talk • contribs) 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This nomination is in bad faith, WP:POINT. Speedy Keep. -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it is nominated in the same assumption of good faith that the nomination of Republic of New Hampshire was made. Not fair playing favorites, either everybody gets treated the same or the wikipedian principles of fairness are being violated. I say Keep all three.Citizenposse 00:14, 11 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 keep. Sango123 (e) 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL[edit]

DELETE non notable internet slang, neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary Interestingstuffadder 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMHO, we should redirect to internet slang, kthxbye -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and link from Internet slang. bbx 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. —Ruud 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — RJH 15:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it is on the internet slang page, I think its explanation is interesting, notable and needed -- MacAddct1984  18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Madaddct1984. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An important article, and even though it may seem like a dictionary entry, it can still be considered a significant term of Internet slang. Agree with Macaddct1984. — Webdinger BLAH | SZ 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --andrew 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if it needs its own entry or if it could be part of a list, but it does appear to have fairly wide use, e.g. on usenet [47] going back to January 1990 [48] Шизомби 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the latter link to the article, this sort of source is exactly what it needs. -- stillnotelf is invisible 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I actually found this article useful and interesting. Gremagor 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It does seem to be fairly widespread. --Optichan 16:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a very common term; this article is an encyclopaedic discussion of what could otherwise be a mere dicdef. --bainer (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just linked to it. Important to have a shortcut for an otherwise long-winded but vital statement. John Reid 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Importance is sufficiently explained in article, though admittedly not many other Internet abbreviations have their own articles. Cromag 17:53, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_10&oldid=1081093863"