Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 18 April 20 >

Purge server cache

April 19[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furpiled (webcomic)[edit]

Non notable webcomic, found here. Alexa gives back a rank over 750,000. Google gives 30 links for the search term "Lion dog works" the name of the website it's hosted on. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindmistress[edit]

Random Comic Genesis webcomic, that you can see here. The only reason why this even appears on Google, is because the author of this webcomic also works at comixpedia. The site is not mentioned in the Alexa report for comixpedia, it is not a popular website. The "reviews" that I can see for this are just forum posts and amateurs. I can think of scores of game modifications who have had more coverage and popularity than this. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Thievery (webcomic)[edit]

Goto Wikipedia's List of webcomics and take a look. Soon, Wikipedia will have more articles on webcomics than every other subject put together. A few more heads bashing at them could help, cause the inevitable "well, there's about a thousand more non notable webcomics here, why delete this one" is going to start cropping up if otherwise. This is a random comic genesis freehost webcomic, found here. Take a look at the website, now maybe have a look at Alexa and take a look on Google, but it ain't notable. - Hahnchen 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep: Nominator has failed to state a reason why this article should be deleted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, pretty much everything. Alexa gives nothing, Google gives nothing. Although the nominator for Go Nintendo below puts it way more eloquently. - Hahnchen 01:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seriously, the bulk of your argument is that we have a lot of webcomic articles. So what? We have a lot of video game articles too. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Wikipedia best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who draws. I nominated this related article a while back but it didn't pass. Regarding this present case, the web-site doesn't sell books, are ask for a pay subcription and therefore doesn't pass (my newly create rule). Therefore, I think it should be deleted. Tony Bruguier 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C'mon Bruguiea, some of the best things in life, including advertising a non-notable webcomic on Wikipedia, are free. Montco 02:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia not being a billboard to advertise your webcomic. The El Reyko 07:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One relevant hit on google. Not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN did a piece on this webcomic and how it will impact the war in Iraq. Oh wait, no they didn't. Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:38


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go Nintendo[edit]

Is there a reason why it shouldn't be deleted? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom :: Colin Keigher 00:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a reason why it shouldn't be deleted? No, there is not, or at least one I can see.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT for advertising. -- Darknut Slayer 00:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • since you asked for it... Devil's Advocate Weak Keep Nintendo is a notable company. Its Alexia rating is actually fairly high ~35k. [2] and "gonintendo" returns almost 100k results [3]... Oops... I think I just convinced myself...seriously. Roodog2k 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only about 600 unique GHits [4], a little over 100 [5] if you limit to English only. Fan1967 01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless some serious actual work can be done on the article. WP != webspam. - Hahnchen 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn by Fan-1967 and linkspam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruguiea (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 April 2006
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement for a weblog, no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 08:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nintendo is notable, but "Go Nintendo" returns one relevant hit. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Right now it seems like this lacks notability. If this can be proven otherwise, we can keep it. Danaman5 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google search for "Nintento" and "blog" doesn't show this site in any of its first 10 pages of listings. Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:38


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

The result of the debate was: article was speedy deleted (CSD:G1 Patent nonsense)

Hendrix Nosepipe[edit]

Completing AfD. Anon IP tried to create AfD entry with the comment "Hoax" but instead managed to blank the AfD page. Fan1967 00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, so a presumption of hoax is reasonable given the content. At the least its unverifiable, and Google returns no hits beyond Wikipedia. Oh, and big thanks to Fan1967 for sorting out this nom; kudos. Gwernol 01:19, 19 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podunk U[edit]

This webcomic is hosted on Angelfire, here. No notable sites are hosted on Angelfire anyway, but just to clarify why this article shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, the webcomic has been around for wow, 4 weeks now? Wikipedia, the number one source for webcomic promotion. No. - Hahnchen 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • I see no reason why this entry should be deleted. The mere domain of a site does not constitute the value of its content. On the subject of the comic's lifespan, the comic has been around for a month and will continue to be around for many years to come. Just because it hasn't existed for an extensive amount of time doesn't mean that it will die out in a matter of weeks. I think that this entry should be kept. --Icehawk24000 01:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Icehawk is the creator if "Podunk U". User may have a conflict of interest. ---J.Smith 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The comic may establish itself, it may not. (Most don't.) It hasn't yet. Fan1967 01:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep trust me on this one. Keeping it up here does no harm to Wikipedia. --Icehawk24000 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable (and month-old) webcomic. --DMG413 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: another nn web-comic, (a month old?!?). --Hetar 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. We aren't assuming the comic will die. Don't assume that it will live. Montco 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-webcomic.Borisblue 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and only about a month old. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This webcomic is trivial and unimportant. It has no large following. It has accomplished nothing other than spawning an ad on Wikipedia that I am now voting DELETE on. The El Reyko 07:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is quite a month old yet. Not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if somebody reads this its notable enough for me. Totally agree with Icehawk2400. Luka Jačov 15:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of logic is that? If it has a wikipedia article it's notable? It dosn't work like that. It needs to have notability outside of wikipedia first. ---J.Smith 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kulta - Tromsdalen Kulturhus[edit]

Norwegian article, not translated during two weeks at WP:PNT. Delete if untranslated at end of AfD, reconsider and possibly keep if a translation establishes notability. Kusma (討論) 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as from what it looks like, it looks like some sort of advertisement for a company. :: Colin Keigher 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is AFD even the place for this? Why don't you just transwiki it over to the Norwegian wiki and let them take care of it? I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with the nominator anyway, being that we don't speak Norwegian. I really don't think articles coming out of PNT should just wind up on AFD. - Hahnchen 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no other obvious place for it (and also transwikis to wikibooks or wiktionary often go through AfD). I don't think transwiki'ing a nonsense article or advertisement to the Norwegian wiki (I don't even know whether this is Bokmal or Nynorsk) is going to do any good. I would transwiki good articles in languages I speak, but nothing that I'm not certain about. See also Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English for some prior discussion. Please discuss there so we can improve the process. Kusma (討論) 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 01:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM, because that's what it is. Teke 02:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an advert. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the untranslated text, but if it is translated, then it should be kept, it sounds like a notable culture house. JIP | Talk 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to translate it, but it starts with About us, so it's WP:AUTO as well as nn. --Eivindt@c 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this should be transwikied to the Bokmål Wikipedia. --Eivindt@c 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbstruck[edit]

Appearing in your campus newspaper doesn't make your webcomic notable, I write for my college newspaper, and hell, I'm not notable and nor are the 2 comics that appear on it. You can see the webcomic in question here. This webcomic has an Alexa rank of 1 million and a Google search for "Grab bag comics", the site on which it's hosted gives back around 40 links. - Hahnchen 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - By the way, if you take a look at the website, you'll see that the article was written by the Webcomic author. Appearing on Wikipedia's List of webcomics seems to be a must these days. More hits you see. - Hahnchen 14:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dumbstruck is one of the most consistently well-written and well-drawn journal webcomics around It should stay
  • Delete Two relevant results for 'Dumbstruck comic'. Not notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom well-written and well-drawn does not mean it is a notable web-comic with a significant following, although it's possible to gain such a following. Possible re-write if it gains a following.--Tollwutig 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For notability, it is the only comic featured in the newspaper put out by the largest art college in the United States, with a print readership of over 17,000.
  • Delete, neither having a website nor being published in a college newspaper make a comic notable. -- Dragonfiend 17:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, Dumbstruck plays a significant role within the journal comic scene. It is one of the most consistently updated JCs. Whoever votes for deletion has no idea of JCs. --Eric.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.148.180 (talk • contribs)
    • Can you provide a source for this? Fagstein 04:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unless there's an article for this newspaper it appears in, in which case merge it into there. Fagstein 04:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:39
  • Delete per That Guy, From That Show!--Cini 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travolta family[edit]

If the family had produced more than one member as famous as John Travolta then maybe this would be a keep, but the rest of the family are just not really famous at all. Any relevant info can go on any remaining family member's articles. Arniep 00:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN per nom --rogerd 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Move any important info to John Travolta or where ever it matters. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated and possibly protect to prevent Rikki Lee from spamming Wikipedia again. Brian G. Crawford 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rest of the family are not famous. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is unnecessary. Danaman5 20:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Trebor 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — CJewell (talk to me) 06:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:39
  • Strong Delete Aint no Travolta that done nothing but John Travolta. Aint no point in an article about people who aint done nothing but be related to John Travolta. Ain't no Travolta that count but John Travolta. Ain't no love. EraserX 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RealFoundations[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 Keep & Improve. Tawker 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth R.J.J. High School[edit]

  • Delete: completely non notable, no info provided, no location mentioned etc--Light current 00:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & improve See:Navsari District. While the article is not NPOV, and is a stub, but all schools are notable... Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 00:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, kids google their schools, if a Wiki article comes up, they contribute, they become Wiki editors, etc. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of course no kid would ever google any other topic that would lead to a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is well known now, we don't need to 'advertise' like this. Average Earthman 20:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not seem to be notable. Thus, it seems as though the article cannot get longer because there is just nothing else to say. AmbExThErMaL 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seems to be a tendency to tolerate high school articles. -Objectivist-C 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable not only because of its age but also because of the circumstances of its founding (by Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy, a very wealthy trader and philanthropist and the first Indian baronet). - Humansdorpie 09:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable high school. Piccadilly 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by Sherurcij Rklawton 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and attempt to improve. Delete only if the latter is not possible. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • week delete unless it's expanded immediately. It currently has no sources and makes a claim that may or may not be true. This is not a good stub. ---J.Smith 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete soley because of non-verifiability. If sources are added, disregard my vote. The precedent is to keep all verifiable schools, especially high schools. But, the policy is to delete anything unverifiable. -Rob 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • unverifiable, not unverified. Why are deletionists so impatient? CalJW 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending verification Jcuk 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Knucmo2 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a school. For great justice. 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 92 mentions in Google. Quatloo 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just give up this disruptive time wasting please. CalJW 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Easy now, its better to assume good faith on the part of any voter for this article. --Knucmo2 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into district per WP:SCHOOL Paul Cyr 04:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending verification as per Jcuk. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:40
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 17:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worth pursuing. Needs a lot of work though.--Cini 18:24, 23 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: This isn't the place for this discussion. Sending to deletion review. - brenneman{L} 01:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

African aesthetic[edit]

Sending to AfD after out-of-process deletion.

  • Keep the article has barely started out. Covers a slightly different subject to previously deleted article and but one no uncited components. Advise waiting until more is written. - FrancisTyers 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTS Buddhist Meditation Society[edit]

It's just some college club. -Bottesini 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Solution[edit]

Non notable web site per WP:WEB rogerd 01:15, 19 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 CSD A7. Harro5 07:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pascoe Vale Ice Fighters[edit]

nn unverifiable suburban street gang, possibly a joke. Created by User:BlackVelvet and given the borderline vandalism/nonsense edits I don't trust anything in this article. The only references to this group were at Pascoe Vale, Victoria to plug this pointless group, which I have removed.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Simply unverifiable WP:V. --blue520 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah These Dudes Are Serious I live In Pascoe Vale And I Have Met The Boys And There Pretty Damn Serious If You Delete It They Will Make It Again. Yours Sincerly A Proud Member Of Pascoe Vale.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.252.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. A search of the Australia New Zealand newspaper database shows that there has been no reports of the group in the Australian media. A Google search comes up empty as well see [6]. There are serious verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 05:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey it's me, Camo Hat The P.V.I.F. we are a serious bunch of boys trying to expose a whole new sport to the world. It is a very good game and i think spreading the word to get more kids into it is all we are doing. All in all give the ice fighters a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackVelvet (talk • contribs)
  • I Play This Game More Than Just in a day at the park im out there practicing my throwing, dodging and moving every weekend. this isnt just a game made up in a day at the park its life to people who want to go out and have fun.
  • Delete Get known first then come here. Don't come here to get known. It's that simple. Rklawton 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Danaman5 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The crips and bloods are well known there just gangs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.252.8 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:NFT Ronabop 03:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a non-notable unverifiable gang wants to stay anonymous let's keep it that way. Fagstein 04:26, 20 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. Tawker 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinist confederacy[edit]

Original research. Google returns no relevant hits on Calvinist Confederacy or Calvinist Confederation (except those in the Wikipedia and its mirrors). The "foonotes" (which are not cited anywhere) were copied and redacted from John Calvin. Immediate (and failed) self-nom for Featured Article status by the anon creator does not lend credence to the ruse. --Flex 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delele, now that I think about it, the idea should merge into Calvin because it's not worth more than a paragraph. It's a real historical thing, just poorly constructed. The Calvin confederacy arose as the union of cantons around Geneva, once it was large enough to challenge Zurich. I'll try to do some work on it later, I have to get books out and whatnot. But keep. TeKE 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge anything useful to John Calvin. This is a poorly-researched piece, wih a title that does not appear accurate. -Will Beback 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Will Beback proposes that anything useful be merged to John Calvin. On my first reading, it's hard to tell if there is anything useful. The lack of any mention anywhere on the web of the "Calvinist Confederacy" is very suspect. If the author can produce any verifiable information, he or she ought to incorporate it into the Calvin article, otherwise, it seems like this article serves little purpose.--Evadb 07:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nothing useful or meaningful and virtually incoherent. No sources cited for such a notion. Jim Ellis 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — If something can be sourced around the use of the term in regard to multiple cantons following Calvin (not just Geneva), set against Zwinglian and Roman Catholic cantons, then that information should be incorporated into the Reformation in Switzerland article. The other states mentioned are either not Calvinistic per se or are not confederations. Regarding William of Orange, the Netherlands are a constitutional monarchy, and any confederation of nobles needs to be shown to be described in some scholarly source as being called a "Calvinist confederacy". If this article were well-sourced, then there would be no AfD; but it is not sourced at all. A generic link to the Institutes does not suffice as a source.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 18:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-topic, not really suitable for WP. --Knucmo2 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:42
  • Delete - poor writing style, no organization, not to mention there's just not much new information. If the little content this article contains is deemed worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia by the original author or someone else, it should be added to the plethora of related articles. David Schroder 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From the first paragraph: the "confederacy" was a "confederation based on principles"...well, no, it was a "system" ... or a "union"! So who participated in the confederacy? in the union? Who followed the system? Who knows? But ... the Libertines opposed it, on the grounds that Calvin was a "snoop"! That last word gives away the show. The article seems intended not to describe a real political entitity, but to portray Calvin in a POV manner: as a snoop. A MUCH better pair of articles would be one on Calvin's view on church-state relations (perhaps as part of a larger article on the history of church-state relations: preConstantine, Constantine, Augustine, Greg. the Great, Charlemagne, high Middle Ages, the Reformation, Henry VIII/Elizabeth I, French Revolution, ..., Kline, Rushdooney?!) and one on politics during the Reformation. This overview [[10]] leaves little room in the chronology for a union of Geneva with other cantons, and I've never heard of such (although TeKE seems to have ... what do you have in mind?) jrcagle 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem (disambiguation)[edit]

None of the things which the page disambiguates between are named Eminem. This page was created shortly after "Emanem records" was taken off of the top of the Eminem article. To me, it seems like it's doing nothing but spamming a minor record label and making the Eminem page uglier. Josh 01:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a useful dab page by any means, and any disambiguation between Eminem and "M&Ms" (if needed) can use a dab template. --kingboyk 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom -Bottesini 02:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to disambiguate here. Kusma (討論) 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I certainly hope I can tell the difference between a rapper and candy that is wrapped. :: Colin Keigher 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually M&M is a dab page so that angle is already covered. --kingboyk 05:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a useless disambig page, because only one thing on the page is actually named Eminem. JIP | Talk 08:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing much to say about Eminem, really.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across this earlier and waffled on it. But I think I'll say delete now, since no-one would search for "Eminem" if they wanted one of the other things. Grandmasterka 16:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a useless disambig page. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with M&M. Fagstein 04:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but now i want some candy. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:43


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treeplanting culture[edit]

Delete. I'm concerned that this article may be unverifiable original research, and possibly non-notable as well. The article is two months old, and my request for sources on the talk page is one month old. --Allen 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. OR as it stands, and the terms listed don't seem to be particularly notable or likely to be confined to 'treeplanting circles' either.--cjllw | TALK 02:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the jargon on the page seems to be verifiable. Efforts to google some of the terms returned unrelated results and the same wikipedia entry. -MrFizyx 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any useful sourced information (and I can't think of anything) can be added to Treeplanting. Fagstein 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a random collection of Canadian slang with little to do with tree planting or culture. Nothing to merge here. ::Supergolden:: 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:44


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 26 (disambiguation) and May 6 (disambiguation)[edit]

If you're looking for August in the year 26, you should go to the year 26 and look for August there. If we really wanted to do this method universally, we'd have a ton of disambig pages to make. Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We are also unlikely to ever have useful articles about specific months in the years 1-31. Kusma (討論) 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, per nom. I struggle to see how this could ever be useful, or why any editor would bother to link to it.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kusma. BryanG 04:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 04:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, this is a useless disambig page. Are we going to have similar pages for all 365 days of the year? JIP | Talk 08:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is definitely the most useless disambig page I have ever seen. Who would search for August in the year 26?? Grandmasterka 16:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Hey, I have an odd sense of humo(u)r. --Vossanova 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless redirect.. --Tollwutig 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless. WarpstarRider 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Fagstein 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless. If we had some date standards, it might even be a speedy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. have to agree with BJAODN here. VegaDark 23:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BJAODN :). —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:45
  • Absolute 100% Delete. Obscure times in history should have articles on years only, not on divisions of years. Georgia guy 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per comments above. Are there any more of these laurking around? -- Karada 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN is the only place for this. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN 64.193.70.223 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN This user seems to be fond of creating silly articles relating to numbers and dates. This user has created many other silly articles such as Category:Numbers of the googol family, Category:Number families, July 12 (disagumbination), June 8, 2006, Deaths in 2047, 2 0 6 7 and Year 2 kilo. They've also made silly redirects in the form of 0743, 0002, 4/8/2005, October 1979, '90's, 2 0 1 5 and 2 0 1 6. They've been told constantly to stop making these silly articles and redirects. But this user still seems to continue to do so. I find this nonsensical disambiguation page quite funny though. Stop war! 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only inappropriate article, but would create a nightmare precident. Peter Grey 17:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC) After looking as some of the author's edits, despite assuming good faith, I would have to conclude the article is willful vandalism. Peter Grey 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per above. Hot water heater 01:24, 24 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 by Tawker as G7 - speedy requested by only editor. --Hetar 02:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William ifor jones[edit]

My typing sucked today. Needed to uppercase last two names. duh. IconDaemon 02:02, 19 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 redirect. kingboyk 11:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Sticks[edit]

Not notable - one similar hit on google --Bottesini 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilliput Net[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as both lacking context and vanity. --Allen 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Fagstein 04:40, 20 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. --JoanneB 09:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chindows[edit]

  • Delete: This is a neologism supposedly featured in 1 yet to be released movie. --Hetar 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Allen 03:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be a almost 300 entries for this on google, but nothing substantial.--P-Chan 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as protologism. Fagstein 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - please...as soon as possible. The creator has been posting all sorts of stuff about The Ivy Show/Horrorween/Ivy Icano and topics related to these, and has recreated deleted articles having to do with them. --Nobunaga24 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:47


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped In Hell[edit]

Album by artist Lloyd Banks; not listed on his web site or on Amazon. Forthcoming (WP is not a cystal ball) or just a mistake???? Thatcher131 02:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think it is a mixtape prepared by some fans (from shows perhaps) and distributed on a few websites [11]. If that's the case, I am at a loss. It wouldn't be an official album that Lloyd Banks would recognize officially, but it does exist. Montco 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since that would be an illegal copyvio, and really hard to verify, I'd still say delete. We have no idea how popular this particular mixtape might be and no way of ever knowing unless it recieved news coverage as a notable bootleg. Thatcher131 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa has no listing and Google no listing for any it by Lloyd Banks. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Dakota ~ 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no vote on this. I agree with Montco that it is a mix tape distributed on various sites which may or may not be legal. Despite the above note, you can find it on Google. I don't see how WP:MUSIC helps here. The artist is clearly notable, this particular work may not be. If we do delete, you might take a look at The Big Withdrawl which is in a similar state. Lloyd Banks appears to have more mix tapes than official albums. -MrFizyx 16:28, 19 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. Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limitless magic and Limited Magic[edit]

One-sentence boilerplate collection, makes no sense and is unreferenced--Zxcvbnm 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Limited Magic added to discussion by Fagstein 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and OR. The article does make sense to me, but it sounds just like omnipotence, and I've never heard of a character that was omnipotent that wasn't some version of God. --Allen 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR (coining a new phrase) --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Worldbuilding, an article that appears to be the author's only other edit. It seems Limitless magic is a weak attempt to clairify a term that they may have coined there. -MrFizyx 16:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's show our limitless magic through delete both. Fagstein 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:49
  • Delete both terms seem made up by the author. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:50, 21 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. --JoanneB 09:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DBL[edit]

Non-notable abbreviation, asserts notability but I never heard of it and unreferenced, WP:NOT for things you make up in school one day--Zxcvbnm 02:46, 19 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. --JoanneB 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fulwood high soldiers[edit]

Non notable gang with 30 people--Zxcvbnm 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should be speedy Mirasmus 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Cute picture, Is it me or does the British definition of a gang differ vastly from the American definition? Montco 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can we really speedy it if the article asserts they're "famous"? (Montco is right about the picture; they look like friendly kids.) --Allen 02:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable assertion of notability "famous" WP:V.--blue520 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only Google result for Fulwood High soldiers is this article [12] so they are unverifiable by our standards. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their site crashed my browser twice. In any case, it's nn. Delete. Fagstein 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:49


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Ubayd ibn Abdullaah al-Jaabiree[edit]

The person is not notable, and the IP that made the article is a serious vandal. Just check his contribs- if admin would do something about it... --Bottesini 02:52, 19 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. Mailer Diablo 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linn-Mar High School[edit]

  • Delete Non-notable. misunderestimated 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Isn't there a consensus that all high schools are notable? Even if there isn't, I'm still in the keep-the-high-schools camp. --Allen 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A high school is notable - after all, there are articles on colleges with substantially smaller enrollment than many high schools. --Colindownes 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firmly in the "no HS" camp. Vandalism is bad enough already without encouraging more (and it's a rare HS that's notable) Rklawton 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated before all high-schools are notable, and it's longer than most HS articles.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear precedent. -Rob 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice if someone wrote an encyclopedia article for the school (maybe even one of these people voting keep, since they like school articles so much), but they haven't. There's a big difference between a webpage for the school extracurricular activities and an encyclopedia article on the place (although it would appear to be good at music, since it is a 2006 Grammy Signature School) Average Earthman 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kindly slap a {{POV}} template on it. :) — RJH 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Jcuk 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a school. For great justice. 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools should not be nominated. CalJW 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Yes, as a HS, it deserves its place on Wikipedia. However, the article needs an incredible amount of clean-up and removal of POV elements. In fact, everything on all of the clubs really needs to be removed (as I don't think any HS clubs or activities need their own sections unless they won some sort of national championship in something). Especially in this article, all of the info on clubs/activities is completely non-notable. My favorite sentence is "In January 2006 all three band performed in a Jazz competition." That, my friends, is priceless. -- Kicking222 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools (verifiable) are kept. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:50
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 17:02, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westsail 32[edit]

Originally prodded by me, and removed by page creator without comment. This is nothing more than a spamvertisement for a nn boat. The article doesn't even assert notability. Delete. --Hetar 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I dunno... if there were really 1100 sold that seems like a lot. Musicians are notable if they've sold 5000 albums, and surely a boat is worth several album-copies worth. If each boat cost $10,000, that would mean $11 million changing hands due to this thing. I'm not voting keep, though, because deletion seems intuitively reasonable. --Allen 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Actually the classified ads on the net are advertising the things for over $50K. The boat seems notable enough, but the Worldcruiser link needs to go. It is not the manufacturer of the boat, but is conveniently enough a supplier of replacement parts for it. Montco 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prodding the article one minute after its first edit and sending it to AfD after 30 minutes, without talking to the editor, is one heckuva way to welcome new editors to the encyclopedia. Thatcher131
  • Keep; we tend to consider production models of automobiles, aircraft, and boats to be notable. Any advert/vanity issues can be dealt with by cleanup. MCB 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. (Disclosure — I own one... ;-)
    1. This is not a spamvertisement — the boat hasn't been in production since 1978 (I think).
    2. The Westsail 32 is one of the most, if not the most, notable production fibreglass cruising boats ever made. It spawned countless imitations, and led to a massive revival of the "double-ended" Archer-Atkins hull style.
    3. It sold 800 copies in just a few years which is phenomenal for a large cruising boat (even 30-year-old used copies are selling for $50,000 - $60,000, so more than a few albums' worth), and I don't know if it's ever been equalled.
    4. It's probably the one boat that every cruiser would consider the "ultimate" cruising boat, in terms of being "the original", slow, stodgy, but absolutely seaworthy world cruising boat.
    5. They're bloody beautiful! (OK a bit pf POV creeping in there... ;-)
    Seriously, please don't make judgements about notability of this article without consulting some sailors, particularly cruising types. Do we have an article on the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow? On the Chevrolet Corvette? In the cruising world, this boat is more famous than that. The article needs expansion, obviously, but we don't delete articles just for being stubs. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outraged comment: You put the article on AfD after 30 minutes because of non-notability???? Is this Wikipedia policy now? Haven't you ever heard of giving people a chance to put some text in? I for one have about a million pictures of Westsail 32's in Nicaragua, the Panama Canal, etc., that I can add -- if I get the chance. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're outraged by this you shouldn't look at the edit histories of any other articles on AfD, you might pop a blood vessel. But this is probably a discussion for another time and place. Thatcher131 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are many articles that deserve an instant AfD — the point here is AfD because 30 minutes wasn't enough time for the author to demonstrate notability. — Johan the Ghost seance 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion is your opportunity to prove notability. Personally, I would have contacted the creator first on what looks like a borderline issue, but I can't fault an instant AfD of something that looks like non-notable advertising. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:39 UTC
  • Keep Promising little article. CalJW 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, obviously, but it's notable per precedent and production volume and impact in yachting. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added some text; it still needs a lot of work, but I think there's the skeleton of a good article there now. — Johan the Ghost seance 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boat is notable. Englishrose 11:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article looks better now. As far as "outrage", articles should be created and filled with cites and such in user space and then moved to article space. This lessens the likelyhood of PROD and AFD. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:55
    That's a valid idea -- I tend to do it that way myself -- but how is a newcomer supposed to know this? Wikipedia:Your first article doesn't mention it. Telling newbies to Be Bold then slapping their first effort with an AfD after 30 minutes seems like a bit of mixed messages. (Note that the person who added the cites -- me -- isn't the person who created the article.) — Johan the Ghost seance 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid article. This is a notable class of keelboats. If we delete this article then there are another 100+ articles which would need to be deleted for the same invalid reasoning. Boatman 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

womack[edit]

hoax

Are you sure? I'm getting some google hits on "Womack Tobacco" that seem relevant. Borisblue 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't, Google with womack tobacco -wikipedia seems to only return hits related to the family name Womack and similar (none seemingly related to the article). What search words are you using?--blue520 05:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And with "Womack Tobacco" -wikipedia, the only hits are for articles by Rocky Womack, a page written in Chinese and a book that seems related to Tobacco Culture (but not Womack).--blue520 05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I saw a few pages with "Rocky Womack Tobacco" and I thought that might be it. I vote deleteBorisblue 05:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of the article vandalized a few other pages, which I've reverted. -Objectivist-C 07:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James matthew bonzo[edit]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PROFTEST and WP:BIO. --EdGl 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Student Engineering Society[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it just my imagination, or do the engineering societies really, truly seem to have much greater delusions of notability than the arts societies and the social sciences societies? Delete as nn student club. Bearcat 07:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just more likely to be sat in front of a computer editing Wikipedia. Oh, and delete. Average Earthman 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Skeezix1000 22:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:56
  • Keep as student societies are more notable than the Meow Wars --Nick Dillinger 18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn student soc. (arguing by comparison to more nn articles not on ADF, just produces a race to the bottom) Pete.Hurd 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engsoc[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 03:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KiloWatts[edit]

Given the gigantic number of musicians already included on Wikipedia (who haven't had a #1 chart-topper), I don't think it's time to start trimming down now. Check the discogs page, the website, and other places. More than enough to deserve a wiki IMO. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kilowatts+music http://www.discogs.com/artist/KiloWatts


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Girl[edit]

The name a DJ gives his girlfriend on the air--in other words, WP:NN --rehpotsirhc 04:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with either of the characters, but apparently the dwarf has a website, an entry on IMDB, articles in Wired and The Smoking Gun and about 34,000 unique hits on Google. Have you read WP:NN? --rehpotsirhc 05:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The verifiable portions of this article already appear in two places in the Opie and Anthony page. Some of the additional content is self-described as rumour and is thus not verifiable. A google search of "Lobster girl" returns mostly unrelated results[13]. If you couple the search to the name Opie [14] or Anthony [15] you get 67 or 138 unique results, with wikipedia hits ranked first, and still many hits unrelated. Not notable. -MrFizyx 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This lie was started on message boards. It is simply not true. 172.138.2.185 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This has been rehashed forever on the Opie and Anthony article. Apart from being completely non-notable, these allegations violate WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, among others no doubt. Tufflaw 16:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MrFizyx. Fagstein 05:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete craaaaap. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:58

I am wondering when whoever is in charge will finally delete this lie. 172.129.155.129 08:28, 23 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. Mailer Diablo 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrova[edit]

vanity article for nn painter. 360 google hits, not all for the artist. Quotes and endorsements are all from art dealers trying to sell paintings. Fails WP:BIO pschemp | talk 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It is my impression that contemporary painters and other visual artists, excluding the most famous and most media-savvy individuals, are underrepresented on Google; this may well be true for a Bulgarian icon painter, even one living in England. Wikipedia also doesn't have any notability recommendations suitable for this typ of case. If she has had public commissions for somewhat significant clients and locations, such as for St Paul's Cathedral (as mentioned in the article), that is a claim to notability, but I would like more details on the nature of these works. I'm still undecided about this. u p p l a n d 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go keep in this case. Google has a decided and well documented systematic bias in many cases. That's why it's not the end-all of deciding notability. (Don't get me wrong, it's plenty helpful in many cases...). Assuming the St Paul's Cathedral claim is verifiable this is borderline pass of WP:BIO. ---J.Smith 19:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally disagree. I wrote this article and as far as I’m aware, Silvia Dimitrova has no idea about the existence of this article. The most prestigious Cathedrals in England ordered her icon paintings and every single “premiere” of her icon was a big event. She is truly one of the best icon painters and I do not see a point and logic in deleting this article. I do apologise that there are only 360 so-called “google hits”, but it is not my fault that people are not interested in this type of art. More over there are less important articles on Wikipedia which should be deleted immediately, but they are still up and running. This article will be developed, however I need more time and materials, because it is difficult to gather information on such a “individual” artist, who is not a public person, but her works are well known in specific environments. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!! P.S. "She was also nominated and shortlisted for the European Women of Achievement Awards 2000 for contributions to the Arts"; it means something- doesn't it?! ---Mzalewski 21:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems notable enough for mine if the claims in the article are correct. However, under our verifiability policies, we would need information from reliable third party sources such as reviews of her works, mention in books about modern day iconography or artists etc to permanently establish her notability. Capitalistroadster 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot about her way of icon-painting in Alan Ogden's "Revelations of Byzantium", Appendix. April 2001 (ISBN973-9432-32-8) (he analyses the iconic art using her paintings as an example). You can also have look at: http://www.london.anglican.org/page3505. There are many articles about Dimitrova in big newspapers, but I do not have links... She was mentioned in many brochures about icons but, once again, I don't have a link, etc., to prove it's true. ---Mzalewski 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If there are mentions of her in the book, it should be cited as a reference in the article. I will have a look at the Anglican org article and add it as a reference. Capitalistroadster 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this one turns on sourcing for me. "Ghits" (Google hits) are not the only way to be notable, IMHO. If she has significant sales, presence in the art community, critical notice, mention in art journals or texts, those all contribute notability too. How much is needed may not be completely clear, but getting verified info of that sort into the article would be good... if it's not already at this point there. The comments at the bottom (from reviewers? Critics? they are untagged) are good but they need sourcing (and some demonstration that the commenters have some weight). No (non)vote for now because I could see this either way. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection and examination of what is presented, Keep. I still have concerns about the quotes praising her work and claiming significance having no attribution though. ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Even if some of the assertions in the article may need additional verification, the notability of the subject appears to be clearly established. Monicasdude 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ghits isn't a good indicator of the notability of a spesialist craftsperson. Needs sources though. --Eivindt@c 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems plenty notable. PrettyMuchBryce 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources are added. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:59
  • Keep notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:16, 23 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 rewrite the article. Mailer Diablo 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Technology[edit]

Being actively constructed by a user who indicated, in edit summary, that he/she was being instructed by the company to write the article, and the article is, despite cleanup (which the user at times reverts), too much of an advertising, calling the notability of the company into question. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That edit summary is disturbing, I agree. But I'm confident that Griffin is a leading developer of iPod accessories, and therefore a notable company. --Allen 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', the user may have indicated that, but this article should be kept and then revamped. We do not need to know about every single product that Griffin has made, as that belongs on their website. :: Colin Keigher 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that; I only kept the product lists because I didn't have anything else to put there. :) EVula 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Griffin is a very notable company when it comes to iPod products. EVula 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If wikipedia is too good for a company as important to all mac'ers as griffin tech, then I guess it's not a place that needs my presence. ℑilver§ℑide 07:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Griffin is definitely notable as an iPod accessory company, but the article reads too much like a product catalog. The adcruft definitely needs to go. --Vossanova 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AfD is not the place to bring content disputes. Fagstein 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and rewrite as per Vossanova. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:59
  • Keep as per above. Granted, this whole angle is odd, but that doesn't undermine the relevancy and the notablility of a company that makes several well-known iPod accessories. Instead, the person should be very much reprimanded by both Wikipedia and (if his edit summary is true) Griffin for being an idiot and telling us about it.--Ljlego 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I decided to make it a stub for now. :: Colin Keigher 19:13, 22 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 Kotepho 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation problem[edit]

Appears to be abandoned by its creator. As it stands, it's little more than a collection of links. I was tempted to speedy delete it, but figures that an AfD process is better, to see if improvements can be made. Delete as it stands. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. As the article stands, it fails to even specify what the problem is. JIP | Talk 08:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is very much work-in-progress, as is the related page, Driverless car. Please give us some credit here, its not an easy topic. Would a short statement on what the problem is make things easier for all? In any case, I would like to work on this article on the web (not offline) since it allows me to put in a few mintes whenever and wherever I have time. Humour the newbie - guidance is requested. Samfreed 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continue to work on the article. Also, add Keep <<DONE>> below to make it more clear that you want to keep this article. There are hundreds of AfD articles to look at and although editors read the comments, they don't tend to look back and see if any specific person remembered to add Keep/Delete.—-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-21 14:17
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian shopping centres[edit]

Not particularly encyclopedic list, if the info is really needed a category would do the job. As it is it's a redlink farm and has hardly been edited since creation a year ago. Delete kingboyk 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, only three live links in list. -MrFizyx 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought keep, now that I've seen the other lists, it seems that this one is much better organized and informative. -MrFizyx 14:31, 20 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 Moved Kotepho 07:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Quarter, Birmingham/Deleted history[edit]

Could this possibly be merged into the talk page of the relevant article? This is metadata, and not encyclopedic. Appropriate Username 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensatio[edit]

Article is written as an advertisement for a software package which appears non-notable; "sensatio" gets lots of google hits, but "sensatio binaural" gets 28 unique. 74 downloads at download.com, 60 at softpedia. and I'm not even gonna get into the alpha-waves thing. prod disputed, so... Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should consider that this product is the evolution of an older one... Maybe people should inform and add information before delete something. Or -at least- discuss it. I'm talking about many people, nobody in spec. Do whatever you want, whatever you feel it's right, BUT always discuss it before, isn't that right Where are the limits ? 70, 700, how much is "a lot"? Why Sensatio Binaural keywords on Google? Is everything on Google? Science Magazines doesn't even exists? Just because you don't know it, it doesn't means you can delete whatever is new for you. Again, I'm talking to nobody in particular, this is a retoric question..- BTW; Why there's still a link in Meditation to a free program and the link is still there, and that link was there before my free contribution for wikipedia. This is a constructive article, do whatever you feel it's correct, but we should always be respectful with the collaborations and opinions from other people on wikipedia.
  • Delete as spam, unless someone can cite reliable sources. Fagstein 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. I don't see any references to articles in Scientific Journals or Magazines. If the author would like us to consider these, he must tell us where to find them. Respect the process here and you will get respect. -MrFizyx 15:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom & Fagstein, and NN software. Pete.Hurd 21:36, 23 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 - crude vandalism. -- RHaworth 07:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginadon[edit]

Originally proded by User:Polotet. When the prod was placed on the article, it was an exact copy of the T-Rex article. Since then the page creator has changed the article to go along with this hoax idea. I seriously doubt that Vaginadon is a legitimate scientific term, othwerise I would redirect. --Hetar 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, speedy if possible - look at the obscene references and toilet-hoax in the text. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 05:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious hoax, and the word gets no dinosaur related hits on google. Delete.-Polotet 06:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete stupid unfunny hoax. Can't they at least come up with something remotely funny? LambiamTalk 05:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. Not nearly funny enough for Uncyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No room for this kind of nonsense here. --Valermos 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, hoax. So many things wrong with it, from the incorrect fake Greek name all the way through. --blue520 06:43, 19 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. kingboyk 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Engineering Students' Societies Team[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not-notable, doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Delete Ardenn 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.
  3. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
  4. Memorials. It may be sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.
  5. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Relatively unimportant people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in Persecution of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project.
  7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable). Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
  8. 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. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.

Please explain how this site falls in these categorys. When in doubt, Keep--Nick Dillinger 09:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? Is someone requesting this Wikipolicy be deleted? I don't get it. 23skidoo 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of the comment by Nick Dillinger for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Engineering Students' Societies Team, it just looks like it is a separate AfD.--blue520 15:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these fit this page. ryanc 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fine example of wikilawyering, but more to the point, the organization does not appear to the Notable through reference to Verifiable sources. It is not enough for you to think your organization is important. If someone else has thought it was important, and written about it, then you can summarize those reports here. Wikipedia is a secondary source, not a primary source. Delete Thatcher131 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hint there, Nicky; all we need to know is in the first two sentences of that policy. Whether a citation goes on to hit one of the subcategories isn't necessarily relevant. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The principles of Wikipedia are being corrupted by rampant deletionists. Check here for why the definition of notability is constantly misinterpretted. 'Cruft' is not a bad thing in an encyclopedia not constricted by paper!--Nick Dillinger 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The principles of Wikipedia are interpreted and put into place by consensus, and that consensus is firm on the undesirability of cruft. Cruft is certainly a bad thing in any encyclopedia striving to be accessible and useful. Now if you want random infinite collectors of trivial information, they already exist; they're called "search engines." They're about as useful as Wikipedia would be if we let in anything anyone wanted to post. RGTraynor 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club. --Hetar 18:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, though I've seen better Wikilawyering. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WESST is a notable orgainzation. It represents 8 schools on the national level to CFES. WEC is a huge engineering competition that gathers thousands of engineers together. [WEC] is put on by WESST. WEC is a preliminary competition to [CEC]. Seems pretty notable to me. ryanc 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm this with a source that is not its own web site? Thatcher131 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm what part? ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example confirm that thousands of engineers gather for the competition they sponsor, instead of a few dozen as might be the case with some student societies. Or that the competiton is viewed significantly by people that hire engineers (are there "scouts" or recruiters there?) Or that former members have gone on to become famous or notable in their post-graduation lives? You might call it the Theater intime test, in which a student run theater group at one college was kept because of its long history and the famous actors who got their start there. Thatcher131 06:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable student society. Sliggy 22:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many student socities on wikipedia. That does not make it non-notable. ryanc 23:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my reasoning: it is a student society with no evidence of notability. 195.194.4.65 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)(forgot I wasn't logged in) Sliggy 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Skeezix1000 22:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me - an intercollegiate association carrying out significant activities. Why is this association any different than some of the intercollegiate debating societies with entries? It seems there is too strong a trend lately to indiscriminately oppose student societies (of any stature or notariety) having entries. In a wiki-world where elementary schools are deemed "notable" enough to have entries, I see no reason why university student societies of significance cannot. What this article really needs is a good copy-edit and cleanup. Fluit 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable club, unless someone can point to a source that suggests otherwise. Fagstein 05:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[From CFES website] and [WEC 2007] and [WESST] itself. ryanc 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just followed those links, and see nothing more than that WESST and this competition exists, which I don't think anyone doubted. Evidence of notability I've yet to see. RGTraynor 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. -- Kicking222 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:WTH. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough and just seems like a vainity push for a Student group.--Cini 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no claim of notability, WP is not a directory. Pete.Hurd 21:38, 23 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 redirect per {{R from other capitalisation}}, reasonable search term. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboard[edit]

Non-notable bulletin board (see WP:WEB, and it's not on the first couple of pages of a google for xboard), Delete (or make it a redirect to XBoard. Polotet 05:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is not related with the other xboard article. sorry,if bullettin board articles are not allowed in Wikipedia. Will delete it. Can I edit the other xboard page and add info? if u search for xboard us it will come in the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illegal.person (talk • contribs)
    • Speedy delete per author's request. A lot of people mistake what Wikipedia is about. Feel free to read up on Wikipedia:Notability. Fagstein 05:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inqlabi[edit]

Non notable. The only information I can find for this on Google is the exact text that has been pasted into Wikipedia. The Inqlabi development aid is an identical copy of this. Appropriate Username 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as the page is an advertisement. --soUmyaSch 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an ad > /dev/null please... Grafikm_fr 08:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. "Please visit our website" is a dead giveaway. JIP | Talk 08:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable until someone else writes about them. -MrFizyx 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Does not pass google test or any others. Doesn't even pass the WP:KIT test. Lonesomedovechocolate 01:09, 20 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. Mailer Diablo 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian-Croatian Soccer Tournament[edit]

An annual amateur football (soccer) tournament which is for weekend teams, which appears to be restricted to one ethnic group in Australia - which would cover no more than 1% of the population? Delete.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have found a couple of references to this in the Australian media. The Melbourne Knights which was an NSL soccer side enters teams in it - Mark Viduka who will captain Australia in this year's World Cup probably played in it. Sydney Croatia a former NSL side also enters teams. The current champions Canberra Croatia Deakin are a well-known soccer team in Canberra. This tournament is notable enough for mine having a couple of teams who were formally in the National Soccer League put teams in even if they are reserves and others in State Leagues. Capitalistroadster 06:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Soccer in Australia is strong among immigrant communities from Easter Europe and this is one of the strongest groups. As Capitalistroadster noted, it is notable in Australian Soccer. --Bduke 06:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Bduke. Luka Jačov 15:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant in Australia. Chicheley 19:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, this ethnic group in part maintains its visibility through soccer--A Y Arktos\talk 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the references provided by Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me
  • Keep Very significant in Australia. Notable and has appeared in a number of soccer news sources.--Cini 18:35, 23 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 redirect. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet scams[edit]

This information already exists on the page Internet fraud, and I suggest this be deleted and/or merged. Appropriate Username 06:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per nom. Grafikm_fr 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: The other article is pretty thorough, and this article is completely unsourced. --Hetar 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Seems a likely search term, but the other article is much more comprehensive. Fan1967 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Doctor Whom 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly redirected. Fagstein 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any new info, if present, and Redirect. --soUmyaSch 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Fagstein has done what needed to be done, can we get a Speedy Close here? Fan1967 02:51, 21 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 recreation of previously deleted content -> speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Members[edit]

A stupid, though elaborate joke. There is absolutely no real church of this name, its all ridiculous. Not even funny, so I don't know why someone would put this much work into this. Kilter 06:23, 19 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. HappyCamper 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McMahonism[edit]

This article serves no useful purpose. Only specific significant professional wreslting angles deserve their own page, and this isn't one of them

  • This was introduced less than 48 hours ago, and is part of a larger angle that has been going on for months between Shawn Michaels and Vince McMahon. It's too early to tell if this was a one week occurrence or if it will indeed continue, but I imagine it will at least continue through the rest of the month until Backlash. No reason to delete this so soon, let's wait and see how the storyline plays out. Genocidal 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 10:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is pretty unnecessary. The only way I can see this deserving its own article is if The Mcmahonism thing continues beyond Backlash, which is very unlikely.
  • Delete this with a chairshot to the back of the head. per nom and DL. ECW! ECW! 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wrestlecruft. --Eivindt@c 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, and ban all members of the IWC from this website!
  • Delete. No verifiable evidence of this religion in outside world. As with most things associated with professional wrestling, it is a hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your efforts to ban McMahonism and rid this webpage are an indication of others here putting limits on freedom of expression and religion. VForVendetta 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe that Wikipedia has no patience for nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create your own wrestling wiki. Fagstein 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is exclusive to certain topics now? Genocidal 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Danny Lilithborne 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster — My delete vote stands, but nobody ever said that McMahonism is anything but kayfabe (i.e., a "religion" that's part of a wrestling angle); I think that's what this article's author was attempting to imply. If you're implying that some naive reader may interpret McMahonism as legit, then you're mistaken [[Briguy52748 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)]].[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- for now. If the McMahonism thing is over and done with and never referred to again after Backlash, I'd vote to delete the article, as it would then refer to something that happened for two weeks and was over with. But McMahonism has the potential to be part of a larger storyline involving a stable of wrestlers loyal to Vince McMahon, and if that's what's going on here, then obviously the page should be kept. So let's wait and see before getting rid of the article so soon. ekedolphin 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- for now as well. If there are no more mentions of McMahonism after Backlash (I'd say giving it two episodes of Raw after the Pay-Per-View is a fair timeframe) then I'm for deleting or merging this into the article about Mr. McMahon as a small paragraph. Genocidal 08:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Write an article about it after it becomes big. Fagstein 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete everyday i come to wikipedia to clean up "week-by-week" WWE accounts and tons of worthless fancruft wrestling articles. To what perpous do these ppl see that any article like this could be of any use to anyone.. i get so tired of it all sometimes --- Paulley
  • Delete This article is just totally unescessary. spman
  • Redirect to Vince McMahon. It's only been around for a few days and unnotable for its own article. --Oakster (Talk) 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vince McMahon per above. Can bring back as its own article if it actually lasts a long time in the WWE, which I doubt it will VegaDark 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vince McMahon. As others have suggested, if this lasts beyond Backlash and is continually brought up in RAW then the article can be brought back. Sohan.s 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...and Delete i'd rather it not be deleted but there are more votes for the contrary. so whatever happens is fine with me. Drmagic 19:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vince McMahon.. its very important to the kayfabe storyline in the WWE — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.61.77.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Clearly it's been referenced a few more times and is pretty early in the gimick. It's clearly not related to Vince McMahon the person but a specific attribute of the Vince McMahon character. It's outlasted the one PPV, and could easily become a popular gimic. Wait and see, there's no reason to get uppity and trash it just because it's new. Also, a few of the votes for delete just note that it's a nonsense gimick, this is true but needs to be put in the article itself. Tat 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vince McMahon as per VegaDark. --BillC 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect' to Vince McMahon. Worth a brief mention in his page but not sufficient enough for an article of its own.--Cini 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. There's enough information here to make it a stand alone article. -King rich 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's one of the biggest angles in years, to delete it would be insane. Burgwerworldz 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the guy who suggests writing an article on this kayfabe religion after it becomes a significant wrestling angle. The idea that Sohan.s has (redirect and bring back if it is truly sigificant) is a good idea, however. However, it's still not significant enough for its own page ... yet. [[Briguy52748 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep If, by definition, a religion is a set of rules to live by, then this has to be kept as it is a valid religion, kayfabe or not. Gretnagod 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Err ... "valid religion" and "kayfabe" in the same sentence? We most certainly do not, else any one of us could promulgate a "religion," and on the strength of its validity (surely more so than something WWE writers made up for a storyline) require Wikipedia to host an article on it. Nothankew. RGTraynor 15:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep--We can do another AFD in six months if needed. MrMurph101 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--For now. If it doesn't pick up...do away with it like the "Kiss My Ass Club" entry that was done away with in November...well the KMAC was at least mentioned now that I look at Vince's entry...so if this "religion" doesn't continue in the spotlight...follow the precedent
  • Redirect or Delete. It's a neologism. It's advertisement. It's news at best. It isn't an article. Shenme 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Shepherd[edit]

complete hoax, total crap, whatever you want to call it. Google doesn't know this guy; neither does Amazon. He listed his age as 21 in a date article. Rklawton 06:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiSPA - Websetters' Personal Assistant[edit]

non-notable advertisement-cruft — Scm83x hook 'em 07:03, 19 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. Harro5 07:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallicamate[edit]

Subject is not notable. Google search[16] produces a mere 13 hits on four different rather obscure websites. The Big Day Out forum which is mentioned in the article is in itself unnoteworthy, and has at most a handful of sites linking to it. No news mention as far as I could tell. Jens Nielsen 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Jens Nielsen 07:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject is perhaps the most significant local pop-culture reference on one of the largest music sites in Australia. Is frequently referenced humorously, and usage of his name and image has crossed over onto other local sites and is well-known within these communities. Article is a great reference point for those who do not fully understand the references. Metallicamate, although somewhat localised, is somewhat of an internet phenomenon in Australian music, and is often used to characterise certain elements of Australian music culture. Although internationally somewhat irrelevent, the article is certainly relevent and helpful to a large amount of users who are part of these mentioned communities. Esquared au 07:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the big day out is the biggest music festival in australia and every year literally thousands of people visit it. this is noteworthy. why be a snob?
Bear in mind that wikipedia has a global audience, and ought not have everything about local affairs in it. See the official wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people). He's not a major local (political) figure as I can determine, has received no significant (any?) press coverage, though he may, as your argue have been achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Have a good look at the criteria. It's not my decision to delete it, others will have to respond too. Meanwhile, work on improving the article as much as you can. If you make it a well worked-out article in conformity with wikipedia norms (including verifiability), there's a good chance it won't be deleted even if sub-notable. Good luck!

Jens Nielsen 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep if references are provided. Grafikm_fr 08:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete archvanity. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the heck out of this per Ghirla. Let me get this straight: all this guy is is an obscure blogger, and that's why he's supposed to be notable? We're not talking about whether Big Day Out is notable. We're not even talking about whether a bulletin board associated with Big Day Out is notable. We're seriously talking about whether a registered user on the forum based on Big Day Out is notable? Yikes. RGTraynor 16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that he is a blogger, the point is that in Australian music he is somewhat of an internet phenomena, something that is still referenced and discussed daily, and is a story that many people still need explained to them very often. You're completely ignoring the wider circumstances around this article - it's not simply a registered user on a forum, and to trivialise it down to that is just plain ignorant. It's like saying "all your base" is just the opening sequence of some obscure game. Esquared au 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have addressed the point: that if this guy was actually any sort of Internet phenomenon, he would have generated Google hits. Some G-hits. Any G-hits. And not just a couple posts from four forums, one of which is shut down, one of which pulls an Alexa ranking of over five million, one of which pulls a mere 300K+. But if you have any evidence of notability, feel free to bring it out! RGTraynor 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible speedy as A7 biography. This is a user of a webforum who doesn't even visit any more apparently. Has had absolutely no impact on wider Australian culture. Capitalistroadster 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible speedy as A7 biography as per User:Capitalistroadster --A Y Arktos\talk 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. --Bduke 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, Metallicamate is just the nickname used by some guy who posted on a web forum. An Internet phenomenon would yield more than 18 Google hits. [17] "All your base are belong to us", by comparison, yields 985,000 Google hits. [18] --Metropolitan90 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Five of which are unique English entries. Fagstein 06:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nn pop webcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not all debates can be solved by Google, Deep Blue. Someday you'll learn that. MrAngy 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if he's an Internet phenomenon then surely he must have serious Google hits? Fagstein 06:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A LOCAL one. These forums do not have all of their pages on google, and there aren't flash cartoons on humour sites. This does not stop it from being a frequently discussed (and queried) topic. The fact that over 2 years later he is still brought up in discussions and other things such as photoshop activities, etc. is testament to the ongoing relevence of the subject, whether this is put on google or not.
  • Comment: Fair enough; so Google is for some reason ignoring these websites. Mind providing us some links so we can see for ourselves? RGTraynor 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Fagstein 06:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Roisterer 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per complete failure of WP:BIO. As a side note, User:MyNameIsNotBob speedied this version of the page: [19] as vandalised by User:Lollol445566. I reverted the page but restored his speedy to the current version because there is no real assertion of notability here.--Isotope23 20:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could also qualify as speedy as an attack page.--Isotope23 20:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there is an AfD underway, and it has been going for more than 24 hours, the article probably should not be speedied. It should be undeleted so that people can review the merits of the article and this debate can be concluded appropriately.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I tried to have this artcle speedied as User:Isotope23 mentions above. This is a spam page and definitely should be deleted. User:Lollol445566 should be warned as such about vandalism to wikipedia, a block may be appropriate. MyNameIsNotBob 06:57, 21 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. Mailer Diablo 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Wallace[edit]

Fails to meet WP:BIO. Possible vanity with no assertion of notablity. Arbusto 08:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the assertions in the article appear to go some way to meeting the professor test; there are certainly assertions that Professor Wallace is a significant expert in his area and that he has published a well-known academic work. Perhaps if the strength of these claims could be established/contested more authoritatively it would be easier to make a decision. It's certainly worth considering the merits of the article, but I'm undecided at the minute. - Politepunk 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep in light of RGTraynor's research about Prof. Wallace's Greek textbook. - Politepunk 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? How is that a well known work? The critieria as follows:
  • The person is regarded as an significant expert in their area by independent sources. No
  • The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. No
  • The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). No proof.
  • The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work. No proof
  • The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. No
  • The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements. No
  • The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. No
  • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. No
    • Anyway according to the article he isn't even teaching right now. Arbusto 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "No proof?" Google it for yourself and follow some of the many, many review links and the ones referencing its use in the classroom. I appreciate that you're trying to defend your AfD nomination, but I'm sure we can all agree that we're more interested in dispassionate research of whether or not an article meets the criteria. RGTraynor 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having a book listed and reviewed at Amazon is not a big deal nor does it prove it is a well-known or high quality academic work. 500 google hits is not very many for a "well known" work. How about any peer reviews of his book? Reviews by experts in the linguistics field? Arbusto 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take it interest in going through the evidence yourself? Alright. First off, that's 500 unique G-hits; the grand total Google hits is actually over 32,500. Here's the ones from a directed search of .edu sites alone [20]. RGTraynor 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep 500 unique hits. The link you supplied has the first two results from the seminary he graduated from and later taught at. Arbusto 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Third and fourth, anyway. What's your point? That the website with the most traffic about an academic is the one at the seminary at which he taught? I doubt there are many professors about whom that couldn't be said. RGTraynor 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The school with which he was associated has only been accredited since 1994 [21], but the Greek textbook he wrote looks legitimately notable - it's in the 7000s in Amazon sales rank, and a directed Google search turned up over 500 unique G-hits, a cursory glance at which turn up many reviews and evidence of classroom use. That meets the Professor Test all by itself. RGTraynor 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RGtraynor. I've added some cats and removed some superfluous personal information (i.e. what he does in his spare time). The JPS 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete diploma-mill cruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup to remove unverifiable personal history and add sources. Fagstein 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RGTraynor, an Amazon rank of 7,000 is quite decent. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yeah. For a textbook. For a Greek grammar textbook. I'd say 7000 wasn't just decent. RGTraynor 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Very strange creepy looking school. I'm sympathetic to Blnguyen comment. But it sounds like he may be notable as an author, but isn't notable as an academic. So the article ought to reflect this by focusing on his books. JeffBurdges 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, meets notability standards for published authors, which makes other issues irrelevant. Monicasdude 14:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Wallace is cited often on b-Greek (e.g., [22], [23]). He heads the The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at DTS ([24]). He is a translator and the senior NT editor of the New English Translation of the bible ([25]). His intermediate grammar "is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject," and he has written several books, as well as been published in number of scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, as well as in the more populist Christianity Today ([26]). And BTW, DTS is fully accredited. Calling it a "diploma-mill" is either asinine or extreemly biased. » MonkeeSage « 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If his job is to be an academic, which it clearly is, then it's fair for the article to focus on that, even if he's notable due to some other field. Georgewilliamherbert 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --JBJ 20:44, 22 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 deleted by JesseW as an attack page.-Polotet 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reeve jokes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a joke book; there is a brief mention of this fad in the Christopher Reeve article, but it's not like we need a whole list of these jokes. — sjorford (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 09:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, they're not even funny.Uucp 15:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is now a joke book. Cleveland steamer, which is nothing but a slapstick sex joke, has been kept in deletion review. Consensus has determined that jokes are worthy of inclusion here. Brian G. Crawford 15:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POINT? Unlike Cleaveland steamer, this article has no list of references in pop culture and it has no need for an article of its own when it can be reference in the Christopher Reeve article. (Also, I wouldn't be so quick to assume no one ever actually performs the Cleaveland steamer—I don't have any idea if anyone does myself, but I know of other kinks which seem just as strange to me which are regularly indulged.) Delete-Polotet 15:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think I'm joking? If you think I'm trying to disrupt Wikipedia by trying to prove a point, open a RfC and prove it. I'm being completely serious, and even though I think this list of jokes is meanspirited, cruel, and ugly, there is consensus that crude jokes are worthy of inclusion. Shit jokes shouldn't be given preferential treatment over cripple jokes. Brian G. Crawford 17:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I change my vote to delete. This repugnant page needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you were actually trying to disrupt Wikipedia or doing so, but I've generally felt that WP:Point covers any case where you're voting in a way you feel is detrimental to the encyclopedia because of the way other people have voted in the past. That said, I can see that my comment could read as a bit of an attack and it was certainly overly harsh for this situation, and I apologize for that.-Polotet 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, on POV violation and as a disgracefully blatant attack page. RGTraynor 16:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I just start thinking of all the other horrible joke lists we could end up with if we kept such things. -MrFizyx 17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Unionism[edit]

There are no citations and furthermore I cannot find any anywhere on the web. I believe this article to be original research which is against wikipedia's rules. The old article (Which is very clearly original research) can be found here http://www.answers.com/topic/world-unionism it is my opinion that the author simply changed the article around to make it look as though the research is not original. PrettyMuchBryce 09:00, 19 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 Elf-friend. Closing only. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Tham[edit]

I appreciate that the original author added some citations after I tagged this entry with 'prod' last week. Reviewing the evidence, though, I still think this is a vanity page. (1) googling for "david tham" and nanoknowledge turns up nothing but this page, a similar promotional page at everything2, and a corporate bio that cites the wikipedia page, (2) a global periodicals search in Nexis for "david tham" and nanoknowledge turns up ZERO hits, and (3) an ABI/INFORM search of academic literature for the same search string also turns up ZERO hits. I wish Tham good luck with his consulting business, but I don't see that Wikipedia should be part of his advertising platform. Uucp 14:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations are to his own original research or seminar presentations. Thatcher131 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above. Note, anon IPs have been removing AFD notices from at least one other article (Nanoknowledge) promoting Mr Tham, as well as blanking ADF pages, and listing the userpage of at least one delete voter (me) on AFD. Pete.Hurd 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't either. Delete and public caning per nom as (possibly spurious) vanity page. RGTraynor 16:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without evidence that Tham's theories have been written about by independent reliable sources this is just Original Research. Good luck in your business and if your ideas become great, people will write your article for you. Delete for now. Thatcher131 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will change vote if sources are provided. Fagstein 06:24, 20 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. HappyCamper 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasthosts[edit]

Another non-notable dotcom registrar. Delete Ardenn 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN adspam. RGTraynor 16:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per RGTraynor. Grafikm_fr 16:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. The JPS 17:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The info in the article is not entirely positive. Can someone ellaborate more on non-notability here? e.g. give some interpretation to the Alexa results for this?[27] -MrFizyx 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That's not a bad Alexa ranking by any means, but that's like saying the outfit that makes the silicon for a number of computers is "notable," a word a lot of Wikipedia editors seem to feel is synonymous with "ubiquitous." Everyone's site is hosted by someone. I'd recommend taking a peek at WP:CORP. RGTraynor 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a reason to keep it. They may very well end up on vfd. Ardenn 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them have already survived vfd--but I hope you bring them up again. I agree with you! Delete. -MrFizyx 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Netcraft says they're the largest website host in the UK. Google News hits suggest at least some notability. Fagstein 06:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're more than a registrar, they're a large web host/ISP. The article includes non-positive information so to describe it as advertising suggests Ardenn hasn't actually read the text of the page. Many other commercial organisations have Wikipedia pages, particularly when they have a controversial or interesting history. MattRevell 08:55, 21 April 2006 (BST)
  • Comment I also looked at the articles on Google. I felt these were just repeated copies of press releases issued by the company. Also, WebFusion Webhosting.info suggests that they may not be the UK's largest, but instead come in third.[28](original source[29]) It really comes down to how many companies like this you think we should have on Wikipedia. It is no wonder that debates on similar companies (see above) have tended to end in "no consensus." -MrFizyx 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable company with an interesting history. The fact that they come up 3rd on Google for "web host" suggests that they're a big host and are probably doing something right. Netcraft's recent figures say they're the world's largest Windows 2003 web host. --Wilbowonka 21:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user only began editing yesterday, and has less than 8 edits. Ardenn 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:V. Ardenn 21:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adspam -- Tawker 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: attempts here at notability are large stretches at best. Really nothing more than a nn advertisement. --Hetar 05:08, 25 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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Shorts Day[edit]

Does not contain quality, or enough, encyclopedic content. The page is also an orphan. At best, it should be merged with the article, University of Calgary. Arch26 16:26, 19 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 moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nels lindahl[edit]

Contested speedy candidate. Autobiography of a PhD student who's primary claim to fame is the publication of book through a well-known vanity press publisher. Delete as per WP:V unless sources that meet the guidelines listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources are provided. Court Jester 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Please delete the entry. I am tired and according to policy should not participate in the dialogue anyway. Please accept my apologies as I stand up and walk away from the table. --Nels Lindahl 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per WP:V. Looks like a copy of the author's own user page and his contributions all seem self-referential. -MrFizyx 17:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom and author. RGTraynor 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per author's request. Fagstein 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't speedy as there has been more than one contributor... ah, never mind. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 22 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 - will put a notice for merging on the article. HappyCamper 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best friend[edit]

This is essentially a dictionary definition with some speculation added. There's nothing here that shouldn't properly be in the Friend article. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - could be a valid article, is researched and sourced (Argyle's work, for instance), but not in this state. Unsourced and some inaccuracies. The JPS 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus indicates that dicdefs are acceptable for Triviapedia, I mean Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillow fight and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of a bitch. Just add a long, tedious pop culture section, maybe with that "BFF" stuff from South Park, and this article will be on its way to featured status! Brian G. Crawford 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that you're just being sarcastic rather than genuinely violating WP:POINT... The trouble is that your "vote" could actually help the article to stay here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having re-read WP:POINT, I realize that voting to keep this article may be a violation, while my sarcasm clearly is not a violation. I therefore change my vote to delete. Brian G. Crawford 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do believe you broke my sarcasm detector. I demand that you reimburse me. Kotepho 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I sympathise completely with the sarcasm. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Friendship. David Sneek 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Friendship. Should be covered somewhere, but not good enough to stand alone. Kotepho 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Friendship seems to make the most sense. --Hetar 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Friendship per Kotepho. --Allen 01:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unencyclopaedic. Gold Stur 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Friendship.--Dakota ~ 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per above. Kafziel 04:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content pretty much sucks, but a distinction between normal friendship and "best friend" is quite encyclopaedic, especially with situations in history when one has to choose between them. Does Julius Caesar (play) ring any bells? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about the distinction between wearing a suit and wearing one's best suit, and suchlike? No-one's denying that friends, like other things, can be ranked from worst to best, but is that encyclopædic? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Friendship. Either a dicdef as it is or duplicating that article if expanded. —Whouk (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galinda Hobsquatch[edit]

Non notable bio. No importance asserted, nor any references provided. No google hits. I put a speedy del tag on it but was promptly removed by creator. soUmyaSch 16:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the process of making it... Sorry, school is making it slow.

  • Speedy Delete as NN bio, no assertion of notability, possible attack page, possible hoax. RGTraynor 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a day I went through the article and made a handfull of changes. We could probably expect it to be completed shortly... icolson 13:35, 19 April 2006 (CST)
  • Comment: And it's still probably spurious. Still with zero G-hits. User's first contribution, by the bye. RGTraynor 19:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I have nominated this for db-bio. The article states that she is one of America's least well-known poets and doesn't establish notability thereafter. Capitalistroadster 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep this AfD on my watchlist. Until then, delete. Author seems to be confused as to meaning of notability. Fagstein 06:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For some reson Tawker removed the AfD notice and replaced it with a prod, I have replaced the AfD notice.--blue520 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, fails WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, if verified non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO.--Isotope23 20:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Until it can be proven that this bio is non-notable. Google hits is not a good method in finding this out. --MateoP 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You can't prove a negative. That aside, it is not our responsibility to demonstrate that no one has ever heard of this person (although no one ever has), it is the responsibility of the article's creators to give verifiable evidence of her notability. Wikipedia:Verifiability RGTraynor 13:53, 24 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE

Juan Manuel Abras[edit]

Non-notable composer/conductor. This page has been nominated for deletion once before and the result was DELETE (after someone attempted to use sockpuppets to vote in favor of Keep). That was in 2005 -- why is this article still here? Grover cleveland 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for this article is also full of sockpuppets. Grover cleveland 16:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Protect from recreation. The JPS 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the writer or other Wikipedians can provide proof of importance. Almost Famous 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probable vanity page and lots of sock-puppetry but he seems adequately notable in an under-represented field - see e.g. [30] or [31]
Delete just too much sock-puppetry Dlyons493 Talk 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages tell us he's a postgrad student. He's taken lots of universty courses (surprise). He's studied with some notable professors, but that doesn't make him notable. He's directed some ensembles that are anonymous (in the English link) or that no-one has heard of (second link). He is a member of a composers' assocation (no evidence that any notability is required to become a member). He's founded lots of groups (big deal). As a composer, has his music been performed by musicians who are themselves notable? Has it been published by a major music publishing company? As a conductor, has he conducted a notable orchestra or ensemble? Are any recordings of his conducting or compositions available commercially? Grover cleveland 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All comments by Grover cleveland are erroneous and false. Abras is not a postgraduate student anymore (besides, you can achieve notability even while being a student). Not everybody is accepted -as Abras was- to take university courses at the prestigious institutions he attended (where legends like Karajan, Abbado, and Mehta, for instance, studied too: University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Austria, just for naming one). The ensembles Abras conducted (I checked them one by one) are not anonymous at all; they are simply not listed in this article. The Argentine Composers Association -Abras is a member of that institution- was founded in 1915 as "National Society of Music" and is one of the oldest and most prestigious composers associations of Latin America (of course, not everybody is accepted for becoming a member). Some of Abras scroes and CDs are, indeed available commercially (this was checked too). Abras was designated conductor of two of first-class Argentine Orchestras (this was verified too). Conclusion: all comments by Grover cleveland may be product of the evil, non authoritative, jealous and envious mind of, maybe, a frustrated musician that possibly doesn't even know how to read a music score. Music Master
  • Delete and protect from recreation.--blue520 07:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect from deletion. Comments like those from Grover cleveland should be avoided for being non professional, erroneous, non authoritative and offensive. Music Master
Previous comment was from a Sockpuppet? Grover cleveland 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment I am the author of the previous comment and, as the administrators can see, there is no such a thing. Paranoic and misleading behaviours like the ones exhibited by Grover cleveland, product of possible envious attemps of discrimination by frustrated people, should not be permitted within the frame of Wikipedia and will be properly denouneced. Music Master
Music Master first edit in Wikipedia was 20 April 2006 [32]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability within the frame of specialized european media is more than proved. I spent hours checking the info and sources. It's more than worthy of keeping. Monitory
Monitory first edit on Wikipedia 20 April 2006 [33]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and protect from deletion. If not, we should delete many other articles I found in this article's categories: he is as notable -or even more notable- than a bunch of other young composers found at Wikipedia. Bororomir Wins.
Bororomir Wins first edit on Wikipedia was 20 April 2006 [34]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN and protect from recreation. Membership in organizations and admission to programs/educational institutions, prestigious though they may be, does not necessarily confer notability. For all the hyperbole above I see no mention of which orchestras he led (WP:Cite). The extensive sock puppetry above and on the article's talk page indicate that this article will be quickly recreated if not protected. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AbsolutDan you must pay more attention to what you write: the membership detail was an answer to an envious comment by Grover cleveland. Notability is well proved by authoritative and specialized sources. Pay more attention before writing and do not talk about you don't know, like in this case. Thanks. Music Master
Where? Please cite and I'll be happy to take a look --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know how to search the web, you can find some useful tutorials here: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com I hope you find them useful. Regards, Music Master
  • Keep for showed proof of importance, notability and the useful information contained in the article. Please, protect from deletion to avoid further discriminating and confusing comments Sandonar
Sandonar first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [35]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons493 Not only that: I found also many other links that make this article worthy of keeping. However, you must know a bit of Classical Music in order to appreciate them (and also Spanish and German). Karate Kid
Karate Kid first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [36]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Please add some jpg or gif files to the entry. Many thanks.--Koril 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Koril first edit on Wikipedia was 21 April 2006 [37]. Probably a Sockpuppet. Grover cleveland 15:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC) False statement by Grover cleveland. A real Sockpuppet must not be confused with a newcomer Wikipedian comment, like in this case. --Music Master 21:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Wikipedia authorities: Yesterday I have been told that Juan Manuel Abras, a notable young Latin American composer, internationally aclaimed by the Argentine and European media, has become the victim of an evil, envious and unjustified attempt of discrimination by a Wikipedia user named Grover cleveland, who posted false and erroneuos information about the subject in order to support his wicked action, while attempting to confuse fresh comments written by new users with sockpuppets. Having created this account, named Perelli, I checked the truth of this statement and I energically demand from Wikipedia administrators to protect the mentioned article from deletion and not to avoid further activities by Grover cleveland or other users that show similar behaviours, activities that are not only totalitarian and against the claimed Wikipedia conventions and policies but also violate the many human rights defined in international law and covenants. This activity will be properly denounced and prosecuted if serious actions are not taken. --Perelli 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perelli: please see Wikipedia:No legal threats for the best course of action to take in handling disputes. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC) AbsolutDan: even if your help is more than appreciated, you must know that Wikipedia cannot be above international legislation nor be against the defense of the world established Human Rights. Also, do not attempt to deny the universal right to take a legal action. Please avoid future interventions without a proper knowledge of Law. --Music Master 22:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't allow legal threats here. Any more and you and your army of socks will be blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I would appreciate if you could avoid personal attacks against me. Please, avoid any kind of threats against me or other users. Otherwise, you will be denounced too. --Music Master 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Music Master, you have made many personal attacks. You have broken the laws regarding libel. Go read WP:NPA immediately. What the hell are you talking about human rights and international law? No one has the RIGHT to an article here. Also, this isn't a vote. 1 edit newcomers and anon editors don't get a sway here. Their comments are taken with very little weight. Stop making socks, OR stop defending them. If your not involved you have no idea if they are a sock or not. Oh yeah, threaten me legally. Call me evil. I dare you. You’re looking at a fast ban if you don't tone it down. ---J.Smith 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I would appreciate if you could avoid personal attacks against me. Please, avoid any kind of threat against me or any other user. Please, avoid offensive language. Otherwise, you will be denounced too, despite your age or any other inimputability circumstance that may arise. --Music Master 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perelli: you may want to visit: http://www.amnestyusa.org and http://www.unhchr.ch --Music Master 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. And annoying. --BillC 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BillC. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Absoultly nn. And vanity. and socks. and recreation of deleted content. ---J.Smith 22:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theresa knott Your stated nn. is false. Your vanity is false. Your socks is false. I would appreciate if you could avoid personal attacks against me. Otherwise, you will be denounced too. --Music Master 22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accusing you of runnig socks is not a personal attack. Since you have chosen to mention lawyers again I've blocked you for disrption. I will be blocking each and everyone of your socks also. Enough already. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since many users may be discussing by the use of abusive, offensive and not objective parameters, I encourage them to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Policies%2C_conventions_and_guidelines. Some recent behaviours are against the essence of Wikipedia and may lead readers to links like:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lack_of_facts_no_hindrance_to_speculation_about_Google,_Wikipedia http://www.openwyre.com/2006/03/_wikipedia_the_.html http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2005/12/20/wikipedia_vs_britannica_apples_vs_oranges

Therefore, I encourage them not to act by following subjective "favors", but to act according to Wikipedia policies and international conventions. --Music Master 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've speedied this one. Continuing this "debate" is simply daft. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acornrack[edit]

Non-notable website. Also poorly written, reads like an advertisement. Joey Roe talk/contrib 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Coyne[edit]

Non-notable. Low google hits.Hasn't dones anything particularly noteworthy.Vanity/advertising for his websites and podcasts. The JPS 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only possible claim to fame is this "PodFest", but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no indication it's popular yet. Fagstein 06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rank for bitjobs.net[38] is not very impressive. not notable. -MrFizyx 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With such insightful people as yourself "policing" Wikipedia, I'm sure it won't be long before it declines into something even more meaningless than it is at the moment. Who are any of you to say whether something is noteworthy or not? Also, why has it only been flagged as "vanity/advertising" now after being on here since 11th July last year? Phill.corbett 07:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that it has taken since July to get nominated for deletion is a marker of its lack of notability. It means its taken this long for someone to even find it -- I only found it because I was disambiguating links to Newcastle. If you think that wikipedia is "meaningless... at the moment" then you shouldn't be concerned with your article being deleted. Regards. The JPS 11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you belive the article to be notable make your case. Blanking out the debate page and making insults won't get you anywhere. -MrFizyx 14:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you acuse me of advertising someone elses website when you said yourself it's taken this long to get anyone to notice it? What would be the point? Isn't Wikipedia a place for people to write articles about people, subjects and places regardless of whether they have a good Alexa rating or so many millions of Google hits or whether three people believe it is noteworthy or not. -Phill.corbett 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phill, Alexa and Google are just tools we can use to compare how well known people, blogs, podcasts, bands, etc. are. It is usually not the end of the story and some topics are notable that don't register well. The question before us here is whether or not Phil Coyne has done something remarkable and verifiable that distinguishes himself from all other individuals with blogs/podcasts (we can't cover everything/everyone). We also try to follow criteria that have been agreed upon by more than the 3 or 4 people who are voting in this debate (see e.g. WP:BIO, WP:WEB). Also, spam does find its way into wikipedia (not to say your article is just spam), and even if human editors don't see it, search engines do--this is typically what the spammers want to increase their rank on internet search results. -MrFizyx 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BALLS, I think. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 22 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, keeping. Tawker 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every Three Weekly[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 17:18, 19 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. No Guru 18:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bee Well Company[edit]

Non-notable company. 93 google hits for "BeeWell company", of which 57 come from their own website. A look at the twelve relevant Google hits outside of their own website definitively shows that this company matches none of the relevant notability criteria. — Hillel 17:17, 19 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 (no consensus). Mike's reasoning at the end is hardly valid, but Fagstein and MrFizyx have provided reasonable arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Mao[edit]

This is a Vanity Page. The only source cited is the subject's blog. Geekera 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Vanity. Grafikm_fr 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to have gotten some media coverage. Fagstein 06:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Counting google hits doesn't seem to make a strong case for or against notability. If he really has set new records with the Rubik's cube, I suppose he is notable enough. -MrFizyx 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've just read WP:BIO again and I say, not yet. Let's not grant the laurels of encyclopedicness too soon, or we might discourage Tyson from accomplishing something that will really be worth remembering in 100 years ;-) — Hillel 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tyson is cool Mike 00:07, 22 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. Many of the keep voters also indicated dissatisfaction with the article as it now is, since it was little more than a list of external links. However, an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, so I am deleting without prejudice against an improved article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University television[edit]

Article serves only as a repository of external links. Haakon 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It should be expanded, but it's at least somewhat informative. Aplomado - UTC 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if expanded. Grafikm_fr 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, Delete. When was the criterion about mere lists of external links being disallowed rescinded? RGTraynor 18:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An internal list of university television stations might be appropriate, but not under this title. Fagstein 06:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above — Hillel 16:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's just a bunch of external links- in fact, it's not even a bunch, just a few. Unless the list is going to be interwiki links, and include every TV station run by a college or university, there's no reason for it to exist. -- Kicking222 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current article does not have enough context/description, but such context exists, so it should be expanded rather than deleted. Something similar to Campus radio would be appropriate. Ziggurat 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand heavily. The current article is poor, but the subject is worthy of an article. matturn 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation of a proper article. The current version barely escapes speedy deletion under CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Only contains external links. Vegaswikian 05:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too speculative and without a solid set of criteria in order to distinguish which stations and shows of importance from those of non-importance.--Cini 18:42, 23 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!
Tawker 21:24, 24 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. Tawker 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XBWL[edit]

Another none notable e-wrestling federation, where users make fantasy stories up about their fantasy wrestlers. Also seems like vanity after having a quick read with quotes such as "Michael Wilkins - That would be me! Yay!". Englishrose 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Vanispamicruft that deserves a hurricanrana off the top rope. RGTraynor 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the "credits" on the page. It is now strictly informational. This E-Fed was around for many, many years. It was the premier E-Fed in it's day. It's well known, and if so called 'real' federations can list their history here, then why can't we?
  • Delete, unless someone can point to reliable sources to substantiate all this. Fagstein 07:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all e-wrestling pages as inherently non-notable. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source - http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling3/xbwl - The XBWL tribute page.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mangojuice provided the best argument for deletion (be aware that just saying "not notable" will not carry much weight when faced with a good argument for inclusion). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeRoTracker[edit]

Non-notable tracker program. Still a stub article. Doesn't seem to pass the proposed WP:SOFT criteria. Vossanova 17:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. – Hillel 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Importance. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's free software, it's notable since it's an Impulse Tracker clone. See also the deletion review process for Schism Tracker. And, off-topic: what is happening to Wikipedia? Guaka 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle and Vossanova. This piece of software is still in alpha testing, for crying out loud. Mangojuice 22:26, 22 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. Note that the sole author of this article has also subsequently requested that it be deleted here. HappyCamper 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franchette Dizon[edit]

Not notable --Bottesini 17:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, yes, another NN blogger who thinks that Wikipedia is a Myspace clone. Delete as vanity page. (And someone nail Chette Dizon, which redirects here.) RGTraynor 18:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Grafikm_fr 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently has a whole 51 fans. Delete. Fagstein 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I think it should not be deleted. This girl is not just a blogger but a growing writer. I have known a school where she is really popular (the children using her writings as their reference). This is not just about the blog but the girl that will soon become popular. So I nominate it will not be deleted. But I don't think that's the case. Of course being her as a Christian she'll experience "Discrimination". --Kimber143 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I did not put this woman information here for popularity or for my space thing. Why would I do that? The reason why I put her because like the person who said at the upper one, she is a growing writer and as I have told, someone had asked her from wincosin school to make a book about her. Although my vote of course is not to delete, I respect your words. But please do respect my article. --Lmae 21:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Obviously you are not familiar with one IP add for this is a school Internet. I still think you should respect my article. It's not a porn or a bad information. So can you just leave this alone? --Lmae 02:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You only get one recommendation. I have struck out the second one. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow what she said. Obviously you guys don't respect other people. I thought Wikipedia is a free place. You should stop letting people contribute what they can. Because you guys are not fair. --Lmae 03:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've always been bemused at the widespread belief that the meaning of the word "fair" is "letting me get my own way." Wikipedia isn't a "free place," per se -- it is a private encyclopedia with rules and guidelines for inclusion, and articles about people need to satisfy those criteria to be considered worthy of inclusion. We're not here to "respect other people," whatever that means. We're here to respect Wikipedia's rules. Take a look over WP:BIO for the criteria that apply in this instance. RGTraynor 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead and delete it already. Don't wait for five days anymore. --Lmae 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hard to see how this is not a vanity page. Hardly notable either.--Cini 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 13:55, 27 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. HappyCamper 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonfish (audio tracker)[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Doesn't seem to meet the proposed WP:SOFT criteria. Vossanova 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 07:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author of Moonfish has later done more well known commercial proprietary music software, that I'm not personally familiar with. --Easyas12c 12:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gets quite a few hits on Google. Has numerous reviews, as well.[40][41] Apparently created several other popular programs like Hammerhead and Pump.--Primetime 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded. Currently it's a candidate for an A3 speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 22 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article ThoughtFarmer. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floor Two, Mardon Hall[edit]

patent nonsense, attempts to redirect and prod by various editors have been reverted by page author, who clearly spends way too much time on this instead of completing his studies and making his parents proud MNewnham 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this useless thing. Grafikm_fr 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some residence halls are kept and others are deleted, but this is just a single floor, and nonsense at that. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is particularly silly for Exeter University where all the Hall articles were merged into University of Exeter Halls of Residence. Mardon Hall is quite well covered there. --Bduke 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everyone knows Floor Two are wussies anyway. Fagstein 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--blue520 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dear god, why does this still exist? Why hasn't it just been deleted yet? -- Kicking222 18:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave us alone!!! Oh come on, its just a bit of fun, nothing to get too worked up about. I apoloise for any upsets i have caused but really this is a touch pedantic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugh Minnock (talk • contribs) .

This page is an excellent page showing the bond between a group of people, so should be left alone, not slated. It shows how good the floor is and how united the people on the floor are so i say leave it be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chetters (talk • contribs) . This is the user's first edit. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. Indeed Chetters is probably a mate of Hugh Minnock. All the latter's edits are concerned with this article or his user page where he has saved the floor two article with the comment " I have set this lil page up so that the annales of floor two may be kept safe from above mentioned editors". When I welcomed him on his talk page last night and pointed out that what he was doing was damaging the serious endeavour of Wikipedia, he blanked his talk page within minutes. I was involved in an earlier debate about Halls at Exeter when they all were merged into one. It seems to be particularly full of idiots who want to add nonsense and vanity stuff to their Hall article(s). Since they got on my watchlist then, I have been reverting nonsense regularly. Hugh, you should not save this article on your user page. Wikipedia is not your private web site. --Bduke 22:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete One of the most blatant vanity pages I have ever seen. No sources, notability or avenues for verifiability. Dreadful.--Cini 18:47, 23 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. Tawker 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wingfield[edit]

Prod failed. Delete as non-notable, only 15 google hits Joelito 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable Trebor 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fagstein 07:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mainly due to the toolserver being down, Elf-friend deleted this article for being prodded. As the prod was objected to, I have restored it. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Elf-friend 06:59, 24 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. HappyCamper 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skank[edit]

This is an overgrown dictionary definition, and can't be anything but. See WP:WINAD. Adding etymology and usage examples does not make it an encyclopedia entry. Adding those insidious "pop culture references" would not make it an encyclopedia entry. Creating a List of notable skanks (1. Paris Hilton, 2. Britney Spears...) would not make this an encyclopedia entry. The only thing that would make this an encyclopedia entry is a healthy dose of denial, Wikipedia style, and so I bring it here. Brian G. Crawford 19:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have worked a little on this article to make it more readable, but, like you, have had serious doubts about it. I think most of this belongs in the Wiktionary as well, and the rest is not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Mona-Lynn 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WarpstarRider 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edited, but needs sources. Fagstein 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edited. Definition very adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.127.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Jim Ellis 17:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was useful for illuminating a widely used slang term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.217.178.186 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. It is a definition, as nom. Only suitable for a dictionary of slang. Shenme 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Magic Pickle 22:25, 26 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 Kotepho 07:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Andrewjuren(talk) 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to show why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Non-notable. Delete Ardenn 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Also, please stop biting the newbies Ardenn. The president of a significant real life organization, which is clearly notable is helping to improve this article. Don't delete please. --Nick Dillinger 20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Thank you Nick. I am new, and I am getting no help or suggestions. ryanc 20:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no proof of who he really is, and regardless, it's still NOT NOTABLE. Ardenn 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come to my office, at least it will give you peace of mind that I am who I say I am. ryanc 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will you pay for the flight from Ottawa? Not everyone who edits here is from BC. Ardenn 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Honestly, the best proof I can give you is if you check the website. [EUS] it says on the start page that I'm elected. Also you can email the presidents email, it gets forwarded to my hotmail account.ryanc 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable student group. Ardenn is altogether correct when she intimates that, irrespective of the propriety of her nominating the article of a newbie, the group is non-notable; no decorous welcome would change that. There are cases in which the subject of an article can be identified as notable even where no assertion of notability is made; in such cases it is surely appropriate for an editor either to improve the article him/herself or to contact the creator and suggest that he/she edit the article in order that notability should be established (or at least that an assertion should be essayed); here, even asd the article presents a good deal of information about the subject, it is eminently clear that the subject is non-notable, which term we generally ascribe to student groups save those which are university-wide (see, e.g., student governments, especially at Canadaian colleges and universities) or otherwise notable (see, e.g., The Whiffenpoofs). Joe 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EUS is an internationally known group. In Vancouver alone we are known extremely well for 'hanging the bug', and our red jackets which can be seen all over the city. Many engineers worldwide also have these red jackets. Internationally we also have recognition from our many stunts as seen in the article. I would be more than happy to expand on some of the stunts. FYI The Queen of England, Prince Charles, Boris Yeltsin, and Scotty from Star Trek all have been given reds and have worn them (exception: the Queen did not wear hers to my knownledge). ryanc 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • internationally known group That's stretching the term to near meaninglessness: you traveled down to San Francisco and performed a juvenile stunt on the Golden Gate Bridge, which netted you an item in the morning paper. Big whoop. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, failing that, merge into Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia and/or University of British Columbia. It is a very nicely done article, but it's just non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot merge it into the AMS or the UBC articles. That's not what they're about. The EUS is a very seperate group. ryanc 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Merge is surely permissible here; many articles about colleges and universities enumerate active student groups. Joe 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say this at least provides notability. Gwernol 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks gwernol, I was looking for that article. Also see this or this. ryanc 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability, my foot. I remember the San Francisco Chronicle story at the time: a very small news item marking a badly executed college prank. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "Bug incident" perhaps merits an article more than does the group. If, though, a pattern of noteworthy and well-covered stunts can be demonstrated, then the group would likely be notable. Joe 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joe, the start of the article is just the tip of the iceberg. Note that the original bug stunt was in the late 70's on Lion's Gate bridge. A bug was also placed on top of the clocktower at UBC. I have many articles in our archives. ryanc 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a society at a school. For great justice. 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you pick random sentences to paste in after your standard "Keep" votes, as it appears, or is there some deep meaning escaping me here? --Calton | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand your question. I voted to keep this, because it is a society, at a school. There's nothing random about the sentence, it relates to the article. For great justice. 05:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but will need to cite sources and have more NPOV. Also, see this essay on notability.Andrewjuren(talk) 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd actually have put it up for Speedy deletion under {{db-club}}. But that's besides the point. The point here is, the wiki community has repeatedly agreed that, in Canada, only the overall Student Society, the one representing al students, such as SSMU, AMS and UASU are noteable enough, in and of themselves, for articles. If the EUS has some other claim to faim, so be it. But at this point, there is no reason for this article. pm_shef 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignorance is bliss. There is reason for this article. The EUS is an internationally known society for reasons I've already stated. ryanc 23:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please show where this has been "repeatedly agreed" upon? Andrewjuren(talk) 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have been through situations like this in history before with the likes of the logical positivists. While the intentions of the logical positivists were to remove false and untruthful facts, they lacked consistency in their definitions for what was 'notable.' I see here similar inconsistencies in determining what is 'notable.' Case in point, explain to me how this is more 'notable' than a well meaning and prominant engineering society [42]. The fact that the entry simply exists, effort was put into providing the world with a history of the society and that people are here fighting to keep it suggests that this entry is notable. KevinReilly 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)User's first edit[reply]
    • Well, Mr Brand-New Editor, you might have had the ghost of shred a possibility of a point if the comparison in your cliched "If X article exists, why can't mine?" argument (I swear, I'm going to start numbering them, for convenience) was to an article that had been through the AFD -- which, quelle surprise, it hasn't. Of course, the article you dredged up from whatever dark corner of Wikipedia you found it has nothing -- vip, zero, nada, nil -- do with the actual article under discussion, either in terms of subject area and appropriate notability standards.
      • And that's not even touching on the most basic of issues: we're not discussing the deletion of that article here. We're also not talking about global warming, whether the Socreds are coming back, or the best place to spot American TV stars working in Vancouver, all subjects equally as valid as the one you're attempting to misdirect us to: we're discussing the deletion of the Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia article. Period/full stop/EOL. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NPAWell you missed my point it seems. I'm not arguing "if this is here, why isn't that one." I'm not even arguing in favour of either direction. I simply stated that this agruement of notability is flawed... There are inconsistencies in the way this is being editted..
  • WP:NPA. Ardenn 00:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-worded my entry so it was less of an 'attack.' Though the entry here before was a slight 'personal attack,' entries shouldn't be simply editted by others. A lot of valid points were missed when someone editted it. Oh...and the way it was editted... spectacular.. really I don't know how missed ommiting some of those valid points... KevinReilly 01:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though as an arts grad I should oppose on principle ;-) I'll agree that it's undesirable to have an entry for every little club that might form on any given campus. That said, I have no opposition to articles on student clubs that have established a significant presence, even if it's within their own campus. There are a few student societies popping up on AfD with enough frequency that I've begun to suspect it's a bit arbitrary what makes one "notable" and another not. I've seen it suggested that one can substitute a place like Harvard and the entry would still fail notability. Let's take a look at some of the entries on clubs at Harvard: Harvard Computer Society; Harvard-Radcliffe Science Fiction Association; Final club. What makes these any more notable than the UBC EUS? I say leave them all up. Fluit 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just another student group -- and one that's not as well-known as their egos want it to be. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Clearly, the article is undergoing a substantial amount of change (compare the 16:40 April 18 version to the 13:29 April 19 version and you can see how much it has changed in the less than 24 hours. I propose that this AfD be placed on hiatus to allow for editors to improve the article (especially in regard to notability and verifiability, removing an original research.) I am strongly against the categorical removal of this article simply because it is about a university society, unless there is a proven discussion about this sort of categorical deletion policy that can be documented. Andrewjuren(talk) 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Golden Gate Bridge job should be considered rather notable in itself, and the lifting of the Rose Bowl adds to it. Media coverage has indicated notability in the past, and should probably be considered here as well. (Not an Engineer, for the record.)Tony Fox 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beetle stunt gives them notability. But people involved with the group should not be the ones editing it. And it needs sources. Fagstein 07:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, however there are many stunts which may be overlooked. Like stealing the speaker's chair from parliament in Victoria BC. ryanc 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stunts make it notable if nothing else. Could maybe afford to lose the list of positions on the executive though. Why exactly are we doing this again? Thought there was pretty good consensus last time this was nominated.. TastyCakes 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extracuricular activities make them notable. Recommended improvements above seconded. Georgewilliamherbert 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to University of British Columbia. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UBC article is already criticized as being too long and full of random crap. I don't think the EUS can be added to it without reducing the quality of both articles. TastyCakes 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Stunts make them notable" ?? "extracuricular activities make them notable." ?? They are a school society. They have a organizational structure. They have a mission statement, traditions, special clothing, a song, and a totem rock. Same as a zillion other non-notable groups. Delete. Now if you are tickled by the pranks (repeated in kind by quite a few other student groups) then move those particulars to some other page entertaining the world with the like. Shenme 19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does everyone that has a problem with the article seem really grumpy? TastyCakes 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The EUS has traditionally had a prominent (and often controversial) presence on the UBC campus, and it has established a certain international notoriety over the years. The annual stunts during Engineering Week have attained [local], [national], and even [international] attention. I agree that the page needs a substantial rewrite to focus on the aspects of the EUS that are noteworthy to readers outside of the UBC community. However, it should not be turfed just because it is a "student society". Successfully planning, coordinating, and executing schemes to "borrow" the Speaker's chair from the BC Legislature, hijack the Rose Bowl trophy from the University of Washington, and hang Volkswagen Beetles from (among others) the Lions Gate Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge is, I think, worthy of an article. I'll also add my voice to those asking "Why are we doing this again?" (See the first AfD, from only a month ago, nominated by the same editor.) Ckatz 05:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their pranks have been recorded in the local media, they have hung Volkswagons from the lions gate bridge and built then around support beams in various faculties lobbies. --TrollHistorian 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Ardenn 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Since Vancouver is the economic Hub of British Columbia most people in BC get their news from Vancouver. The Vancouver Sun has on various occasions covered the exploits of this engineering society. Thus anyone in BC knows that the UBC engineers attempt MIT-esque pranks. The authors of the article should simply link to the news coverage and then this would be a non-issue. This isn't made up one day. The pranks are basically repeated every year. My complaints with the article is that the authors did not take the necessary time actually go and collect links like this: Beetle Overboard! VW hung off GG Bridge in prank. The fact is these engineers even leave their own community to commit pranks. --TrollHistorian
Why is WINFTMUISOD even being mentioned? The second paragraph of that page, titled "This page in a nutshell", states "Resist the temptation to write about the new, great thing you and/or your friends just thought up." How does this apply here - and why are we even wasting time on it? Ckatz 16:51, 26 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. HappyCamper 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Fleming[edit]

Previously marked for speedy but that was rejected. Subject, and likely author, wants it deleted. Delete AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Please note that about half of the pages that link to this article are referring to other people called John Fleming. AlistairMcMillan 20:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Another reason for this page to be deleted would be WP:VAIN. AlistairMcMillan 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question what are the grounds for deletion? It doesn't seem to constitute an attack, and, per the umpteen debates on Daniel Brandt, subject's wishes are not grounds for deletion. Author's wishes only apply when there has been primarily only one author, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Fan1967 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:John Fleming. Aside from minor style edits John would appear to be the only editor. AlistairMcMillan 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, it seems it would meet the criteria for speedy, but not regular AfD. WP:VAIN might apply, but it seems he has done a decent job of establishing minor notability, which can be used as an argument to override vanity. OK, I'm lost. No idea what rules apply here. Fan1967 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Fagstein 07:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as bona-fide published writer. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Like Fan1967 I'm conflicted. He's a writer and has sold. I'm not sure that makes notability. (guess I'm going to have to go memorize relevant guidelines) Then there is the confusion about whether the author wants the article deleted. It looked to me like that become true only when the article's notability was questioned. I guess I can understand how distressing those notice boxes are. I don't think the article is notable enough. I don't think an article is defensible if the author won't defend it. Shenme 19:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm flip-flopping on this. After exposure to too many other recent vanity and near-vanity pages I have to say this article looks much much much better. This person actually did things (as opposed to, say, someone whose notability is nearly solely over having laid a suit over the route of a road). Shenme 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm the John Fleming in the article. It's not really for me to say if I'm notable or if it should be deleted but I would rather have it deleted than have a whacking great box sitting above it in cyberspace for all eternity suggesting people supply "verifiable" information. I don't know how anyone can verify anything very much beyond birth certificate, contracts anyway - or you could go out and buy the books, three of which sold more than 5,000 copes and one of which goes into paperback in August. I tried to remove the last three paragraphs as they probably are just puff, but I was not allowed to: they were re-instated. I think the box was sitting there for about a month, I sent three e-mails and it looked like nothing was ever going to be done about removing it or to decide whether to delete the entry or not. Incidentally, I have no idea what UTC means beyond a good comedy club in South-East London.
UTC is Coordinated Universal Time, which most of us know as GMT. Fan1967 00:44, 26 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. Tawker 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. William O. (Bud) Reeves[edit]

Non-notable preacher, it seems. A few hits on google, but I couldn't find much. --BillC 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --BillC 20:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doubled the church membership to 1400, huh? Good work. I'm sure he's a great pastor, but no, pastor of one church in Arkansas doesn't quite make it as notable. Fan1967 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fan1967. Fagstein 07:20, 20 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. Tawker 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

201 (number)[edit]

Non-notable number, previously prodded, deprodded and reprodded so it has to be AfD. Only claim to fame is that its the first non-notable number in wikipedia which violates a policy on avoiding self reference. This could set a dangerious precident as the Interesting number paradox could be applied to make all numbers notable. Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can find something else interesting about this number. --Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable. Qtoktok 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I want that 201 seconds of my life back. --Long, Tall Texan 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I submitted the prod as non-notable number. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's been plenty of debate on numbers in the past, but I still think these should probably be deleted. Sure, Wikipedia is not paper, but there are an infinite amount of numbers. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unless something more notable is added. For example under 13 (number) there is an assortment of interesting facts relative to the number. PrettyMuchBryce 21:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 23:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - If there is no speedy delete for non-notable numbers, there ought to be one. There are a lot more nn numbers than nn people+bands together. LambiamTalk 00:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Melchoir 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fagstein 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the Numbers WikiProject guidelines, 201 is covered at 200 (number), and what's there is definitely not enough for a whole article. Confusing Manifestation 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With 201 (year). It is not a notable number, but it could have some use there. Jonathan235 15:25, 23 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. Tawker 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shen sonic[edit]

nn game, prod removed without comment Rory096(block) 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fagstein 07:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of context, among other things. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, rubbish self-promotion/fancruft of game in development. TH 23:30, 23 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. Tawker 21:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Film Institute list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14[edit]

copyvio; these judgment based lists are the copyright of their publishers -- we have deleted many of these sorts from the American Film Institute, now the British Film Institute list has to be respected as well Carlossuarez46 20:43, 19 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. – Will (E@) T 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995[edit]

This survived an AfD in August last year, but WP has changed the policy on whether judgment-based lists are copyvio; I am resubmitting it here. I also think it is POV and subjective, but that was laid to rest in August. Carlossuarez46 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating:[reply]

for the same reasons. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Could you post a reference to the policy? Also what's to distinguish a notable-source, judgment-based list from a notable-source judgment-based award? Where is the line drawn? Thanks. — RJH 21:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the policy is effected here [[43]] notice that all the list parts of the articles have been deleted; a number have been chopped later, I figured that this would be more efficient than sending all these to copyvio land and make some admin decide whether there was anything worth keeping once the guts were removed. Carlossuarez46 05:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is vote based so it falls under fact (AFAIK) --Eivindt@c 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment not sure what that means, but see TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 for an example where the list has been removed due to copyvio. In that case, the topic was deemed worthy of still having an article, here without the list FHM 100 Sexiest Women .... articles are of no value: so that's why delete is better; regardless of the vote, the lists of names themselves will be deleted as copyvio's per the admins' collective determination that lists such as these are infringing. If you want to keep the article without the list, I fail to see what it adds to an encyclopedia: we can already construct the next 100 years' articles. Carlossuarez46 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising for FHM. Brian G. Crawford 22:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. Why would FHM need wikipedia to advertise? This sounds like a notable yearly thing by a notable magazine. Furthermore I don't think it's supposed to mean 'the sexiest' but simply 'fhm's sexiest'. I don't think POV is an issue here. PrettyMuchBryce 01:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't this type of material more suited for Wikisource? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There is huge precedent for keeping articles about POV based lists. Here are a few: Seven Wonders of the World, Person of the Year, Great Books of the Western World. The only question should be, "is this POV based list notable"? While FHM isn't Time or Encyclopedia Britannica, it is better known today than Antipater of Sidon. AnonEMouse 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I despise Maxim, FHM, etc., but AnonEMouse brings up excellent points. Sure, the list is POV, but so is every American Film Institute, but all of their "100 Years" lists are on Wikipedia. The FHM list is notable, and as such, it deserves its place on WP. -- Kicking222 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:NOT for collections of trivia, WP:NOR. Literally hundreds of magazines, most of which are barely more qualified than your table of buddies at the tavern, publish top-100 lists of all sorts of things. The vast majority aren't any more notable than an FHM editorial about the length of hemlines or the price of beer. When top-whatever lists are brought to AfD, a few (like Fortune 500) are kept because they got wide coverage in other media and have real effects on discussions of the topic, while the rest get deleted. Did FHM's '95 sexiest women list get picked up by the Associated Press, get covered in featured articles in newsmagazines, or otherwise demonstrate significance to anyone who doesn't have the original issue open? Barno 21:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to merge to one article (not keeping each list, but maybe each "#1") at FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World. Broad range of media coverage (as cited below) establishes notability for the list in general, but not for each year's copyrighted content. Barno 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FHM is notable, and its list in general is notable, but each individual list isn't notable, unless there's some news event related to it. Otherwise these are things for Wikisource, as there is no content in these articles other than the list itself.Fagstein 02:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barno and Fagstein make an excellent point. The list is notable if and only if it is in itself a news event, and covered by other sources. So let's see some sources:
* Jolie sizzles atop 'FHM' sexiest list USA Today
* Britney dropped from 'Sexiest' list ITV
* Britney loses place on Sexiest Women list RTE.ie
* Britney Spears loses sex appeal FemaleFirst.co.uk
* Yahoo UK - repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches
* FHM's "100 Sexiest Women in the World" AceShowBiz.com
* FHM Readers Name Scarlett Johansson World's Sexiest Woman; Actress Tops Voting in FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2006 Readers' Poll Business Wire
* Beyonce Among FHM's 100 Sexiest Women Beyonce, Kelly Clarkson, Mariah make sexiest women list. Net Music Countdown
* Top 100 Sexiest Women and How Many Have Tattoos
* Jenna on FHM Sexiest List 7th Year in a Row Adult Industry News
And there are hundreds of others. About 1,000,000 hits on Google for FHM 100 list. You'll also notice most are for the placement of one specific entry on one specific list, and for how it differs from last year's list - clearly each individual list is being reported on, not just the idea that "FHM has such a list every year". AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Merge into FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World.Fagstein 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource or delete. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of the lists is probably good material for the FHM article, and is in there. Repeating the lists is surely copyvio? And, um, can't the FHM site be consulted for the lists themselves? Oops, no, apparently by subscription, then the lists here are copyvio.
* Comment Yahoo UK repeats the list, with links to Yahoo image searches. They clearly don't think it's a copyvio, and they've got better lawyers than we are. AnonEMouse 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and different copyright laws. Barno 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notable list --Prof Jolly 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1995 listas clear copyvio, assuming that this statement in the article is correct: "Unlike in subsequent years, the 1995 list was chosen by the magazine's employees not by readers' votes". The subsequent years? Keep, I guess. I suppose the lists could be useful to someone researching, I dunno, the relative popularity of blondes vs brunettes or something like that... Herostratus 18:13, 27 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, with a strong inclination towards a Merge. HappyCamper 18:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooklyn College B.A.-M.D. Program[edit]

Contested PROD. The subject, a specific program of study at a specific university, is non-notable; hence delete. Joe 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn College's B.A.-M.D. is a notable program at the City University of New York. It receives 500 applications a year from some of the New York Tri-state Areas brightest students, of these, it only accepts 17. B.A.-M.D. is also a pipeline program that the princeton review mentions in its guide of medical schools under SUNY downstate, the major state medical school of NY and the only state school in NYC. Lastly, AAMC cites it under its book of medical schools with BA/MD programs. keep Mrbabymonkey

  • Delete per Mrbabymonkey. I know he voted keep, but I believe his argument justifies the opposite. A program that accepts 17 students a year is not notable enough for an article, and can easily be covered in a paragraph at Brooklyn College. Fan1967 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per Fan-1967. Bucketsofg 22:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The program accepts 17 of 500, not to mention many more that are advised not to apply by school counselors due to the program's extreme selectivity (most students in the program finish in the top two percent of their class, and the median SAT score is in the 98 percentile). Also, the program has as much credence as the Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education which the program rivals. Its status, however, is not disputed by the wikipedia edit community. Mrbabymonkey
  • Merge with Brooklyn College, but I agree that the program is notable enough to be in the encyclopedia somewhere. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 22:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP NancyV120
    • Comment All of this user's edits have been to this AfD. Joe 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 23:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Combined programs are very different from standard pre-med undergrad in that they often have their own unique courses and curriculums. Although the Brooklyn College BA-MD program is affiliated with both Brooklyn College and SUNY Downstate, it cannot be grouped under either educational institution for this reason. It is simply different. This page is a KEEP. Pooja.bhatt
    • Comment User has made only two edits, both to AfD. Joe 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. I believe there is sockpuppetry afoot! Wickethewok 23:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • check the ip addresses, no sockpuppetry here. Although i must say there is something awfully wrong when someone tries to add content to wikipedia but is shot down everytime for apparently little reason. What does it need to be notable enough to have its own page? does it have to be affiliated with an Ivy-league? Do you have a problem with the fact that someone who wrote about it is a "n0ob" maybe? Should I write a cute "about me" page first? B.A.-M.D. has been around for 37 years and is a fairly well known program in the New York tristate area. Just because the wikipedia deletion police has never heard about it, does not mean it does not exist. Wikipedia is for the people, not the select few who patrol it. Mrbabymonkey
  • Delete. I agree with User:Mrbabymonkey that the Brooklyn College B.A.-M.D. program is real. However, I do not believe that Wikipedia needs to have individual articles about joint degree programs merely because they exist. The only thing that Wikipedia needs to say about this program is "Brooklyn College offers an 8-year B.A.-M.D. program with SUNY Downstate Medical Center," with a link to the program site at [44]. Just put that in both the Brooklyn College and SUNY Downstate Medical Center articles, and people can go look up the information about admission requirements, GPAs, etc. on the official site rather than including it in Wikipedia, much less in a separate article for the particular joint degree program. If you find any Ivy League affiliated joint degree programs with individual articles in Wikipedia, let me know and I will submit those articles for deletion too. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If you find any Ivy League affiliated joint degree programs with individual articles in Wikipedia, let me know and I will submit those articles for deletion too." --Metropolitan90 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


well metropolitan90, ASK AND THOU SHALT RECEIVE. From U Penn: The Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business
The Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology
Nursing and Healthcare Management
and lastly, From Yale: Directed Studies Although the directed studies program is not joint-degree, it is also a "selective...study program."
After those have also been put up for deletion, I think it would be prudent if we found some books on selective studies programs and burned them. Mrbabymonkey

  • I can do without the book burning, but give me a couple of days and I will submit those articles for deletion as promised, unless someone else does so first. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The BA-MD program at Brooklyn college has been in existence for almost 40 years and has graduated over 600 physicians, almost all of whom are in active practice to this day in almost all fields of medicine ranging from primary care physicians in underserved areas, to cutting edge research, to highly specialized surgeons. By allowing this entry to remain, and added to, wikipedia allows those who search out physicians who have such a broad educational background provided by the BA-MD program a place to find them - via a (hopefully) eventual graduates list like many other educational institutions. Yes, the program is small, but that is what makes it unique. With so many high school students choosing to apply to such programs, and wikipedia increasingly being used as a de-facto search engine, this is an excellent way for students to find such relevant information. With so many articles on relatively useless topics ranging from cartoons to pornography, this entry has positive social implications and should be expanded upon.Chakrabs 02:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's first (and only) edit. Joe 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""KEEP" This is a credible entry. The information is accurate as can be confirmed by comparing it to the linked websites. The number of students in the program has nothing to with whether or not this article should be included. The primary issue of concern should be the accuracy of the content. This article can be a source of valuable information for students who are applying to the program as wikipedia is becoming a popular source. Often time official websites can be hard to find or present a lot of information that can be presented in an intimedating way. This article allows students to learn about this program in clear way. Because the program is relativly small and many times unfamiliar to many potential applicants, an article about it is even more important. For these reasons this entry should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon123 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Notwithstanding that none of the justifications proffered is particularly relevant relative to the disposition of the question of the subject's notability, I should observe that this is the user's first (and only) edit. Joe 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Schools should not be nominated. CalJW 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forged signature This vote and the one below were made in the same edit at the same time by IP 172.134.137.77 - The sockpuppets are truly out tonight. CalJW has voted in some AFDs tonight. Not this one. It is fact a direct quote of his vote in the AfD for Williamsville North High School. - Fan1967 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, False accusation. Caljws IP is not 172.134.137.77. ALthough, it may be a direct quote from the williamsville entry, Caljws page shows him to be a reputed contributor to wikipedia. He's probably just being consistent. Mrbabymonkey
That's exactly the point, CalJW's IP is not 172.134.137.77. User:CalJW has not submitted any kind of vote or comment to this particular AfD discussion, as can be seen by viewing the history page for this section, or Special:Contributions/CalJW. The purported vote that appears to come from User:CalJW was actually submitted by the anonymous User:172.134.137.77 as can be seen here. --Metropolitan90 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only do you appear really desperate, but you should at least be aware that every contribution is logged in the history, which clearly shows that CalJW never posted anything in this discussion. Fan1967 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This school has admission rate of 3.4% of its applicants with a median high school GPA of 3.8 unweighted and median SAT scores in the 98th percentile. That academic criteria alone only grants a student an interview, during which the students charachter, extra curricular promise, problem solving skills, cultural refinement, and interpersonal skills are evaluated. For nearly 40 years we have been offering a superb medical education while still allowing students to pursue the benifits of a liberal arts background at the minimal cost to the student. For example, the undergraduate education is FREE because these exceptional young students are elite to say the least. They defer admission to schools such as Dartmouth, Yale, Columbia, Georgetown, Cornell, Brown University, and Washington University St. Louis to name a few. Students in this program also have a mean MCAT score of 32.3 which is well above the national average, as well as the average MCAT score for matriculating students. By not allowing this program to have a full entry students who are very bright, talented, and the paragons of success may not have access to an education; furthermore, this page must be seperate from Brooklyn College's because most of these elite students are interested in the program itself, and thus may not be able to reap the programs advantages and opportunities if it is merged with brooklyn college's page - Ravi815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.137.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Strange how there are suddenly all these experts on this school's particular academic program coming out of the woodwork. Attempting signature forging grossly hurts your case, guy-who-wrote-this-article. Even if it is not the same IP address, it is clearly the same individual. Wickethewok 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, because I, like most people, have at least 10-15 computers at my disposal. Perhaps, this program just effects more people than some of us previously thought. And hypothetically speaking, in the ridiculous event that I don't have 25-gazillion computers, shouldn't the movement of so many people to save one article, that is, to setup accounts and learn how to edit wikipedia, be enough to preserve this one article? Mrbabymonkey
      • Comment - I'd like to point out that any given college student has access to "25-gazillion" computers. And to answer your question, no it isn't. I'm pretty sure that editors who have actually spent time on WP, rather than new users who started just to protest this AFD, have more weight in issues such as this. Wickethewok 06:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, let us not be presumptuous, and assume I am a college student. Let us not assume anything including that these new users have set up accounts to protest this one issue. Second, the City University of New York is closed for passover break, and assuming I am affiliated with it, I certainly wouldn't have acces to "25-gazillion" computers at 2 in the morning. Mrbabymonkey
          • Comment - Ummm, we can clearly see that these users have been setup just for this. Anyone check any other user's contributions. Also, I did not suggest you were a student at the particular university you mentioned - that was all you. Wickethewok 06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's only been their first day, most of us don't spend all day on wikipedia and therefore cannot contribute as much as others do, so quickly. And yes, that was my assumption, well observed. Mrbabymonkey
      • Comment The quality and ability of editors on Wikipedia cannot be based solely on how many edits have been made in the past. I have been an avid Wikipedia user for a while now. Just because I did not create an account and make edits does not indicate that I am unaware of how Wikipedia works and the policies that it keeps. I also particularly take offense to people claiming that I do not exist, and that I am actually just another of the gazillion computers at Brooklyn College run by Mrbabymonkey. It is in fact possible that more than one person exists who passionately and articulately expresses their defense of the page. You can check the IP addresses, and you'll notice that my computer does not have Brooklyn College's IP address. So for all of you "valid editors" of Wikipedia, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it if you backed off on your false accusations and trivial "comments" and just listened to what we have to say. Pooja.bhatt
        • It isn't. And your comments are welcome. However, since there is no way to distinguish accounts with no previous edits from people who've just signed up for one to influence an AfD discussion, their remarks are given less weight. Keep editing Wikipedia and eventually your comments will be given more weight (also because you'll start familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policy). Fagstein 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brooklyn College. It doesn't look like it needs its own article and the Brooklyn College article could use some more content. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brooklyn College. Ain't nothing wrong with having articles for degree programs, but the colleges article ain't too long yet. JeffBurdges 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brooklyn College. Listing program requirements doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me; that's what the college's website is for. Ziggurat 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Fagstein 03:08, 21 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. Tawker 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsville North High School[edit]

Prodded, prod deleted with no reason other than "sufficient notability" in the edit summary. The school is not notable. It is just another high school. The article has been around for a little while, so I imagine that if there were notability, someone would have written it by now. Jesuschex 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The bomb-threat info may need to be trimmed out as it doesn't appear to be substantiated by the listed sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a list of arguments for and against including schools. Which arguments are you using? Keep in mind also that Wikipedia:Schools is not a guideline, policy, or anything like that. It was in fact rejected. Jesuschex 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm generally invoking all the arguments in the section I linked to (i.e. the keep section). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was rejected because there was nothing left in it for deletionists to cling on to. The keep criteria had been reduced to a level which all nonimated school articles are raised to during the process and it therefore served no possible purpose. In other words it was a default "keep all". Can you not show the good grace to accept that, move on and stop wasting time on this issue? CalJW 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that the arguments to keep every school article are not unique to schools. They're the same arguments that could be used to keep any article (in other words, there's no such thing as notability). Pretty much, verifiability = notability. I disagree with that. Jesuschex 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — High Schools meet my standard of notability. :-P — RJH 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, schools inherently notable as per many previous discussions. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this and move on. It is impossible to delete an article on a school, however bad, whatever the content, because there are sufficient editors whose religion forbids deleting schools that consensus cannot be achieved to delete. I can't remember the last time I saw a high school AfD debated on the merits of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything about this article or its subject that merits inclusion is this or any encyclopedia. Bucketsofg 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per strong precedent to keep all schools. Cant we put this one to bed now please?! Jcuk 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and slap deletionists who keep wasting time like this. For great justice. 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and here I was going to say we should slap the people who try to stifle any dissent by trying to intimidate wikiusers into not nominating school articles for AfD or try and use unjustified "precedent" as a reason to keep a school article... or even cite non-accepted guidelines like WP:SCH... but that would violate WP:POINT, so of course I won't do that.--Isotope23 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can anyone provide a reason for not deleting other than precedent? Precedent's all fine and good, but not if there's no justification for that precedent. Jesuschex 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a verifiable school. For great justice. 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it's a school, and it exists? So any school that exists is notable? Jesuschex 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, notability is not part of deletion policy. For great justice. 05:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools should not be nominated. CalJW 02:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proper schools are a centrepoint of their community - everybody has to go there, so they are notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, most of the information in the article is not verifiable. Of the three links given as "references," only one works. I eventually found the school's website (1) and I can find very little if any of the information that is in the article. The third link, Regents information, gives a lot of information, but surprisingly, none of it was used in the article. In order to make this article verifiable, someone would need to find references for all of that information, so it's in line with WP:V. Jesuschex 03:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please feel free to edit and improve it. For great justice. 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather delete all the unverifiable information (which would lead to almost nothing). Also, I just realized that WP:SCH#Structure dictates that the school's own sources cannot be used. So, for this article, I'd have to delete everything that wasn't found on the Regents report. Jesuschex 12:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify. WP:SCH, which people often cite as voting criteria used to point to Wikipedia:Schools. It was a proposed guideline, which ultimately, was not approved. Recently, it was changed to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, which was never even proposed as a guideline, but a just a wiki project, inhabited by school editors, and rarely by the rest of the community. Nothing there is any kind obligating rule. In fact, I personally (while logged out) wrote the "References" piece which you refer to. I did that, to encourage higher standards. However, I did it entirely on my own, and had no authority to impose any rule on anybody. That's why the page says "Note that these are only recommendations, and editors are not obligated to follow them.". --Rob 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I used WP:SCH mostly because someone used it before me. Even if you use the school's own website as a source (which is discouraged even without WP:SCH), the vast majority of the information in the article is not on the school's website. All I'm saying is that if inclusion of an article ought to be based on the article's verifiability, this article should be deleted, due to lack of sources. Jesuschex 04:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article appears to fulfill the WP:SCH guidelines for inclusion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Proposition 304 passses, and we all hope it does. Fagstein 03:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Its a school. Bahn Mi 17:11, 21 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 Boat building. Tawker 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catamaran Construction (second nomination)[edit]

After reviewing the article and its previous "nomination" which was wrongly ended by an administrator after not reaching a consensus, this article must be deleted. It is a copy of the content at Boat Building Process (which needs to be merged) and reads like an advertisement.--Zxcvbnm 21:14, 19 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 Tawker as {{nn-club}}. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prinx United[edit]

No sign of notability, club article created by User:Chupu who has played for the club himself. Zero Google hits outside of the Wikipedia+mirrors servers. – Elisson • Talk 21:18, 19 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boludos United[edit]

No sign of notability, club article created by User:Chupu who has played for the club himself. Zero Google hits outside of the Wikipedia+mirrors servers. – Elisson • Talk 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. _-M o P-_ 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a notable current sport club would have google hits.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May need a bit more research before deletion. Non-professional status is not a sufficient deletion criterion per se; many non-league semi-professional teams in England playing in regional leagues have been deemed notable here and the same standard should apply to a team from Honduras. --Pkchan 11:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Fagstein 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or Even Speedier Merge I severely doubt people will view this, so we could just merge it with another Honduran football article. If it is wanted we can bring it back to it's own page. Kingfisherswift 17:26, 22 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 G7 Speedy. Tawker 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth games.net[edit]

Non-notable website. Creator of article effectively admits it is an advert. -- RHaworth 21:45, 19 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. Tawker 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Bulldogs[edit]

blatant spam Trysha (talk) 22:00, 19 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 deleted by Zoe. Coredesat talk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Bulldogs[edit]

as above, the spammer is back Trysha (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and protect against recreation, advertising and recr. of del'd page NawlinWiki 21:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect against re-creation, per nom. --Coredesat 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam.--MichaelMaggs 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for completely obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material. Page is now protected. Pepsidrinka 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avila (Sexiest Woman Alive, Best, Girlfriend Evaaaar!!11!!!, Nate's Heart, and Dream Come True)[edit]

nn bio, reads like advertisement, wholly unencyclopedic tone. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:36, 19 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, withdrawn by nominator. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zendik farm[edit]

Delete Non-notable religious organization. No verifiable sources for article. Speedy delete tag and prod notice were removed by the original author without comment. Gwernol 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Following updates to the article, I agree that notablity has been established and the article should be kept. Gwernol 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. _-M o P-_ 23:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the speedy remove tag was accidental. This religious organization is notable. It has existed for 33 years making it one of the longest lasting community of its type.

Other intentional communities such as Twin oaks and Acorn community are listed in Wikipedia.

It is the largest cult with a self-created religion in the United States. Because of the nature of the organization, the best existing citation is the website : http://zendik.org/ I have also added the following web sites as citations: Please let me know if there is more information needed to prove the significance of this organization.

2) emeraldimajia.livejournal.com - An ex-Zendiks members recovery and re-adjustment to everyday life"

3) http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/3-html/0378.html A discussion by ex-members of Zendik.

4)Just who are these Zendiks? by Joe Tarr http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2001/1122/t_gamut.html e April 19 2006 (UTC)

5)http://psychevanhetfolk.homestead.com/Zendik.html "Wulf Zendik and his Zendik Farm.

6)http://www.utexas.edu/academic/uip/research/docstuds/coll/greenleaf.html "A dream, a plan, a Zendik.

7 )http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/2005/cover1104.html Washington City Paper Cover Story: Who Are These People?

(This unsigned comment contributed by Missyrelm)

  • Keep. With these additions verifiably notable. LambiamTalk 00:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most notable groups of its kind. I read a big feature article on them a few months ago; I think it was in the New York Times, but I'm not a subscriber so I can't be sure. --Allen 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, it was in the Washington Post, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2006/01/21/GA2006012101731_index_frames.htm?startat=1
  • Keep These folks seem to be everywhere, and nowhere, at the same time (yes, I even bought a bumper sticker from onw to make them go away). Ronabop 04:05, 20 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. Tawker 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Empire[edit]

This amateur and childish version of Polish history has no redeeming features. The title is all wrong, as Poland was never a formal empire. The material is already covered in History of Poland. The rambling article is written in a manner that can only be called unsophisticated, to put it mildly. Section titles are so ridiculous, they are actually humorous. There are obvious copyvio problems. Some of the content might, after considerable rewriting, be moved into the History of Poland article, but quite frankly I do not think that is worth the trouble. Balcer 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A for effort, but as it is already in another article, should be deleted. _-M o P-_ 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly some parts of this are useful, but there are copyvio problems, POV problems and overall this is a fork of History of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge what can be salvaged (if anyone is brave enough to attempt that). At the very least, leave the term as Redirect. It may be a matter of perspective as to whether or not Poland was an "empire" (some texts do use the term), despite the "formality" (by whatever standard that implies). Even though the nominator is correct that the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (for lack of a better term) never styled itself as an empire, people may very reasonably search for that term despite the correctness of it. It can't hurt to redirect them to the correct information. Fluit 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see nothing wrong with a redirect to History of Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for example. Fluit 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. There is no need to attempt to merge every personal essay that is inappropriately posted. CalJW 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahahahahaaaaaa!!! Maybe we should BJAODN the section titles. "Napoleon I Helps Poland Establish 2nd Constitution In The World (After the United States)"? Riiiiiiiight. Oh yeah, delete this pseudo-essay and redirect to History of Poland. Grandmasterka 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How can Napoleon I have helped Poland achieve the 3rd May Constitution 8 years before he came to power? Why does Sobieski and the Turks take up about half of the whole article? Why is this called "Polish Empire" when there was never a Polish state in history to proclaim itself as such? This article is misleading and misinformed, with a worrying emphasis on "conquest" and "empire" considering the fact that Poland has been one of Europe's least expansionist nations! The writer should get his priorities right when writing about Poland as he is not doing their reputation (or Wikipedia's) any favours however good his intentions.--Ohollo 17:01, 24 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 Kotepho 07:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Wine & More[edit]

looks like advertisement to me Yoghurt 23:10, 19 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 - would likely have been an speedy anyways (hence the delete w/ only 3 voters). Tawker 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GIPE[edit]

Neologism, "Great Idea Poorly Executed" googles but does not seem to be notable or in wide use; "GIPE" does not verify. Tagged for Prod, tag removed by original contributor without editing or comment. Accurizer 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google only returns 2 unique results for +GIPE +"Great idea poorly executed". — TKD::Talk 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per TKD -MrFizyx 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Fagstein 03:35, 21 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oncotype[edit]

Unlikely to be notable, appears to be WP:VSCA. If kept, split and disambig. Stifle (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - this is advertising, but could be turned into a technical medicine piece.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I split the article into Oncotype (related to cancer) and Oncotype (Denmark) for the design firm. Someone should nominate the design firm separately if they want to delete it. Oncotype as a term used in cancer research appears to be relatively new (24 PubMed hits) but could very well enter into wide use as the technology to perform gene screening on cancer patients becomes less expensive and more useful in clinical settings. However this article is just an advert. This could either be rewritten or deleted and recreated with non-advertsing content. Thatcher131 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam without prejudice against subsequent creation of an actual article for the technology Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oncotype, delete Oncotype (Denmark). Fagstein 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's an ad. First, note no links to here. If the test was truly notable it would be mentioned in context in other articles. The purpose here was advertisement, not education. Second, let me paraphrase the article: "To learn more about Oncotype DX, choose from the option ... Google" Shenme 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shenme. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:26, 24 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_19&oldid=1081093992"