Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 2

< April 1	April 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Royboy crashfan 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Donaghy[edit]

Nominated by IP, I'm just picking up where they left off. I have tagged this as a speedy. Royboy crashfan 00:12, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kattappuram[edit]

Delete, non-notable journalist. 51 hits on Google. Royboy crashfan 00:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fishhead64 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, very NN --Deville (Talk) 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Mikker ^(...) 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Jud e (talk,contribs, email) 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see one hit for a google search for Kattappuram + journalist. Clearly he's not the most notable user of this name.-Mr Adequate 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. only 51 hits, but there's a lot of him on material sources. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in quite a number of sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 16:49, 2 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 move to book safe. -- King of Hearts ^talk 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow book[edit]

Self-nom, as part of my project to weed out articles I created with made-up names for real things. There really are such things, of course, but the term itself is a neologism and should probably be done away with. -Litefantastic 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy G7~~. Royboy crashfan 01:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, delete. Royboy crashfan 01:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete per nom. Fishhead64 01:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC) My bad - forgot to check. Fishhead64 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or move to real name if there is no article. No speedy, there have been several other contributors. (G7 requires that the author be the sole contributor.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to book safe. Quite notable, and a decent article. Hollow book gets 26,400 google hits, but book safe gets 118,000, as well as various sponsored links. -LtNOWIS 02:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per LtNOWIS. Notable enough item - the curent name can probably be kept as a redirect, it's a fairly sensible search possibility. Grutness...wha? 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep as a redirect per Grutness. JoshuaZ 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to book safe and keep as a redirect per Grutness. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there isn't a book safe article to redirect to. --Soumyasch 05:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect and a move are different things. Please see WP:MOVE and WP:R --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per the above. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely needs cleanup, but not deletion. Move to "Book safe" as above.-Mr Adequate 09:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and cleanup per Mr Adequate. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Cochran[edit]

Non-notable/vanity KHM03 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn bio. 49 Google hits. Royboy crashfan 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/vanity. dbtfz ^talk 01:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fishhead64 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Montco 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and while were at it is the organization he is associated with CrossLeft notable at all? Google hits are not favorable. JoshuaZ 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn + vanity. Mikker ^(...) 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominations, not really notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Being a Christian minister is not enough notability for a Wikipedia article.
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a self-article. Weatherman90 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete Though I am truly flattered to be on Wikipedia, I would rather it be due to an honest popularity of my sermons and writings and not by a friend with good intentions. My apologies to Wikipedia. Jc123 19:08, 2 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. bainer (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Shea[edit]

Non notable guitare player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.130.57 (talk • contribs)

Keep, band he is a member of is notable per WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Fishhead64 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable band member. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge. Just one senetence, merge with the band. --MaNeMeBasat 07:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band, as per User:MaNeMeBasat Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect entry to the band. One sentence is not enough.-Mr Adequate 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not enough for article. MaxSem 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, with possibility for expansion later. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the time being. - Rynne 14:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add stub tags, and more info if possible. Weatherman90 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Look What I Did until more of note can be said about him. dbtfz ^talk 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band article should probably be deleted too. Jonas Silk 14:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable guitar player from an obscure band. RGTraynor 19:01, 3 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, per vanity bio _→AzaToth 08:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maalouf[edit]

false bio/vanity, the only google hits found for this name are for a teenager — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusveritas (talk • contribs)

Delete, apparent hoax. Not even wikified. Royboy crashfan 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is very similar to a Brazilian politician's name, Paulo Maluf. It is most likely a hoax. Carioca 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree - Google search indicates that this is clearly a hoax. Fishhead64 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Hoax. Paste the phone number into Google that Resavednineteen, the article's author, is vandalising with. This article may even require speedy deletion, along with the user account - if anyone knows procedure. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , hoax, as per all of the above. Quick google proves it. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been deleted by one of the admins, so can another admin please close the discussion, thanks. --Arnzy (Talk) 08:36, 2 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MangoSoft[edit]

Delete, non-notable software company. 214 Google hits, which I believe is low for a software company. Royboy crashfan 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fishhead64 02:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was an entry from their 12/31/05 SEC report. "We have significantly modified our operations and reduced our work force on four separate occasions since April 2001. We currently have one (1) employee, working in a general and administrative capacity. We outsource the management of our billable services infrastructure, software code base, customer support and reseller channel management to Built Right Networks for approximately $21,000 per month. They barely exist as a company.Montco 03:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn compoany, fails WP:CORP, WP:SOFTWARE. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what's already been mentioned. --Wizardman 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Bobak 20:52, 6 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. --bainer (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wolf[edit]

This was deleted speedily but I am recreating it and placing it up for deletion Mineralè 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mineralè 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable blogger. — Apr. 2, '06 [02:17] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
- Comment: If he had not been in a legal fight with the FBI I would have agreed, but please look at the cbs article and the bay article. Not to mention the press release. Mineralè 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable blog fails WP:WEB--Dakota ~ ° 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn bio. Royboy crashfan 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - before voting please read this article: http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/03/30/n/HeadlineNews/GRAND-JURY-SUBPOENA/resources_bcn_html
- I read the link... Bay Area police reports, what of it? — Apr. 2, '06 [03:46] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Comment I'm not voting yet. Asking: Google test? How notable is this person? DyslexicEditor 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This guy is essentially fighting a subpoena from the fbi to release footage. He is not notable but his "fight" is. His case has been picked up by the National Lawyers Guild pro bono. Essentially the fight is: is a "blogger" considered a reporter? If yes then the law stipulates that he does not have to release the footage under the Reporter Shield Law. Mineralè 06:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked for google, here it is 63,300 for "Joshua Wolf", but the top hits clearly refer to people named "Joshua Wolf Shenk" and "Joshua Wolf Coleman", so I refined the search further to avoid false positives: 942 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog, but then I notice Mr. "Wolf Shenk" also happens to be a blogger and appears at the top of this list also, hence step 3, eliminating the non-applicable surnames: 51 for "Joshua Wolf" +blog -shenk -coleman. Non-notable. — Apr. 2, '06 [17:32] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
  - Personally, I think then the measure is: Has this person been mentioned on television and how much? DyslexicEditor 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you realize how many people, including myself, don't watch television? — Apr. 2, '06 [18:14] <freakofnur_xture |talk>
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If it does not warrant its own article (and I don't see anyone else convinced it is), the information belongs somewhere on wikipedia. DyslexicEditor 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Merge somewhere. Maybe something on law or blogs. DyslexicEditor 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This has the potential to be a significant free-expression case, in which case the principal litigant is notable, but the case is still at a very early stage, and there has not been wide public or media notice, and the case may be settled in a manner that does not provide case law. On balance I'd keep it and improve the article. MCB 06:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "potential" =/= "encyclopedic". --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep. He does seem to be vaguely notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete. A bit too vague. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting mentioned by Boing Boing doesn't make you famous, notable, or encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about CBS? Or getting picked up by the National Lawyers Guild? Mineralè 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. Nope. Any other questions? --Calton | Talk 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More wikinews than wikipedia, Once it's settled, and if the result is notable, then yes, but until then I am somewhat concerned about an article about an ongoing court case. Cases such as Google_and_privacy_issues are a different scale, where a wiki article may not make difference, but a case regarding one person where the sources would be more limited is a different matter. MartinRe 16:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's notable for involvement in one event, hence the event should have a page (if notable enough in its own right) and he should be mentioned there. There is no assertion here that the individual is notable for excellence or achievement in his field. Deizio 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCB. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source is from verifiable media, and that just 3 days ago. WP is not a crystal ball; this could be the defining case for bloggers as journalist or Wolf could quietly cave. If this case does turn out to be pivotal, then recreate. Thatcher131 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'If' this fellow becomes notable, 'then' an article is warranted about him. One isn't warranted on the premise that he might become notable in the future. RGTraynor 19:17, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Rasu and Josiah[edit]

Vanity piece, all three (3) hits are wikipedia related Jim62sch 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weatherman90 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google has 345 hits for Prince Rasu. Arniep 19:56, 2 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 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laird Noller of Hutchinson[edit]

nn car dealership; less than 400 google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Montco 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. It reads like an advertisement. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 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 Merge to Flaw--Adam ^(talk) 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Arrogance[edit]

non-notable album by non-notable group Jim62sch 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Flaw is notable per WP:MUSIC. Royboy crashfan 02:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flaw the band is barely notable, their albums dont need separate pages. JoshuaZ 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band is somewhat notable, however I dont think separate pages for their albums is required, so merge as per JoshuaZ. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. NTK 06:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Doesn't need its own page. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete, not notable. Jonas Silk 14:26, 3 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 Geogre with summary (author blanked). -- JLaTondre 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross_Hughes[edit]

Article is vanity benhughes 13:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was db-bio to begin with, and then the subject of the article blanked it before the AfD notice was added. I have added a db-bio to it. --BillC 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t15:46z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Timeline[edit]

Not verifiable, no instant sources are avalible to support claims and the entire listing is saturated with original research. Currently, no official statements from Cpacom verify the factual observations of this article. Zero^Talk 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unencyclopedic, fancruft, original research, etc. Royboy crashfan 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mega Man. It seems to just be a plot summary of the Megaman games. Many other Wikipedia entries for games (ex. Half-Life 2), contain plot summaries. Wh e re ^(talk) 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete - ~~There's summaries and there's cruft, and right now I'm stinking cruftage around this page. I'd get pruning and merging right away, cruft0rs.~~ The more I look at this article, the more it looks like a type of fanfic, taking place right here in an encyclopedia. It's certainly original research, they're guessing at dates for a fictional timeline because none are given. Even other fans are saying what is there isn't canon, is speculative or is flat out incorrect. No way should this be merged, or kept in any form. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mega Man as per Where. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. MaxSem 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, as Newsmare says. Looking through Talk:Mega Man Timeline, it seems that the actual dates on the time line are made up (e.g., 20XX is assumed to be 2014, or 2015, or something). Any verifiable plot information is already in the individual games' artilces, so there's no need to merge. - Rynne 14:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V is non-negotiable Deizio 16:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. The right way to do it (relatively) would be to just re-write all the stories from the mega-man games (documented in manuals, etc) into a long history. At least there would be support. This is just guess work in attempting to contruct a timeline. Bobak 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki to commons. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala image gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of images Nv8200p talk 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOT Royboy crashfan 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Commons. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 03:03 (UTC)
Transwiki to Commons per Cuivienen Wh e re ^(talk) 03:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many galleries on WP. See: Rose gallery and Flower gallery. Both these were kept. Tobyk777 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as above. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. The others galleries should have been as well. Average Earthman 12:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, images should illustrate written articles. Deizio 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki. Although I believe that Image galeries have a place in Wikipedia, they need to be focused on a single topic rather than be a random collection of images associated with a place. This gallery would be similiar to a list like List of people, places, and things associated with Kerala. On the idea that wikipedia is not a repository of images, see the ongoing discusion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. Dsmdgold 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAll the images are related to the atricle Kerala. Most of the images are bundled with writeups related to the image. The gallery was created oving to the already overcrowded article.The gallery does add qualitative value to the atricle to which it's attached.Pratheepps
Comment Commons is a Wikimedia project dedicated to media, especially photos, and it welcomes galleries. Provided the licenses for these photos are appropriate, Commons really welcomes this gallery. Wikipedia articles can link to Commons just as easily as they can link to other articles on Wikipedia, so the gallery will still be quite useful there. In addition, if the photos themselves are on Commons, then articles on Kerala in other Wikipedias can link to them (and the gallery) so the same photos and the same gallery become useful to many different projects. Take a look at galleries like Commons:Tokyo (that's just one example). It's better on Commons than on the English Wikipedia. Fg2 09:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. --Khoikhoi 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above, w00t. --Bobak 20:59, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferinite[edit]

Page is a definition for a non-notable ("not very commonly used") term from an MMORPG. —LrdChaos 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crufty dicdef that does itself in. Royboy crashfan 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Royboycrashfan Wh e re ^(talk) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crufty McCruft. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebecause WP:NOT, NOT, NOT for RPG ProtoCruft Deizio 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maero[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Verified by the reference supplied by Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has references. Kahuroa 04:05, 2 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. JIP | Talk 05:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kahomovailahi[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. The bibliography supplied comes from Encyclopedia Mythica, which makes lots of mistakes. Bucketsofg 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Not a Samoan name in any case. Kahuroa 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep clearly a Tongan name (for some reason many of these articles confuse Tonga and Samoa), clearly a "famous" Tongan ancestor, but the "water feelers" thing is a bit hard to verify. Crypticfirefly 04:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cryptic, I know what the water feeling thing is about. Traditional navigators were so familiar with the sea and its swells and with their canoe that they could just sense (thru their bodies) what course the canoe was on - ie, they were subconciously keeping track of the swells, wave patterns, the noises the canoe was making and correcting the course and position in their minds. It makes sense actually - feeling with the hand is just an extension of this. I agree its Tongan and could be persuaded. Kahuroa 06:47, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuku[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified by bibliography cited by Kahuroa in entry. Bucketsofg 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above - tho I think Bucketsofg was the verifier. Kahuroa 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, I was the one who found the references. Crypticfirefly 22:09, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaro[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a source and corrected the article. Now serves to offset the inaccuracy and overgeneralisation of the [Encyclopedia Mythica] original. Kahuroa 03:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:53, 2 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. JIP | Talk 05:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngā Atua[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified by Bucketsofg. Suggest rename to Nga Atua then Ngā Atua for correct orthography. Kahuroa 03:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Nga-Atua has been orphaned. Royboy crashfan 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move per Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 03:54, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahiuki[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverified. Probably a spelling mistake for Mahiuka. Bucketsofg 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above Kahuroa 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:31, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahiki[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the culture can be identified. Possibly Tongan or Niuean. But a scrap anyway. Kahuroa 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverified. Not in Craig, Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology or in any other reliable source that I've checked. Bucketsofg 03:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:31, 2 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. Article has been moved to Kiwa (mythology) Proto||type 14:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwa (goddess)[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Kiwa (sea guardian) or Kiwa (mythology). Goddess he is not. Kahuroa 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Kahuroa (well-referenced now thanks to Kahuroa). Bucketsofg 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, thanks Kahuroa. Crypticfirefly 02:23, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Losi (mythology)[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified in source cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per above. Kahuroa 04:06, 2 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 Merge with Kupua Proto||type 14:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapua[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kupua, which this is probably a spelling error for. Bucketsofg 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kupua as above Kahuroa 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kupua, for reasons above. Crypticfirefly 02:21, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanae[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified by sources cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above. Kahuroa 04:12, 2 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 - Liberatore(T) 17:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaru[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified by bibliography cited in entry. Bucketsofg 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as verified by Bucketsofg. Kahuroa 10:24, 4 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 01:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makutu[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewrittten by Kahuroa. Bucketsofg 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rename Mākutu. Have corrected the article, and will add a little more to it. Kahuroa 03:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. Moriori 06:10, 2 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 rename Proto||type 14:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamainu and Kilioa[edit]

This was one of the 50+ Polynesian mythology articles submitted in a big batch (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahoeitu). After much discussion at that afd, I'm re-submitting all of the items individually. Some of them may be keepers, most of them will be deletable. I'm deferring to editors such as User:Kahuroa and User:Bucketsofg who have been looking onto these articles as to which is which. If looking for onther online verification, please note that many of these originally were sourced via the extremely unreliable Encyclopedia Mythica - if this is the only verification it can be discounted. Grutness...wha? 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Kalamainu'u Bucketsofg 04:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kalamainu'u as above Kahuroa 04:13, 2 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 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of contract killers[edit]

This list is unnecessary. We should just move all of the articles in it to Category:Contract killers and then make a subcategory for the fictional ones. A Clown in the Dark 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until someone does the work of moving it into categories. Wh e re ^(talk) 04:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categories can't repose red links. Royboy crashfan 04:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per redlinks, and that a subcategory for the fictional ones cannot be made since most of them don't have articles. Punkmorten 09:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. What is it with lists anyhow? Lists and categories are both valid and should both be kept. Jcuk 13:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, hire a hitman to delete later. I've moved my thoughts on this one to Talk:List_of_contract_killers. Cleanr 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep\Rename --Haham hanuka 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and post inclusion criteria. Seano1 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categories are categories and list are lists. No red link can be found in a category. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:42, 3 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 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn_Marcel_Keyes[edit]

Mrs. Keyes does not with for this articles to exist. She is not a public figure and, as such, she has a right to privacy. She has never sought office, nor does she plan to and because of this, she is covered under privacy laws. Sethxy 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep Royboy crashfan 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator has just made up the supposed "privacy laws," and Keyes is a public figure (an "antiabortion activist," according to the Boston Globe, aside from all the public appearances she made with her husband.). Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of former presidential candidates' wives' sensibilities. Monicasdude 05:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unquestionably notable figure for the incident involving her daughter noted in the article. MCB 06:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mrs. Keyes is SOL. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:POINT, as I see no legitimate reason for deletion in the nomination beyond so-called right to privacy laws. Would be a keep regardless. She is a public figure. If someone wishes for an article about them not to exist, they should make sure that they don't meet WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. Speedy keep, if possible. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: check out the bizarre comment about the soup kitchen. What does having Asian and Indian roots have to do with it? -- Kjkolb 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed that comment from the article. Seano1 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, don't know if there's enough to avoid a redirect to her husband. Article needs verification, sources. A link to a Boston Globe article about her, for example. But get outta here with the "privacy laws" nonsense. Deizio 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify --Haham hanuka 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, as possibly notable beyond being a candidate's spouse, but nix that "soup kitchen - Indian roots" business. Failing this, merge to husband's article. ProhibitOnions 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure a person becomes notable just by being married to a notable person, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that she can be made notable by her daughter airing the family dirty laundry in public. My opinion is merge the content but delete, do not keep as a redirect, and must cite sources. Thatcher131 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This is a woman who (at the rock bottom least) acquiesced to the possibility of becoming the First Lady of the United States, for heaven's sake: she has zero basis upon which to hide under a rock now. Nom needs some serious education about the substance of the cited so-called "privacy laws." RGTraynor 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article for Cindy McCain, and the only reason we have this article is because of the allegations made by her daughter. This should be merged to the main Alan Keyes article as her daughter's complaint, even if notable, applies to both parents anyway. Thatcher131 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As people have been able to logically ascertain, there are no such made up "privacy laws" for this particular situation, btw I'm a lawyer --but none of your lawyers ;-) --Bobak 21:03, 6 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 Proto||type 14:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 1, 2006 (Complete List)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article contains the non-notable pranks that don't quite make it into April 1, 2006. But since these pranks are non-notable and the April 1, 2006 article contains a message stating all non-notable pranks will be deleted, the pranks here should not belong in any article. joturner 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What, by definition, is notable? This, in itself, could be a debate argued for every article on Wikipedia. If we look at the supposedly notable website pranks listed in April 1, 2006, a great ratio of them are rather techy/geeky web sites that probably tend to be visited frequently by the same folks who visit Wikipedia. (Certainly, WE'RE not the end-all-determiners-of-importance in the universe, as much as we would like to be!) The web is transient by nature, more so with these one-day internet pranks that we're trying to preserve for all posterity. If we choose to note any of these brief incidents, we should list them all. I advocate that we have a sampling of the most prominent pranks at April 1, 2006 and retain the rest at April 1, 2006 (Complete List). Daniel 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't exactly hard-up for hard-drive space. The article is not hurting anyone and I've directed at least two dozen people there because they've specifically said to me, "Gee, I wish there was a place where I could see a list of all the April Fools jokes pulled today." In other words, the article is useful, harmless and it's hardly taking up space desperately needed for another article on obscure anime. Keep the article. —This unsigned comment was added by 200.77.30.205 (talk • contribs) .

Keep and Clean up The thing is, I haven't (nor has anyone else) scoured this list to check to see if any of the items in here are notable. I moved all the items from April 1, 2006 here and then copied a few of the notable ones for Internet back over. I agree that after the process of determining notable pranks for April Fool's Day 2006, this page could be deleted if people feel it should be, but for now, I think it is important to keep. Zebov 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Royboy crashfan 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, but renominate in a couple days. Just... have to... survive... three more... hours... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Content to April 1, 2006, and Delete. The definition of non notable seems to be determined by a few people, and I'd still like to see these jokes regardless of the gestapo polices opinions. 68.1.59.30 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a particular entry is noteworthy that others don't agree with, discuss it on the April 1, 2006 discussion page. The problem is, when there are thousands of entries, it's hard for people to find the more noteworthy ones. Zebov 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that any of the ones left are noteworthy, (though Im sure a few are) but that's not the point. I don't see the harm in keeping them on a seperate page forever, even if a million people didn't see something, a few may have and want a record kept of it. The Move Content isnt saying that a blogs joke should go between gamefaqs and slashdot, or even anywhere near it, but I don't think the blogs joke should disappear because not everyone in the world saw it or cared. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that might not be viewed by more than 10 people ever. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be here. 68.1.59.30 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Zebov 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This list is a handy complilation of all april fools jokes, useful information which should be accessible. elyk 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the page certainly details the diversity of jokes at minimal cost. -- Taral 05:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I like going through all the obscure Web sites that took the time to modify their themes for April Fool's Day. Just because someone else doesn't feel the site is noteworthy doesn't mean that I won't want to see it. Besides, what better place to document all of the sites that changed? Trunkmonkey 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep, Does having it here hurt anything? I'm positive that at least for the next week, this article is going to be getting thousands of people, wanting to check out various jokes. I know I will. It will also serve as a handy guide of the events that transpired yesterday to future generations.--Captain Cornflake 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - good compilation of April Fool jokes on the internet which is easily accessible. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC). However, after looking at the article again. It looked more of a web directory, which Wikipedia is definitely not so my vote is going to change to Move the notable stuff to April 1, 2006 then delete --Arnzy (Talk) 15:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep, I personally don't see peoples problems with keeping this page. I mean, it gives somebody something to do just looking through all the jokes for the day. Afterall Wikipedia probably has an immense ammount of storage space and can afford to keep this page.--Linkman2004 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep, This is a great article that records some humorous events in Internet history. I'd rather have a complete list than a list that selects only a few "notable" pranks. —This unsigned comment was added by 72.155.181.85 (talk • contribs) .
Strong Keep This stuff is very interesting. -Unknownwarrior33 05:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia is not a web directory. Kirill Lok s h in 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the consensus (much to my surprise) seems to be that all of these events are in fact worth keeping (does that equal "notable"?), perhaps a Merge with April 1, 2006 is order? The problem I have here is that we have two different articles that are on the exact same thing; that sounds like a fork to me. joturn e r 05:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind that last comment; I just can't advocate keeping this article. joturner 05:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Out of curiosity, why are you averse to it existing as a fork? Or in a "less notable pranks" section on the main article? It's not making anyone click on the unimportant pranks, just listing their existence, for anyone that may be interested. There are tons of articles that stretch out into infinity where only a few of the people that read them will ever delve into the wealth of knowledge they possess... I say if it fits, and any one person wants it on wikipedia, (which, I'm guessing each of these qualifies), and it doesn't violate any policies, it should stay. (btw, whoever may eventually tally the votes. I voted above, so ignore this) 68.1.59.30 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. joturner 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, the forking certainly applies here, however, I don't think the repository of links does. That section specifies the links as detracting from the article, for example on an actors page where the page has 3 lines and then 18 links to fan sites on the actor. In this case the article is the collection of links. Even if you removed all of the links, the mere fact that a site had a hoax should gain it an entry of some importance if someone is willing to write it. The only difference between this page and the real page seems to be the popularity of the sites, and with the votes so far, I'd say a majority aren't happy with the current popularity cutoff.68.1.59.30 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the popularity part is the biggest issue, as I noted in my vote below no prior years specify the pranks as notable only, appparently any prank someone felt like listing was included. This year's list is much larger but this seems to be because this year has seen far more pranks than prior years. One example on this whole notable/non-notable thing: On the main page the entry about Yahoo! saying they were buying all of Web 2.0 is listed. On the complete list page it lists right under that same entry two Web 2.0 companies who went along with the prank and posted a fake news item on their websites that they were being bought by Yahoo! Personally I've not seen that type of collaboration much before (actually never personally) so I think it's highly notable. I could add it to the main page but the thing is: who decides what's notable and what's not? Maestro4k 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete here as well. No prior year's April's Fools Day page says the lists are only notable pranks, it seems odd to change that suddenly this year. Maestro4k 06:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent note! I just gave a look at some of the previous years entrys, and there are some incredibly low traffic site pranks on some of them. I can't believe that those have stood there for years without a problem, and this years are going to make or break wikipedia.68.1.59.30 06:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous years didn't have NEARLY this many entries. The thing is, at what point do you NOT include a prank? Should I include setting the clocks wrong in my house or a friend of mine posting a fake entry on his blog? Where is the line on what is included in the article? Zebov 01:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I like April Fool's jokes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a massive collection of mostly non-notable links. Someone should go through this and merge notable pranks to the April 1, 2006 article first, of course, but we shouldn't have a listing for every single website that pulled a prank this year. BryanG 07:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to April 1, 2006, insignificant or not. The famous sites could be boldfaced or something or listed before others. I don't know. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep. The current version of the main page seems to have some Internet pranks listed that seem less significant than some of the ones of this ancillary page, judging by the apparent prominence of some of the web pages mentioned. I have no problem with a two-tier system of major pranks relating to well-known sites, companies, etc. (e.g. such-and-such being bought out by Yahoo!) with the rest relegated to the "complete list" page. However, I would strongly object to the idea of removing the complete list entirely. This is a very interesting document of the day's ephemera, many of which will no longer be viewable in the next day or two. A written record of what was out there on April 1, 2006 should be of continuing interest to people who encountered or perpetrated some of the pranks, with renewed interest as people gear up for April 1, 2007. Whether the listing is merged or retained on a separate page, further sorting of the long "uncategorized" section would be helpful, and probably not all that hard to accomplish. Karen 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just to follow up a bit on the discussion since I posted the above. I'll grant that what happened on a blog with 25 readers is less notable than, for example, Google Romance. I will further admit that I naively added a reference to the former before reading that one is not supposed to do that with one's one work. If a "complete" list (or as nearly complete as possible) is desirable, that one line belongs here anyway; if not, it should go. However, such a marginal case is not emblematic of everything that's been removed from the "notable" list and relegated to this one. I see, for example, that the NPR story about the fake product the iBod has been removed from the main page. If a five minute story on a national news program isn't notable, then nothing is. In addition, I have no doubt that many of the Internet references that didn't make the cut nevertheless were significant and of continuing interest to specific online communities. To suggest that this entire second entry is merely a link farm, based on the occasional reference to someone's blog, is a straw man argument. If it makes anyone feel any better, links can be removed to defeat any promotional purpose - but the list itself should be preserved as a historical document. Karen 03:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to userspace. After all, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. It's interesting enough, but I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for it. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Delete, and the blogosphere will never forgive you. Mike Abundo 9:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment:. I already voted below, but I just wanted to add that Wikipedia can do redirection automatically to the April 1, 2006 page so how is this such an issue? Localhost 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that everything worth mentioning should be in April 1, 2006 already, and if it isn't important enough for that article, then it isn't important enough for Wikipedia. -- Chuq 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This looks like nothing more than an excuse for people to promote their non-notable websites (very few, if any, non-website related hoaxes have been added to the article compared to the original). Anything notable should be in the original, anything non-notable doesn't belong at Wikipedia (except perhaps in userspace). —David Johnson [T|C] 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn nonsense. And check how many of the keep votes are maybe by the same person just in case... Marcus22 12:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to April 1, 2006 and delete. Maestro's convinced me. EntChickie 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as April Fool's listcruft. Unmaintainable, unverifiable list, if it's claiming to be a definitive list of hoaxes. Heck, it doesn't list how I fooled my brother into thinking he'd gotten a parking ticket. - Rynne 15:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —81.178.110.230 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to log in before posting the above comment. —Spe88 15:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's really interesting to have this listed somewhere. Mark the Echidna 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somehow I don't see slashdot, yahoo, blizzard, or some of the other sites there as anything resembling nn. Maybe some of the really non-notable stuff should be deleted, though. Shadowoftime 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with the article. The Filmaker 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this to be a useful chronicle of all that went on for April Fool's Day, but as too long and cumbersome to be part of the main article. I'd keep as is. Ithizar 17:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with April 1, 2006 and Delete this one. There's no reason to have both a "notable" and "complete" listings for an event that recurs annually. Zarggg 17:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with April 1, 2006. How and who determines what is notable, especially when it's just jokes? If it were a bunch of personal blogs maybe I would go for delete, but I see plenty of sites on here that are large communities (tens of thousands of active users, if not more) in their subject matter. And some of them do not have wikipedia entries. Just because you haven't heard of them or aren't up to date on that part of the world, doesn't mean they don't reach a lot of people who get a kick out of it. At this point, I think you either have all the april fool's jokes on one page or don't have an april fool's page at all (and delete the previous years while you're at it). 18:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 71.255.76.240 (talk • contribs) .

Merge with April 1, 2006. There is certainly enough content to break each April Fools down by year, however, dividing it up further is not only confusing but unfair. I would agree some jokes are higher profile, such as Slashdot's pranks, but what's a "notable" joke or not is WAY to opinionated to be done in such a way. My solution would be to put the agreeably more notable ones at the top, possibly in bold or something. Giving them their own page however is ridiculous. As for deleting this content, that is NOT a viable option. This is a wonderfl resource for pranks on the internet and in a way is a historical record, and I think it holds value for many people, and anything with value even to a small amount of people should not be deleted. This article certainly harms nobody by it's it existence, and thus there is no defense for it's deletion, other than that it should be combined with April 1, 2006, and then deleted. Nmaster64 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I agree, you can't really determine if a site is notable or not unless you are familiar with every site on the Internet. What is notable to thousands in that sites community may not be notable with the person making the distinction. Also, a site may become notable at some point. There are certainly more frivilous things on here that are considered important. Terrix 17:01, 2 April 2006 (EST)

Keep - Useful to know what happened this April Fools Day. --FlyingPenguins 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Predominantly non-notable entries, wikipedia is not a historical time capsule, unencyclopedic, etc. ZacharyS 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bevo 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with April 1, 2006. I think that many sites listed here are noteworthy and shouldn't be ignored. 郵便箱 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per being unecyclopedic and Wikipedia not being a webdirectory. —Ruud 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I went to the other April 1 page and this is just easier to read, and provides a much better organized list than the other page does. If anything else merge the other page into this one, not this one into the other page . —This unsigned comment was added by 67.110.194.25 (talk • contribs) .
- The other page, April 1, 2006 was much more organized until someone decide to remove all organization. I believe there has been an attemp to reorganize the other page now, but the "notability" of the links on the "noteworthy" page is quite questionable now. Zebov 15:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reintroduced the categorisation for the original page, but it attracts nearly every edit - no-one is going to decide that their favourite site is non-notable and should go on the other page. The original mentions only including sites which have a Wikipedia entry already, which seems reasonable, and I tried to give them prominence, but there were just too many to try to ascertain the notability of all of them (and whether they should be moved to this other page, if it ends up being kept). -- Mithent 17:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Deltabeignet 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a useful article to have. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.227.131.135 (talk • contribs) .

Merge with April 1, 2006 and delete. One centrally and well organized page should suffice and is a lot easier to keep up-to-date then 2 separate pages that basically contain the same content (i.e. think thumbnail vs the full picture). There is no reason to list some on one page and everything else on another and there certainly is no easy way to say what goes on the short list. Localhost 05:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ray Trygstad 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into April 1, 2006. If people are interested in this sort of thing, I see no reason to make them look it up in two separate articles. --Metropolitan90 07:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change than Keep. Maybe remove all links, ect. so it is not a FFAL page, and just a record of what happened on April 1.--Abbott75 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs some cleaning, but I don't see why this isn't worthy of being preserved. It's a great read! --echelon ^talk 08:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 09:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm with this guy's views on the matter: http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/04/april_fools_day.php "Wikipedia has now split its list of April Fools pranks onto two pages, one containing just "notable" pranks and the other containing a complete list of pranks. A heated debate has also broken out between a group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be deleted because it contains "non-notable" pranks and another group of Wikipedians who believe the complete list should be maintained for posterity. ... What seems like a non-notable prank today may seem like a notable prank to those future generations. I think it's better to err on the side of caution." Bob, just Bob 12:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 85.64.55.137 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is stupid. Firstly Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it should include things that are likely to be noteworthy not only now but in the future too. Nobody in 5 years (or even minutes) time will care what some non-notable website did on April fools day 2006 - they will care what major sites and other media did. Secondly, it would be very interesting to see how many of the people voting have some relation to an entry on the page - I would suggest that the only way for the closing admin to fairly determine the outcome of this discussion is to only count votes from unbiased Wikipedians (i.e. registered users with a reasonable number of contributions) who have not added entries to the page concerned. —David Johnson [T|C] 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds to be me like YOU are the one who is trying to sway the vote. Nice try though. -- TomUnder This comment is actually from User:72.155.182.149, not User:TomUnder.
  - I'm trying to sway it insofar as I want to convince people that this nonsense should be deleted; that's what these discussions are for. Other than that I'm just not happy with people using Wikipedia as a promotion tool for their websites then coming here to subvert what should be a fair process. —David Johnson [T|C] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What evidence is there that it's being used as a promotion tool for websites? And how would being linked off of one single page on Wikipedia (that's likely not going to get very much traffic after a few weeks until next year) actually benefit a site? It'd take a lot more links from many pages to achieve any real benefits. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it's being used as a promotion tool - people are adding links to their own sites with for the sole purpose of increasing traffic to them. I've seen this enough times on Wikipedia to recognise when it's happening. Having your site linked from Wikipedia, even from a single page, can bring a lot more traffic and affect search engine rankings pretty dramatically. Go look for youself at voters' contributions and see how many have added to the article. —David Johnson [T|C] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I can't predict the future, so I don't know what sites will be notable 5 years from now, how do you? I'm quite certain that people of almost any past era would be quite surprised at what we find interesting about their societies today, and we should keep that in mind. I'm an amateur historian and when I've done research with primary and secondary sources in the past even the tiniest of details can be utterly fascinating. I'm not sure offhand if April Fool's Day was celebrated 100 years ago but if it was I would LOVE to know what types of pranks were pulled, even the minor ones. Just because it seems silly or trivial to you today does not mean it will be seen as silly, trivial or non-noteworthy in the future. Also, please remember Wikipedia's policy of Assuming Good Faith. Suggesting that Keep voters are biased certainly isn't in the spirit of that policy. Maestro4k 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but there's a big difference between this and historial data: firstly there is not much data about April fools day 100 years ago - if there was, then you probably would only be interested in the notable stuff. Secondly, nobody will ever convince me that someone 100 years in the future will care what some website which was around for a few years without ever gaining popularity did on April fools day 2006. I'm also not saying that everyone voting keep is biased: I'm saying that a not-insignificant percentage of them are (and no doubt some delete voters too), as is clear from the number of unregistered and newly-created-with-no-contributions users voting. —David Johnson [T|C] 09:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You missed a very key point in what I said -- we can't see the future, how do you, I or anyone else know what will be considered notable in the future? We don't, and can't without a time machine. To (futily) address your point about people in the future caring: you'd have likely been hard pressed to convince many people during Shakespeare's time that his plays were notable since they were designed as popular entertainment. Nowadays we consider them absolute classics but it's quite likely that Shakespeare himself never thought of them as such, time changes perceptions on things, even jokes. Finally I can't speak for any other newly registerd voters but I personally registered because I felt it was important to tie a name to my vote. I have edited several times in the past (mainly to correct grammatical errors and such) but never felt it was worth registering just for that. Even so I don't think any of the voters are voting because they're biased, astroturfing or trying to stuff the ballot (to mention all negatives suggested so far). I think they're voting what they feel is correct even if they disagree with my stance. Maestro4k 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shakespeare's not a good example, since his plays attracted significant audiences during his time and he was well regarded, thus making him notable enough. In any case, Wikipedia's stance on issues like this are well known: if something isn't notable now, it doesn't get into Wikipedia. If and when something becomes notable, it can be included, but not before. To suggest that nobody here is making a biased vote is very naive: this happens a lot on Wikipedia and I have no doubt that plenty of the voters here have added links to sites they're involved with to the page (maybe some have even been directed here from those sites to vote for the page to be kept - this happens a lot too). —David Johnson [T|C] 00:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Juan Manuel at Buenos Aires —This unsigned comment was added by 201.216.208.194 (talk • contribs) .

Keep This is just like cataloging anything on the Internet, which Wikipedia is already doing in many other areas. Deleting this article would require or create a sweeping precedent for "list of..." articles. DrKC9N 13:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bob, I think you missed that Nick's comment was ironic. That's funny. Caligola 13:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As I noted on the Article's talk page, this page should be kept for the simple reason that it's just as encyclopediac as the other lists we have going. If we take down this list, then we'd have to take down the List of Cancelled Video Games and other such lists for the same reason, yet those lists have lasted since their creation. -- Xgamer4 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or merge I echo the sentiments of many above. This is part of history. 10 years from now people will regret it if this information is lost. —This unsigned comment was added by 216.40.222.91 (talk • contribs) .

Strong Keep Is a piece of history, keep!!! —This unsigned comment was added by 212.216.172.122 (talk • contribs) .

Merge notable pranks and delete. It's a fork full of non-notable pranks. Wikipedia not a web directory, avoid forking and all that. -- Blorg 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, astroturfing notwithstanding. If ten years from now the fact that the author of fuckedgoogle.com pretended to be in love with a Google employee is lost, I doubt it will be regretted by many. --Sneftel 19:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge It's good to be able to find the whole list easily. Was handy enough to me to have the other page bookmarked anyway. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.104.144.93 (talk • contribs) .
Keep as an encyclopedia we should aim for comprehensiveness. Grue 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a must! 203.109.240.139 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry I did not sign in Jc101 09:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, delete the other and rename this one in its place. --Billpg 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a list that can never, despite the article's name, be complete. The place to create such a list of non-notables is on your own blog, not a serious encyclopaedia. --BillC 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is, at best, cruft, and at worse, a very silly shot at giving the "non-notable" AFJs their own article. By definition, things that are not notable should not be written up on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson 15:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons: (1) people can sort out the nn stuff in the editing process and, nearly as important (2) to unstarch the starched shirts. Bobak 21:07, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious sycle[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:VANITY. Dammit, their homepage is on MySpace. Royboy crashfan 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. Mikker ^(...) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious vanity. Bio is also nonsense. NTK 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Vanity, nn per WP:MUSIC. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete trenchant cockshittery. Has been deleted before... as per User_talk:Daithi6. Let's expedite this MFs demise. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 18:16, 2 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. Mailer Diablo 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Manchester General Hospital[edit]

nn hospital Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abova. --MaNeMeBasat 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be non-notable to many people, but it's notable enough to people in Manchester. It's a real place and Wikipedia isn't hard up for the storage space so what is the harm? Expand slightly and put into categories. Ben W Bell 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the hospital is certainly very notable within the city, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can keep articles on every school that exists I see no problem keeping this. Jcuk 13:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Hospitals are valid local history topics. CalJW 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs to hit WP:HEY to get close to a keep. Deizio 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as major hospital, certainly notable in Manchester. Needs improvement, though. ProhibitOnions 20:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it could be expanded. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bige1977 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although clearly needs expanding and much interesting history re Manchester and provision of health services pre-NHS in England are related. A good enough stub for now.David Ruben ^Talk 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vegaswikian 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. Bobak 21:30, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greggles Fansite[edit]

Article on NN website created by person who started it, only 138 members Mikker ^(...) 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:WEB and WP:CRUFT. Royboy crashfan 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the cruftiest of the crufty --Deville (Talk) 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB, per my original PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ÜberCruft. Don't call us.... Deizio 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Haham hanuka 19:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bige1977 22:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article go squish now. Bobak 21:29, 6 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 userfy to User:Shannonmuir. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Muir[edit]

Vanity bio of VERY minor animation production co-ordinator (created by Shannonmuir (talk · contribs), funnily enough). Calton | Talk 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. Royboy crashfan 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboy --Deville (Talk) 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 05:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is fine with me if that be majority rule. I'm learning my way around, no offense meant. The message that came up originally implied perhaps all you wanted was more information. I just know that I have made a lot of impact on people over the years but it's all a matter of perspective. Thank you for the exercise in humility. Shannonmuir

Left a comment on her userpage on the AfD process. T K E 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (although it should be noted that this is fairly well-written and non-hagiographic, rare for a vanity page here). Joe 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps could be moved to the Shannonmuir user page if she wishes. Well written article but unfortunately she doesn't meet WP:BIO by my reckoning. Capitalistroadster 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with moving it if that is workable, just let me know what needs to be done.--Shan 07:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't know what I could add that hasn't already been said. TheDrinkNinja 08:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as suggested above seems reasonable, if so desired. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy seems to be the best option here. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. Grand master ka 14:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable --Haham hanuka 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as suggested above seems reasonable, if so desired.--Dangerous-Boy 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy sounds reasonable. Bobak 21:32, 6 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 with a big stick. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slash pairing of Ville Valo/Bam Margera[edit]

Delete. A supposed relationship but "neither has admitted to have a romantic interest in the other", which makes it totally unverifiable. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:CRUFT. Royboy crashfan 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely and utterly irrelevant. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 05:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; I really think this is a hoax as well --Deville (Talk) 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Evan Seeds (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Royboycrashfan. Mikker ^(...) 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-04-02 06:43Z
Delete, per nom and Royboycrashfan. --Soumyasch 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a hoax, I hear this widely discussed among the Idiot community. But does not belong in Wikipedia. Poledancer 08:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fanficruft. Full disclosure: I'll be honest, I don't understand this whole "slash" fan fiction thing. What's next, The slash pairing of the Phillie Phanatic/Alan Greenspan? (I hope that link never turns blue...) --Kinu ^t/_c 08:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. Pure idioticy.Tombride 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no sense at all. Grand master ka 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although if nobody was looking, Bam would. Deizio 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:32, 2 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land ownership of Palestine[edit]

POV fork, original research; should be in relevant article (e.g. British Mandate of Palestine). Sub-articles hive off only when they get so large they need to. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboy crashfan 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork. Mikker ^(...) 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a good example of content forking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree with above. Covered elsewhere. — RJH 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As far as I am concerened there is no specific section or article regarding discussion and debate of the land ownership of Palestine. The intent of this article was not to list the percentages, but to further cover details (such as cultivable lands, urband areas, farms, villages etc.) that could make the British Mandate of Palestine really long. Like I said on the talk page, it is under construction. once it is completed then perhaps we can truly judge it's importnace.Bless sins 18:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - useful content, should be merged with an appropriate article. Afonso Silva 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Jonas Silk 14:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- perhaps retitle as "Land Tenure in Palestine"? Javadane 01:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Viriditas | Talk 08:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global peace control[edit]

Utter nonsense, sections copied from global warming mixed with apparent test edits Mikker ^(...) 05:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Royboy crashfan 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patent nonsense. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:PN. Cleanr 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, patent nonsense. --Soumyasch 17:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete nonsense --Deville (Talk) 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jonas Silk 14:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete; Per A7. Moe ε 06:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Followers of Christ[edit]

Non Notable Religious Organization, reviewed Google under Colin Lok, 40 hits, not sure if those were even him. Montco 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. Royboy crashfan 05:37, 2 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. G1, A1, A7, take your pick. Moe ε 06:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom rood[edit]

Tom Rood is an incredibly cool and daraing person. While he is cooler than everyone else on the planet, he is also much hotter. every girl in the world wants him because he is so hott. if a girl does not want him, she is almost certainly a lesbian.

                        REMEMBER, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE COOLER THAN TOM, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. NOONE IS.

                                                      MWUHAHAHAHA

Speedy Delete per nom =) Dalamori 05:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- note: I didnt make this page, I found its deletion page from looking at the original authors contributions Dalamori 06:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1/A7 We don't need AfD. Royboy crashfan 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Choose your critera out of a hat :P A7. --light darkness^(talk) 06:00, 2 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. Kusma (討論) 15:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rake and trail[edit]

Article is about design making on a mototrcycle. It's written in a POV by the author. Information as far as I can see is not encyclopedic enough to keep. Moe ε 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While this article is rather poorly written and in the POV of the original author, it certainly seems to be overkill to delete it. It's a relatively new article and at least one editor has added a significant section (albeit little better than what existed before). It should retain its current {{wikify}} tag, or maybe a cleanup tag, and let a few more people take a stab at fixing it. It certainly seems to contain enough kernels to warrant a good article, if an editor cares to take a stab at it.Fluit 08:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and spilt into two articles - Rake (motorcycle) and Trail (motorcycle). It attempts to explain these 2 terms, but not so well at present. I've started off rewording the first 2 paragraphs. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup.--Isotope23 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being from the motorcycling world, I can attest that this is a valid entry. Will attempt to clean up in a few days when I have some more time. Milq 21:38, 5 April 2006

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (aeropagitica) 09:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intra-portfolio correlation[edit]

WP:NOT an instruction manual or how-to guide. Mikker ^(...) 06:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Really lousy article, but its a pretty significant concept in portfolio management.Montco 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:33, 2 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 01:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cleare[edit]

NN athlete per WP:BIO Mikker ^(...) 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was in the olympics. Mike _{(T C)} 06:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like for all olympics peoples. --James 06:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He competed for his country in the Olympics, just because he didn't win a medal doesn't mean he's not notable. Ben W Bell 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember creating that article... but (weak) keep, finished 6th at the Olympics. Punkmorten 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMO if you completed at the Olympics, then there is space for you on WP! -- Chuq 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, significant Olympic athlete. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 14:11 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:BIO by competing at the highest level, ie the Olympics. CalJW 16:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above - seems to be top tier and covered. Kuru ^talk 04:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Osgoodelawyer 19:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ardenn 21:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kafkan 10:02, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BootsnAll[edit]

Delete per WP:CORP Dalamori 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Er, the article admits it's NN T K E 07:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator. After further review maybe this site doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. I thought it won a Forbes award, which would have satisfied WP:WEB, but the site was only mentioned on the same page, not as an awardee. No vote. --CrypticBacon 08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not really notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7 and A7. --Sneftel 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatbeard[edit]

Neologism, with only a small number of Google hits that aren't part of usernames. Brian Kendig 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not urban dictionary, delete as neologism. --light darkness^(talk) 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unverifiable neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What? Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 World Badminton Championships[edit]

The winner will be review in Gold medalists at the IBF World Championships & the future competiton will be noted down in IBF World Championships. As you know, the competition is hard to list down the result all. Aleenf1 07:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [as reason above]:

Speedy Keep. I see no reason at all to delete these.Tombride 08:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tombride. Punkmorten 08:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all World Championships in credible international sports. CalJW 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all as highly notable sporting events. ProhibitOnions 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Osgoodelawyer 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CalJW and ProhibitOnions. Sue Anne 06:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of the above nominated articles. These are notable sporting events and should be kept. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 09:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Korg (talk) 02:53, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casssidy[edit]

Delete - 'Cam girl' from ifriends.com. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable and as not meeting WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing that shows subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Not at all notable, really. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Weatherman90 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sure she's a nice person and quite talented, but it's not exactly a rare occupation. Peter Grey 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable group. Turnstep 15:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ascots band[edit]

advertising, non notable band, plays parties in Tennessee Montco 07:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. Allmusic results do show that a notable band called the Ascots do exist [1], though I doubt it has any relationship with the nominated band --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7; I see no attempted assertion of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per Kinu. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film ick[edit]

Anonymous dePROD without comment. Non-notable blog. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB; not Alexa rankable, obviously, since it's hosted on Blogspot. Likely WP:VSCA, as author is User:Brendonconnelly. Weak Google presence; most results are either linkbacks from other blogs or for irrelevant phrases such as "Gigli was a bad film... ick!" Delete. Kinu ^t/_c 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I {{prod}}ded the article and it hasn't been improved by the author it can be safely deleted - WP:WEB violation. (aeropagitica) 09:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 16:56, 4 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 merge to Cadiz. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish merchant community in 18th century Cadiz[edit]

No context for a seemingly un-notable topic. Brought to AfD on account of it being sourced. cj | talk 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merge to Cadiz or some other related article? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cadiz, as per above. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about Ireland's history more than about Cadiz. CalJW 16:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or Merge. RGTraynor 19:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cadiz or le keep-keep. Bobak 21:35, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Big Adventure 3[edit]

Unannounced game, Impossible to verify. I added a prod template which was removed. jaco plane 07:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:Not a crystal ball --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 08:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: 25K Google hits and a huge fan campaign to "Make it happen!". Notable! MaxSem 11:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC, and it's already mentioned as much as it needs to be in Adeline Software International. --Fuzzie (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending verification. If we can get a reliable source, consider this a neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 203 unique google hits [2]. Also, the Magicball network, the community that is trying to get little big adventure 3 out, only has 394 active memebers Wh e re ^(talk) 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. Pirkovank 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When (if) the game comes out, then we can assess its notability. RGTraynor 19:38, 3 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 Redirected to Kuala Lumpur. (aeropagitica) 09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur City Centre[edit]

DeleteThis article offers nothing that isn't arleady included in the Kuala Lumpur article.Tombride 08:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuala Lumpur Wh e re ^(talk) 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Where. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This editor has created countless articles just like this one, and appears to be totally ignoring suggestions other editors have made on his talkpage regarding making articles that are actually useful. --Icarus 06:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the main KL page is in need of a sub-article. Doesn't seem to be the case. Marskell 07:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuala Lumpur, a useless article and there's no need for such an article for the time being. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Royboy crashfan 22:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would say redirect, but how many times would the redirect be used? I would think very few. Timrem 02:31, 7 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 kept withdraw nomination. _→AzaToth 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatball[edit]

There are no references so the whole article can be defined as OR. Therefor I think it's deletable. _→AzaToth 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep? The existence of the meatball isn't exactly under dispute. April Fool's day was yesterday, you know. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. {{sofixit}}. Punkmorten 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs cleanup, but should be Kept.-Mr Adequate 09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree about it needing a cleanup. Tombride 09:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep April Fool's day was yesterday. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to recommend a speedy keep as well. No references means that some should be added, not that the whole thing should be removed. User:Blu Aardvark at 72.160.73.242 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There are some references, and more could be added. But there's not much reason to create a hoax involving a nonexistant type of meatball (although, you never know.) Grand master ka 13:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The call for deletion is simply ridiculous. Atlant 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the descriptions of meatballs surely comes under the "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" clause of WP:NOR. (sources for different countries usage would be good though). MartinRe 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep CalJW 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep JoshuaZ 19:46, 2 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 All deleted (aeropagitica) 09:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Federal Route 91[edit]

Delete. Article contains nothing but links. Tombride 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated.

Malaysia Federal Route 97

Malaysia Federal Route 93

Delete, not an encyclopaedical article. MaxSem 11:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a road directory Wh e re ^(talk) 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But we have individual UK motorway articles. That said, delete unless someone can add more info to the article. This is not worth keeping in its current state. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Where. *drew 01:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unless expanded, per Where. This article is unencyclopedic in its current state. Should it be deleted and recreated, I may try to cleanup the articles. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:51, 3 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New chrysotype[edit]

Delete as not notable. Google returns a whole 8 results. Tombride 08:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, it seems notable enough--I got a whole 125 on my "new chrysotype" search, and 888 for new chrysotype--but it seems like a bit of a vanity article. Perhaps it should be Merged into Chrysotype? Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 09:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My search was for both the article name and the inventor as mentioned in the article. To me "new" seemed like too common a word.Tombride 10:03, 2 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 ~~squeeze through the gaps in the database~~ delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeezethroughable[edit]

WP:NFT. Needless to say this word has 0 Google hits. Punkmorten 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Garbage. Delete expediantly.Tombride 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary, WP is not for things made up in school one day. (aeropagitica) 09:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Bucketsofg 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of made-up words either. -- Mithent 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:55, 3 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 Ankara. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bala, Ankara[edit]

Delete. I'd suggest a merge with ankara but there's not really any information to merge Tombride 08:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ankara Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ankara Wh e re ^(talk) 17:03, 2 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Energy Exchange[edit]

Bigchoofer (along with a number of other users in the article's history) points out that this supposed exchange doesn't appear to be referenced anywhere on the Web; doing a Google search on the terms "American Energy Exchange" and "amenx" (their domain name) gives basically no results; it appears that this may actually be part of a scam. Even if the exchange is real, the article is written extremely poorly. Delete unless the existence of the exchange can be proven by something other than their own web site. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got 807 results for "American Energy Exchange" on my google. They don't appear, however, to be related. Hoax? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The search I performed was on the phrase "American Energy Exchange" combined with "amenx"; try it for yourself. No results beyond Wikipedia, its mirrors, and their own site. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, AMENX is definately a scam. It does not exist outside their own website and Wikipedia (and mirrors). I'm trying to get this link deleted, although i'd prefer to leave it as "this is a scam" to ensure that the google cache gets updated, i understand this may leave wikipedia exposed legally though. I know of 2 people who have lost collectively over $150k US to these people, and I am just trying to stop other people from being defrauded. What does it take to actually get this deletion actioned? A 30 sec phone call from anyone to the CFTC http://www.cftc.gov will confirm what i am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.111.119 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, A7 --Arnzy (Talk) 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank tiwari[edit]

nn bio, presumably of and by the original author himself. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable bio. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD: (A1, A7) vanispamcruft Politepunk 10:20, 2 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Added to Jtmichcock's Sandbox and deleted (aeropagitica) 09:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bath School disaster victims[edit]

However terrible the incident was, this is still just a list of non-notable people. Wikipedia is not for obituaries. Precedents are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillsborough disaster casualties and above all "9/11". user:Jtmichcock removed a {{prod}} requesting two days grace. Nothing has happened in two days. Jtmichcock please note it is perfectly OK to create a link from the Bath School disaster article to an external website listing the victims. -- RHaworth 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bath School disaster, otherwise delete. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the victims are already listed at Bath School disaster. -- Kjkolb 11:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per kjkolb Wh e re ^(talk) 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and kjkolb. Bige1977 22:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request Delete and Userfy. I have been waiting on some additional materials and they haven't been forthcoming. I will likely make this a project later. Sorry. Jtmichcock 00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy then delete per Jtmichcock. youngamerican (talk) 01:47, 3 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. — FireFox • T [11:34, 2 April 2006]

Gianna Michaels[edit]

Speedy Delete - Uncivil advert. ΜιĿːtalk 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sushrut Kulkarni[edit]

Delete - nn bio, vanity, hoax... ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 10:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter hoax. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Hoax. A 5 to 6 year old being awarded a Nobel Prize for Physics, now that would be notable and verifiable (WP:V).--Blue520 11:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G7.--Blue520 21:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete patent nonsense; hoax. Bucketsofg 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally prodded it, then the creator blanked the page after being warned of vandalism. Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out as I have now tagged it as a CSD G7 (speedy delete, author requests deletion) for "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request".--Blue520 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, not even a plausible hoax. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:34, 2 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. Proto||type 09:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya_Spearritt[edit]

Contains inaccurate and unverifiable information (WP:V). There is no real need for this page to exist as she isn't notable enough (WP:BIO). Stokesay34 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has currently been blanked with the AFD notice, the previous revision was a redirect to Hannah Spearritt, and the previous two revisions were blanked. Version with actual content. I'm not sure, however, that she's notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no valid reason for deletion provided. Monicasdude 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two: "unverifiable" and "isn't notable enough". Stifle 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-noteble person, unsourced and unverified KimmyCat 17:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hannah Spearritt. Every Google hit I got on her was in the context of her famose sister. Seano1 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Seano1. Established consensus is that nn relatives of notable people go in the article of the notable person. Stifle 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see any good reason to keep this. We can verify she exists, but not that she's important... Shimgray | talk | 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stifle FloNight ^talk 16:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Christer[edit]

Vanity page of a non-notable district councillor. — Trilobite 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for politicians in WP:BIO. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 10:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn local politician. Feezo (Talk) 11:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician The JPS 11:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and vanity. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 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 Ball in a Cup. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ball in cup[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the pub one day. Has already been speedily deleted as nonsense and recreated. -- RHaworth 11:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 11:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ball in a Cup. Why spend another day not catching a ball in a cup when you can be catching a ball in a cup? Weregerbil 11:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That episode was actually on tonight. The universe works in mysterious ways... --Kinu ^t/_c 02:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ball in a Cup. You beat me to it, Weregerbil. :-) -- Kjkolb 11:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Arnzy (Talk) 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ball in a Cup. CalJW 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sport dammit and its not Ball in A Cup its ball in cup. We have a league...there are dozens of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.132.104 (talk • contribs)

keepPirkovank 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and redirect Ball in a Cup here. This is the stronger article, and I think the anon above is correct as to the preferred name. ProhibitOnions 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This has nothing to do with "the" ball in a cup game mentioned in the other article that's been around forever. Its length does not make it stronger in any form. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, "stronger" is a relative term, as it's still jokey and full of misspellings and probable vanity. I'll research this some more; till then, my vote is withdrawn. ProhibitOnions 09:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Do not redirect to Ball in a Cup, as that should probably be deleted. too. (Try Googling these terms and you'll see what I mean.) dbtfz ^talk 21:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reads like it's WP:NFT. The "Famous Players" was a good chuckle, though. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ball in a Cup as this is WP:NFT. I give the writers credit for a very detailed article though! -- Mithent 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be changed or added that would allow the page to remain as a part of this encylopedia?

Keep Don't delete this on merit coming from google this is an actual game and is actually played...if beer pong is a page why isnt this. —This unsigned comment was added by JimmyRibaudo (talk • contribs) .

Only contributions by this user are to this AfD and its related article.

Delete -O bli (Talk)^? 22:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every game has it's begining stages, what would have happened if games like baseball and football were shot down because people didn't take them seriously as a game someone invented in their backyard. The fact of the matter is all games have a begining and if ours isn't given a chance how will it ever get off the ground? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatdonkey10 (talk • contribs)

Only contributions by this user are to this AfD and its related article.

Keep how is this not considered a game, after reading this, ive since tried playing it and not only is it quite a challenge, its a blast to play! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.196.115 (talk • contribs)

Only contributions by this user are to this AfD and its related article.

Delete, utter nonsense and unverifiable to boot. Stifle 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Wikipedia is this game's only chance of getting off the ground, its pretty clear that it doesn't meet WP:NFT or notability requirements. --Hetar 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT.--Isotope23 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i played a game very similar to this when growing up, it is a verifiable game and should not be deleted - Mike Goings —This unsigned comment was added by 68.188.78.114 (talk • contribs) .

Only contributions by this user are to this AfD.

Redirect to Ball in a Cup Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i dont see why it should be redirect, ball in a cup and ball in cup are two completely different things and should not be connected. ball in cup should have its own page and is a very real game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.196.115 (talk • contribs) .
Delete, vanity / non-notable. 156.34.90.110 00:33, 7 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ataris Message Board[edit]

nn-messageboard, appears to fail WP:WEB. Deprodded without comment. Henrik 11:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Henrik 11:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was on AfD under slightly different name and voted to be deleted November 2005, apparently recreated today. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The-amb for previous discussion. Henrik 11:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 11:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 255 active members Wh e re ^(talk) 16:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about all the boards, not just the current one.
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL, per above. Bobak 21:37, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe (game mod)[edit]

Unreleased mod for Battlefield 1942. 494 unique Googles unique hits for searchstring ["G.I. Joe" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Many of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites, while others are for websites selling bot the Battlefield game and GI Joe action figures. Can't find any critival reviews. Can't find anything on the Hasbro-caused shutdown for copyright infringemnt (which is surprising because that makes up 75% of the article's content. Project website has ceased to exist, and the link provided to their forums is broken. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn-gamecruft. Henrik 11:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a gaming fansite Wh e re ^(talk) 16:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hendrik. --Pc13 17:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hendrik.--Zxcvbnm 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:38, 4 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MobileRobots inc[edit]

nn as per WP:CORP --ΜιĿːtalk 11:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Miljoshi; the company is the most famous provider and innovator in service robotics; a google search will provide many references to mobilerobots.com and mobilerobots inc. although not listed on the dow, we're represented at the Digital Forum in Seoul in May, along with the CEO of Microsoft and Siemens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdietsch (talk • contribs)

comment. I'm withholding my judgement on whether this article should be deleted or not, Jdietsch. But you refer to the company here as 'we'. Please remember that wikipedia articles are supposed to adhere to a Neutral Point of View and that it is difficult to remain neutral about things that you're closely associated with. By all means point out to us evidence that establishes the notability of this (and other) companies. But you might want to step back a bit from editing this article. Bucketsofg 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:53, 3 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 (aeropagitica) 09:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homefront (game mod)[edit]

Mod for Battlefield 1942. 171 unique Googles for searchstring ["Homefront" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a gaming fansite Wh e re ^(talk) 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep wikipedia is not a paper encyclopredia. Pirkovank 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thorough nom as yet another non-notable mod. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it's still an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft.--Zxcvbnm 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRUFT. Stifle 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:39, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HydroRacers[edit]

Mod for Battlefield 1942. 141 unique Googles for searchstring ["HydroRacers" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Article contains very little information in regard to the mod, and what is there appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a gaming fansite Wh e re ^(talk) 16:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn mod. Stifle 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:39, 4 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeogeodetic Association[edit]

A group for whom 45 Google hits exist. No gnews hits, no evidence of significance, no evidence that this is widely considered a genuine field of study or that this group are significant within that field (though they might be - it could just be that the entire field of study is not significant). Just zis Guy you know? 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JzG. -- Kjkolb 12:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity, advertisement. See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeogeodesy. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity; nn. Bucketsofg 14:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made comments on the archaeogeodesy deletion discussion page that are also relevant here. JzG, you miss the point that there is no evidence whatsoever that this is considered a non-serious or non-genuine field of study or that the AgA is a non-serious group. The AgA's co-written pamphlet is considered as serious by the British Library, who file it under 'occultism', not 'hoaxes', and by the Exeter University mathematics department, and its work is so considered by those who have attended its lectures. These lectures have not, as far as I am aware, been advertised on the internet - but so what? I can send scanned images of flyers advertising meetings, going back more than a decade, if anyone is interested. I don't think the AgA has ever been interested in basking in the academic or media limelight, and I think the idea that 'advertisement' is involved in this article, is way off the mark.

(Also JzG, I don't think you have considered this properly if you genuinely believe I am a sockpuppet for James Q Jacobs!) 158-152-12-77 22:54, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Delete. Whether it is serious or genuine is not the issue. This appears to be an esoteric and little-known field of study, which qualifies it as non-notable. Fan1967 00:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stated at AfD/Archaeogeodesy that I think the study of ancient alignments (such as Ley lines) is notable but the fact that there are two competing definitions for the term shows that it is too early to be included as an encyclopedia entry (some neologisms eventually become encylopedic but this is too early). The Association is a clearer case to my mind. Other than their own advocacy for the field of study, I could find no evidence they had attracted outside attention, so they are not notable or verifiable. Even a published critcism of them would give some independent verification of what their views are and why they are notable; or an article for followers of ancient mysteries that would discuss the association (either pro or con)--at this point it looks like they haven't made an impact in their field of interest. I think the vanity suggestion is also valid and it would be best if a future article were not written by the founder or leading proponent of the organization. Thatcher131 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriousness. Whether it's serious has been raised as an issue. I think it is an issue, because if it were a joke, this would be a legitimate reason for exclusion. The fact that it's serious is relevant in the context of a deletion discussion, although not in itself reason to include the article. Competing definitions. Well there are competing definitions of 'archaeogeodesy', not of the AgA. I don't quite understand your point about two competing definitions being reason to exclude either article. There are competing definitions of many many terms included in Wikipedia, including e.g. mathematics. Verifiability. You are mistaken about the AgA being verifiable. You would have thought their authorship of a work carrying an ISBN and with copies lodged in libraries would be verification of their existence. That was published in 1992. Today in 2006 they can still be contacted through the publisher, Unpopular Books, although this takes about 2 weeks because many of the people involved are not especially into the internet. Notability. Your failure to find evidence that they have attracted outside attention is not evidence of the absence of evidence of notability. As I said, an AgA pamphlet is reviewed on an Exeter University website - which is surely evidence of attraction of outside interest, and it's even online too. (Unless someone is going to say the guy at Exeter is a secret member or agent of the AgA!) AgA work has also been mentioned in Neoist publications (e.g.here)and philosophical publications (e.g.here, and, like I said, in the London Psychogeographical Association's newsletter. Authorship. I don't think there's an issue as to who writes the Wikipedia article. The issues are whether it is NPOV and accurate, and any article that doesn't meet these criteria should be edited until it does. If someone encounters the term 'archaeogeodesy' or hears of the AgA, why shouldn't they be able to look it up in Wikipedia? Esoteric. 'Esoteric' (or some people's opinion that something is esoteric) surely does not qualify something as 'non-notable'.

158-152-12-77 11:47, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Per Worldcat, only 6 libraries worldwide have this "book," which is actually a 31 page pamphlet. To me, an association is notable if it has notable members or has made an impact on its field. Having a single pamphlet produced 14 years ago does not suggest that the organization has ever been significant in its field. Thatcher131 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that mention by the London psychgeographical society is evidence of notability either as that group was the joint published of the AgA,s pamphlet and has only published one other book on its own (also through Unpopular books). Thatcher131 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence the organization's existence or importance are acknowleged by Exeter University's Department of Mathematics, or The British Library. Note that according to google, The Great Conjuction is hosted on Exeter's site only under the personal web space of an unfunded honorary researcher, and in my opinion, being published by Unpopular Books does not pass WP:V. EricR 14:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. It sounds as though you didn't look in the British Library's catalogue, before stating that "there is no evidence" that they acknowledge the AgA's existence. The work's shelfmark at the British Library is HMNTS YK.1994.a.8349. The Dewey class number is 133 20. The system number is 008153514, and the organisation's name is clearly recorded in the relevant entry. Whether or not Mr Watkins's post is funded is irrelevant, and the word 'personal' is misleading. (His work is well known in the field of academic parapsychology). It is unclear what test exactly you believe publication by Unpopular Books, rather than by some other publisher, doesn't pass. They have been publishing books and pamphlets for about 25 years, by numerous authors, not limited to those mentioned on either their website or the relevant Wikipedia entry. Probably hundreds of thousands of copies have been distributed, all told, including of several titles stocked in numerous libraries. And by the way, for future reference, Worldcat is not a comprehensive source on how many libraries stock anything. All it states is how many libraries it is aware of. Of course, the detractors here (file under 'what I don't know, or know about, isn't important'?) have already made up their minds, so I'm not going to waste any more time. There's no point. 158-152-12-77 02:36, 9 April 2006 (BST)

- - While I'm here: in the UK and Ireland alone, copies are held by the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, at Newcastle, Oxford, and Trinity College Dublin. COPAC classes it under both "parapsychology and geography" and "occultism". 158-152-12-77 02:36, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Delete per WP:V. Stifle 23:49, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next Threat[edit]

Mod for Battlefield 1942. 46 unique Googles for searchstring ["Next Threat" "battlefield 1942" -wikipedia]. Most of these appear to be entries in "lists of mods" run by game fansites. Can't find any critival reviews. Project website has ceased to exist. Article contents are little more than a list of the weapons and vehicles in the game mod. Information appears to be unverifiable through the use of reliable sources, and does not appear to meet the proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- Saberwyn 11:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable info (if any) into Battlefield 1942, then delete. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Entry containing name, current release version, and external link for the hundreds of Bf 1942 mods out there can be found at List of Battlefield 1942 mods. -- Saberwyn 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not notable enough to be mentioned in Battlefield 1942 Wh e re ^(talk)
Delete, nn mod. Stifle 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Remy B 14:40, 4 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeogeodesy[edit]

Tagged for Prod but contested by one of the many incarnations of James Q. Jacobs, who seems intent on using this article as a vehicle for personal aggrandisement. Term is clearly very minor, it may be considered significant I guess but it looks from the linked sources as if this is not a serious field of study. All the sources appear to trace back to a very small number of authors. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from searching on Google, it looks like only James Q. Jacobs uses this term. -- Kjkolb 12:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion; nn. Bucketsofg 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry but some of you are under a misunderstanding. I am most definitely not an incarnation of James Q Jacobs - which should be clear from the Archaeogeodesy talk page. (JzG - I would really appreciate it if you considered my charge that you have made an error here). I have reverted away from Mr Jacobs's repeated self-promotional attempts to dominate the article by writing 90% of it as an advert for his own work. He is not the only person to use the term, and he does not 'own' this field. No-one does. The term is used also by the Archaeogeodetic Association, which co-wrote the 1992 pamphlet mentioned in the links (the 'Great Conjunction', ISBN 1871593050), and which has been classed under 'occultism' by the British library (for reasons best known to themselves) and reviewed on the web by an accomplished mathematician at Exeter university.

My view is that for the moment there should be a short article simply listing the alternative definitions of the field (of which I am aware of two), linking to various works. Editors should then, in the fullness of time, create a lovely article that accurately summarises the scope and history of the field. Far from being invented by either Jacobs or the AgA, it dates back for more than a century. Big names for example are William Black, Alfred Watkins, and Guy Underwood. (Alexander Thom is mentioned in the article on 'ley lines' but, as far as I am aware, he confined his studies, where alignments were concerned, to much shorter ones than are studied in archaeogeodesy. Archaeogeodesy overlaps with, but is certainly not coterminous with, the study of leylines).

It is unfair to say that archaeogeodesy is not a serious field of study. This suggests it is merely the realm of hoaxers or people who seek to amuse themselves, which isn't true. I quite agree that the field attracts crackpots. In fact I think Mr Jacobs is a crackpot, but that's just my POV, and is no reason for deletion of an article on the field. In fact, it's no reason even to exclude mention of Jacobs's work. Other fields that attract crackpots include religion, evolutionary biology, psychology, etc.

If it was all a hoax, I think the proposal would be on stronger ground. But I don't think the idea can be seriously maintained by anyone who has read e.g. the 'Great Conjunction' pamphlet, or who has attended AgA lectures.

It is true that the field is fairly obscure and the term has been used only by a small number of authors...but this too is no good reason for deletion IMO.

AIUI, the term archaeoastronomy is fairly new - dating back maybe to the 1960s. It's a good name for a certain field of study which dates back much longer. If Wikipedia had existed in say 1975, when the term had been going for only about 15 years, and let's say it wasn't in very widespread use at that time, would there have been good reason to delete an article on it? I don't think so.

Let's just have a short NPOV article for the time being...and if anyone tries to 'own' it, take what measures are necessary to prevent that from happening.

--158-152-12-77 22:43, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Weak delete I know there are people interested in the alignments of ancient sites (such as Ley lines). However, the fact that there are two competing definitions suggests that the term is too new to be encyclopedic. Can you offer any examples other than the association's pamphlet that the term is in widespread use (at least among practitioners)? Thatcher131 00:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not in widespread use, in the sense of being used by a large number of people, although the association does have members on four continents. Bear in mind that they do not share Mr Jacobs's approach, and coined the term without any desire to own the field, or indeed to own any field. Nobody has made any attempt to monopolise the archaeogeodesy page by referring at great length to the AgA. (If anyone does do so, I'll oppose it the same way I opposed Mr Jacobs's efforts to do so, and for the same reasons). A good comparison would be the use of the term 'archaeoastronomy'. It is meant to be NPOV. 'Leyline' is a more loaded term, and for most practitioners carries connotations of 'energy lines' etc., whereas 'archaeogeodesy' refers just to alignments, and is meant to be basically plain and objective. It does not carry any implied interpretation. Indeed it doesn't even imply the view that alignments actually exist! :-) You say it's too new, but it's been around for more than 15 years. 158-152-12-77 (talk · contribs) 11:19, 3 April 2006 (BST)

One key difference is that archeoastronomy gets 350,000 ghits and archaeogeodesy gets around 600, of which fewer than 150 appear to be unique, and the list is dominated by Wikipedia mirrors and Jacobs' own astroturfing. I note that most of your edits are either to this subject or linking it to other articles, this is not often a good sign. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the fact that there is no settled definition of the term means it is too new; new being relative, of course. A term like proteome is probably under 5 years old but has been adopted by thousands of biologists and covered in multiple peer-reviewed journals, and has a single definition. The fact that archaeogeodesy does not have an agreed-upon definition after 15 years suggests that the number of people involved in the debate is too small and/or the findings too obscure for a definition to crystallize, which to me suggests a lack of encyclopedic notability. However I said weak delete because I am open to including the topic provided some independent source (apart from the AgA) can be cited. The fact that a small number of people have coined a new word to describe their field of interest, no matter how serious-minded they are, does not confer encyclopedic notability unless other people start to notice. Thatcher131 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AgA usage per the related AfD. Jacobs is already linked in Archaeoastronomy, and as far as i can tell is unpublished and the only one using the term Archaeogeodesy in this manner. EricR 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric - no, he is not the only one using the term. (Unless you meant something I didn't understand, by the words "in this manner"). See the discussion.

in this manner was referring to Jacob's use of the term, which as far as i can gather is that the positioning of sites (when accurately determined and proper epoch re: the celestial sphere) suggests ancient knowledge of the size and shape of the earth. EricR 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131 - you say that "the fact that archaeogeodesy does not have an agreed-upon definition after 15 years suggests that the number of people involved in the debate is too small and/or the findings too obscure for a definition to crystallize". This is not so. See for example 'mathematics', which also does not have an agreed upon definition. Or many other terms. I also don't know what 'debate' you are referring to. There isn't any 'debate' on what the term should mean. There are just different people using it different ways.

JzG - are you going to apologise for stating, as if it were a fact, in the text with which you opened this deletion discussion, that I am a sockpuppet for Mr Jacobs? You were not assuming good faith on my part. Nor can you have seriously considered the contributions to the talk pages etc. And when I say that, I am assuming your own good faith, because I don't believe someone who had seriously considered those contributions, could reach the conclusion that you did. If your statement as an admin is allowed to stand - namely the accusation that I am a sockpuppet for Jacobs - then there just is no point in my continuing to take part in this discussion. If you want to see a list of my contributions BTW, don't just check the ones I made since setting up '158-152-12-77' as a user name. Also look at those I made from that IP before I did so, beginning in Jan 2004: here. You will see that your statement that most of my edits are either to this article, or linking it to other articles, is incorrect. But then I'm not on trial, am I, any more than you are? It is onerous that I have to correct statements of which the falsehood is easily verifiable.

Most of the objections have actually fallen away - e.g. advertising, hoaxiness, lack of seriousness, unverifiability, and so on. The only remaining one, it seems to me, is 'obscurity'. But I thought encyclopedias were for reference, including on obscure subjects. But there probably is little point in my saying any more.

158-152-12-77 17:12, 3 April 2006 (BST)

I disagree that verifiability has been established. We have one 31-page pamphlet published jointly by the AgA and the LPA (which itself only has one other publication and which Matthew Watkins calls elusive); and we have Watkins' site itself, who is an "honorary research assistant" whose web site is hosted at Exeter and whose research interests are certainly non-traditional and eclectic to say the least. You mention Alfred Watkins for example; what did he call these alignments (and did he actually diferentiate between Ley lines and these longer alignments as you do)? It's possible the field is old but the terminology is too new to be widely accepted, in which case it should be filed under the most common current terminology. While I do not doubt your sincerity, generally I think there is a lack of verifiability here. Thatcher131 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues of the LPA's newsletter are online. I can't see the relevance of whether Matthew Watkins's interests are traditional or non-traditional. He currently only holds a lowly post at the university of Exeter, but he has done noteworthy work in physics (e.g. study of retro-PK using the internet) and published a number of academic papers, and at least one book (possibly more). Did you see the references to AgA work in the other sources I referred to, on the other deletion-debate page? The AgA has been referred to in Neoist publications (e.g.here)and philosophical publications (e.g.here).

The way to contact the AgA (other than using personal connections) is to go through the publisher. The pamphlet was not published jointly by the AgA and the LPA. It was authored by them. The publisher was Unpopular Books, which has published books in a number of different fields, including politics.

It's not merely 'possible' that the field of archaeogeodesy (or whatever we want to call it - i.e. long-distance alignments of ancient sites) is old. It's a fact. I have listed the names of three big authors above.

158-152-12-77 18:50, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry - I missed your question about Alfred Watkins. No, he didn't differentiate terminologically, but he did study alignments of different lengths. Bear in mind that the 'geodesy' part of 'archaeogeodesy' is basically about making measurements on the earth's surface, and conceiving of the shape of that surface, taking into account its curvature (using a spherical model, and in some contexts, a spheroidal model). See in particular what geodesists call the 'principal' and 'inverse' geodetic problems, referred to in the geodesy article. (This terminology is standard). People making alignments over long distances have got to have some sort of appreciation of these problems. Which begs the question, of course, as to whether anyone made such alignments in ancient times. I'm not sure how much you know about the field, but some of the work by Alexander Thom (a professor of engineering) on archaeoastronomy appeared first in a statistics journal, and a fair amount of the AgA's work is also statistical.

If you put a 1m-wide stone half a mile from another, it makes very little appreciable difference whether you take into account the curvature of the earth or not. If you do it over a distance of 500 miles, it does make a difference. At any rate, when you're talking short-distance sight-lines, there isn't the data to support an opinion as to whether or nor the curvature of the earth was taken into account. The distances are too short. So that's one of the reasons why long-distance alignments are seen as a separate field, or sub-field, or whatever you want to call it. None of what I've just said is controversial. Whether such alignments exist, of course, is.

I should also mention that many leyhunters don't think there's any case for believing that long-distance alignments exist. E.g. Paul Devereux and the 'Ley Hunter' magazine crew. They think the idea is kooky. It conflicts with their 'paradigms'. But they still accept the distinction. I haven't come across any author who doesn't.

Oh, and the lines have got to be straight. Various authors talk of wiggly lines, 'dragon' lines, lines tracing pictures, and so on. Questions concerning these, or their existence or otherwise, are not included in the subject-matter of archaeogeodesy, for the simple reason that geodesy isn't involved.

I don't know what you would suggest as the comon current terminology to take the place of archaeogeodesy. I'm afraid leylines is a very loaded term, and is insufficiently specific.

158-152-12-77 19:23, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Comment: Mr. Jacobs is accusing the talk page of "slander", in an email to OTRS. -- Zanimum 21:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.--Isotope23 17:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. James Q. Jacobs here. Get rid of the slander against me. Someone is unwilling to have any history of archaeogeodesy posted on this page, and continually vandalizes the content. I would prefer to have the page deleted because of the conduct of the person who will not allow any history of this research to be posted, and uses the page to slander me.

Archaeo- is a combining form meaning ancient. Therefore, archaeogeodesy means "ancient geodesy." Geodesy is a known science and not available for redefinition by ley hunters or followers of some unscientific and much criticized author. Geodesy is science, a very large science encompassing surveying and cartography, and hundreds of thousands of professionals worldwide. Ancient geodesy encompassed all geodesy in prehistory; all navigation, surveying, measure and representation of the earth, and map making.

Archaeogeodesy is the specialized area of scientific study I defined. I have worked on this research for 20 years. I am an anthropologist and archaeologist, and an academic instructor. I attained 4.0 GPAs in undergraduate study at two institutions and graduated summa cum laude. I have taught college anthropology, archaeology, education, mathematics, and computer information systems. But, call me whatever you wish. I was one of the first people creating Wikipedia, when it was worth the effort. Now it has devolved into this sort of banality! I can't even fix typos or capitalizations any longer w/o someone reverting to the previous errors. Why bother.

Archaeogeodesy has nothing to do with occultism, the ley line concept, or other new age ideation. From the discussion above, it is obvious that geodesy is being confused with new-age pseudoscience. If someone used the word "archaeogeodetic" once in 1992, fine--Let them write a book about it if they wish. But printing the word once does not justify erasing a history of serious scientific study. Nonetheless, at this point I vote DELETE the slander.

Mr Jacobs appears not to want an article on this subject unless he owns it. A "history of serious scientific study" indeed! His version was 90% devoted to his own work, and he was even caught out vandalising the AgA page, trying to advertise his work. The marks (US: grades) he got when he was a student are irrelevant. It was his continued reversion to a self-promotional version that led to the calls for semi-protection and the alert on the admin announcements page.

158-152-12-77 02:13, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Latest version

Rather than concentrating exclusively on delete/don't-delete, I'd encourage anyone interested in improving the article, to try to do so, with the aim of getting it as good as we can while the discussion is going on. I've just added a hopefully non-controversial first bit and an explanation of what is relevant about geodesy. 158-152-12-77 02:17, 7 April 2006 (BST)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postball[edit]

Original research, not verifiable, found no related results on Google, probably a sport invented by the creator of the article. – Elisson • Talk 12:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ok we invented the sport. But we are trying to create publicity for it because its only known where we live. Surely other recently invented sports such as snowboarding had to go through this sort of process too, and look how far they have gone. What have you got to lose if it stays online anyway, its not as if it isn't played by people. It is a popular game where we live, and if given the opportunity I know it can go far. Just please give it a chance. Thomas
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, not a soap box, and not an advertising place. – Elisson • Talk 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as original research --Angelo 14:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Sportvertismentcruft. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as self-confessed advertisement. Bucketsofg 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Gwernol 17:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per admission that this is made up in school one day and "trying to create publicity." Otherwise unverifiable and technically original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abobo Smash! per above Bobak 21:39, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alloway Football Club[edit]

No signs of being notable at all, not verifiable, gives almost no hits on Google. – Elisson • Talk 12:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn club Wh e re ^(talk) 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability (league? fixtures? external verifiability?); first person writing style doesn't help. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You get more hits on Google when you search for their current name, East Corinthians. I'm not convinced that having no Google hits should be a criteria to be considered when considering whether or not to delete articles anyway. --TheMadTim 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only about Google hits. Is there any sign of notability of the club? – Elisson • Talk 18:00, 6 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter-National Tour[edit]

Pointless, lacks info...speedy deletion candidate Me677 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Darkness Wh e re ^(talk) 16:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep and expand.
Merge or delete. Currently pretty much no content, it's been around for over three months. Stifle 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would a merge achieve? There really is not a single bit of info on there.... Me677 09:18, 4 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

Symonty[edit]

Vanity Nv8200p talk 13:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. Pointles content (WP:CSD A1, A3, A7): "...is believed to be a human being. That is about all we know about him." and a facsimile of a newspaper (which is a copyvio, A8). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of the Metroid Series[edit]

The entire page is nothing but original research, and is poorly written to boot. There is no basis in any area of this page in anything coming close to fact or canon- it doesn't belong here.

Merge some things with Items in the Metroid series. Grand master ka 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't look like anything is salvageable enough for a merge. Pure original research and fancruft. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 14:13 (UTC)
Delete, gamecruft, original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. BryanG 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cuiviénen. ... discospinster 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although some of this information may be original or gamecruft, but physics used in these claims are factual, therefore, this page should be an addition to the items page, maybe a small section below the original. 70.60.252.125 21:35, 2 April 2006
Delete, pseudoscientific original research and gamecruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs on GameFAQs, not here.
Delete Based on original research and contains pseudo-science that either ignores or blatantly contradicts basic official-source facts.(Example: The Wave Beam's original feature was that it went right through any obstables other than hostile targets and doors with no lost of damaging effect whatsoever... Alpha Particles are stopped by a sheet of paper.)Dr. Lobotomy 03:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitroid, then delete from here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the same I changed my mind because I found a source for alot of this info: http://www.metroidguide.com/html/main.htm 70.60.252.125 3 April 2006
I've never even heard of this website. Doesn't seem like it's up-to-date, either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the website: "The Metroid Galaxy Guide is a fanmade site dedicated to adding to the Metroid Universe in any way that it can. It is fan made, made by fans for fans, and in no way is the definitive or official guide to the Metroid galaxy." I question its validity as a source. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Zxcvbnm 22:05, 6 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 01:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chironax[edit]

I don't think a diary or log is notable enough for an entry. The article describes logging events of two bats. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Chironax is a genus of megabat (see wikispecies:chironax and [3]). The one species in the genus is on the IUCN threatened species list ([4]). The content currently in the article is poorly organised, but needing cleanup is not a problem requiring deletion. --bainer (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bainer. JoshuaZ 19:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Bainer. This needs heavy cleanup but it's notable. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:12, 7 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketship Rodents[edit]

An article on this topic was previously deleted in January (although this is not a recreation). The subject is a comic, only two issues have been 'published', one in a "limited run of 50 copies" on "photocopy paper". While wiki is not paper, this is nothing more than an advertisement for an utterly insignificant comic. Delete. bainer (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Bucketsofg 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, appears very non-notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'science, Technology and Law'[edit]

hot air, no content. Austrian 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. WP:NOR, Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Bucketsofg 14:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete NOR Wh e re ^(talk) 16:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soapbox --Deville (Talk) 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete Cool3 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- poorly written, pointless garbage. Grand master ka 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley Voice[edit]

A non-notable periodical with a short history (fewer than 10 issues) and limited distribution (fewer than a dozen outlets) in local market (Albany, New York). I edited the article for NPOV a couple of weeks ago with request for someone to make a case for notability. No one did. Numerous other alternative newsweeklies have lasted longer and reached further in this market than Valley Voice has to date. Nothing yet sets it apart as the one newcomer that merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Recommend Delete. Gnhn 14:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I nominated this article for deletion, a new user has added this quote to the article: "It has been reported that the Valley Voice will be avaliable in New York, NY, Boston, MA, and Philadelphia, PA in May 2006." I don't know where this has been reported, not whether it is verifiable. Given that fact, it doesn't change my opinion on the lack of notability of this page. --Gnhn 02:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement and quasi-vanity. Bucketsofg 14:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle 23:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good nomination, but I don't see any reason to jettison a nice article on this new publication. Would like to see articles this well done on all our weekly newspapers.-- JJay 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of wide circulation, notability, or readership. Could be a zine that everyone ignores for all the information given here.--Isotope23 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. TacoDeposit 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Bobak 21:41, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark long[edit]

I find no evidence of a Northern Irish runner called Mark Long. See for instance this list of UK all-time lists for 60-600 metres, where his name doesn't show up. Internet searches yield nothing that support the article contents. Punkmorten 14:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverified, likely hoax. (Note also the capitalization problem in the title: why is it that this is such a common problem for deletable articles?) Bucketsofg 14:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and Geogre's Law. Fan1967 20:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Stifle 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely vanity page. Dessydes 10:13, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DA-IICT btech 2005 batch[edit]

Orphan AfD. AfD'ed by Anirudhsbh (talk · contribs). Completing AfD. Fan1967 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of where students go after graduating is not encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contextless nonsense. Stifle 23:37, 3 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Sixeyes[edit]

NN blog. Scores ~3000 on Technorati (fairly high) but only PR6 and my Alexa rank is higher Computerjoe 's talk 14:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 23:37, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Designers[edit]

Consists of original research by twiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It makes nonsensical pseudostatistical claims. The only source is one weblog entry of dubious seriousness. This does not constitute the viewpoint of the fundamentalist Christian intelligent design movement who consider the designer to be God. It is remarkably similar to a previously deleted page of patent nonsense "Multiple Designers Theory" — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Designers Theory. The suggested course of action is delete/redirect to the article on intelligent designer. — Dunc|☺ 15:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a redirect since it is an unlikely search term, although note that "Multiple Designers Theory" could possibly be a reasonable topic since it has come up in verifiable sources. Most prominently it was discussed in Michael Behe's testimony in theKitzmiller trial. Er, that was me, apparently not signed in. JoshuaZ 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bucketsofg 15:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gwernol 17:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guettarda 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What utter garbage (or bullocks). Jim62sch 18:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creationismcruft. And redirecting to Intelligent design sounds like a fine course of action. Cyde Weys 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Intelligent design and blank this nonsense. (aeropagitica) 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nonsensical pseudostatistical claims": discrete uniform distribution is pseudostatistics on Wikipedia??

"does not constitute the viewpoint of...": Of course, it doesn't, why should it.

"garbage/bullocks/nonsense": Truely profound arguments... --Twiw 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I'm not seeing patent nonsense. I also really don't care if it isn't the xtian view of intelligent design either, because they do not have a monopoly on the idea. That leaves the OR claim and well, tag it {{unsourced}} again and explain WP:RS and see if something pops up. Kotepho 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. The old 'abuse probability calculus to turn a conjecture into a certainty' trick gives it away. Peter Grey 03:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense, and redirect to Intelligent designer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Intelligent designer. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FloNight ^talk 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Patent nonsense. Some nut posts trash on Panda's Thumb (an evolution blog) and it gets an article in Wikipedia? C'mon. Wake up and delete it already. Ande B 04:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up? Yes please. Simple maths will do the trick. I'm stunned to see that people are so blinded by Intelligent Designs wild and completely unproven guess of a single designing entity that they are unwilling to accept that picking a specific number (like the 1) in a completely unknown scenario is the most unlikely choice. Always. Simple maths will lead to the conclusion that IF you accept that designing entitites exist at all, that then there must have been more than one.

All these "nonsense!" (without ANY further explanations, ever) comments here are providing the impression that Intelligent Design gets accepted as the sole, valid "designing theory" on Wikipedia. Again, "ONE designing entitity" is nothing but a wild guess, "more than one designing entity" is a thesis that any calculus of probabilty confirms. --Twiw 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blinded by Intelligent Design? Who are you talking to? Intelligent Design is a total crock. Multiple Designers is Multiple Crock. No matter how precisely you add up nonsense, it is still nonsense. The article, however, shows no editorial or factual merit and is not in any way notable. Delete this one fast. Ande B 23:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment multiple designers is maybe as plausable a hypothesis as a single designer. My main criticism with the article is the maths which tries to prove there must be one or more. Flawed on two counts, one its circular, the distribution of number of creators has been chosen to show theres more than one, choose a different distribution and you would get different probabilities, (this of course assumes that its even possible to have a disrtibution of designers. Which only possible if there is multiple universes). Its also flawed by an argument involving limits to infinity. The maths also seems to be WP:OR as I can't find this mentioned elsewhere.

Drop the maths and it becomes a better article apparently Jonathan Wells, William A. Dembski and Michael Behe have all commented on the theory, whether anything has been published out side of blogs is not clear, so currently fails to establish notability. --Salix alba (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (I prodded the article about a month ago)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep as rewritten. Kusma (討論) 23:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velours du Kasai[edit]

This article looks much like a dictionary entry. After three months without change I think it is unlikely the article will be expanded. Bakanov 15:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. (It might have been simpler to have {{prod}}ded it.) Bucketsofg 15:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Seems a perfectly respectable topic to me and the article initially had some content - I've done a bit of work on it and will add some more later. The first link now describes the manufacturing process in some detail. Dlyons493 Talk 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep after expansion by Dlyons. If this is a dicdef, we might as well transwiki everything to Wiktionary and be done with it. — sjorford (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep perhaps rename to English Kasai velvet or Kasaï velvet. Dlyons has done a great job expanding it. I have set up a redirect from Shoowa, since - rightly or wrongly - this is the name by which these textiles are most widely known by English-speakers outside DRC, and there isn't yet an article about the ethnic group. Humansdorpie

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerz Realm[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable gaming website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; their forum only has 13,890 members; not active enough to be mentioned in WP Wh e re ^(talk) 16:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bige1977 22:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete? The forum has had over 30,000 users joined, but the Administator decided to delete inactive account to get a better view on the amount of active members on the site. --User:sickmate 18:37, 4 April 2006
Dont Delete, look at the number of posts, not the number of members on forums. The admins deleted anyone who hadn't logged on in the past month, so that means 13,000 active members, more than most. Not to mention the fact it is a rapidly expanding site, expanding into many new games at a fairly fast rate. I looked at some of their statistics, and they are growing quite fast. I agree that each of their sub-sites should not have a Wiki page, but their main umbrella organization should. Rifleman000 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamerzwhat? nn gaming website. Bobak 21:43, 6 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 01:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpie Meme[edit]

neologism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly speedy) as neologism and unverifiable. Gwernol 17:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Unverifiable, original research, memeticscruft. Brian G. Crawford 23:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and inoculate against meme virus. WP:NFT may apply as well. Haikupoet 03:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 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, recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/667 Dark Avenue --W(t) 20:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

667 Dark Avenue Forum[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable chat forum. 18 unique google hits for "667 Dark Avenue Forum", 28 for "asoue.proboards11.com". Prod tag removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this meets the WP:WEB criteria. Google shows only 3 pages that link there, Alexa shows a 421,199 rank. It does have about 5000 registered members, but the site doesn't seem to be having much impact beyond those. Joyous | Talk 15:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - including things at this level of prominence would be completely unfeasable. Pseudomonas 15:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs a little brushing up, but I think Wiki is just manually biased against articles for websites, it has deleted/considered deleting several in the past under the excuse that they are 'minor' when they are clearly not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantombumper (talk • contribs)

Comment this user repeatedly removed delete comments from this discussion and changed delete comments to keep comments. These changes have been reverted

DO NOT DELETE! 667 is an excellent forum and I demand that the wikipedia page be left. why do you even care if it's here? Go here http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:asoue.proboards11.com+667+Dark+Avenue&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N There are hundreds of results from google. This comment was left on 16:55, 2 April 2006 by User:TriangleEyes

But those hundreds of hits are generated from within the site itself. What we're looking for when we decide on including a site is mentions OUTSIDE the site under discussion. Our guidelines at located here. Go take a look, and if we've made a mistake based on those guidelines, let us know. Joyous | Talk 16:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it please. I need somewhere to talk about A Series of Unfortunate Events with more new people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoue edwin (talk • contribs)
- Comment. We are not talking about deleting your forum; we are talking about deleting an article in Wikipedia. Austrian 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please keep it. True, we need to fix it up, but please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.161.165 (talk • contribs)

Delete non-notable, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Gwernol 16:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination. Austrian 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, as per Joyous and nom --Deville (Talk) 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- if my knowledege is correct, this was added only yesterday give them atleast a week to make it good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.206.193 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom, WP:WEBcruft. Sandstein 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein. --DMG413 20:29, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RestoMontreal.ca[edit]

Non-notable local restaurant guide website. Delete. DMG413 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable; advertisement; wikipedia is not a directory. Bucketsofg 15:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website Wh e re ^(talk) 16:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. pm_shef 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Already mentioned in the Montreal article, anything else is overkill. Peter Grey 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 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 {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applestone[edit]

This looks like self-promotion. The text "was first heard of", without referring to his work at all, suggest that he is still not notable at all. But please, prove me wrong! Austrian 16:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User:Rapplestone and is about a "R(onald) Applestone". I think this qualifies for self-promovation. Delete (speedy if possible). Valentinian ^(talk) 16:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nn vanity article Wh e re ^(talk) 16:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy if possible. Bakanov 16:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as {{nonsense}}, {{empty}} and {{db-bio}}. Gwernol 17:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Gwernol. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyMelon Age[edit]

Neologism. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn term; <20 google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 16:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clear neologism, hopelessly WP:POV, borderline {{nonsense}}. Gwernol 17:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Gwernol. Bucketsofg 20:55, 2 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 Geogre with summary of (copyvio & totally non-encyclopedic). -- JLaTondre 17:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guild wars review[edit]

Prod tag was removed by Kbh3rd and marked the edit as minor with the comment rv v (revert vandalism). The proposed deletion was "Game review, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought WP:NOT/WP:NOR". Blue520 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: copyvio [5]Wh e re ^(talk) 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Sent to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. -- JLaTondre 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Era Clash[edit]

Was part of an April Fool's Day hoax, as can be seen at the site who made the joke Ryu Kaze 16:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment, it should go to Redirects for deletion (RfD).--Blue520 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ryu Kaze 17:03, 2 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 hoax --Durin 20:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Era Clash: Final Fantasy VII[edit]

No reputable sources and an obvious April Fools' Day hoax. ~ Hibana 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed hoax - (ref) — CuaHL ☺ 11:36, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Bauer[edit]

This is an article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (It really satisfies the criteria for "speedy", I think) Aleph4 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of this guy, and he doesn't seem article-worthy. --Wizardman 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fishhead64 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has a decent number of papers and citations. I cannot find anything significant he has done though. Kotepho 00:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Geez, he got his Ph.D. five years ago and now a Wikipedia bio? I don't see evidence of any particularly noteworthy accomplishments. --C S (Talk) 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jonas Silk 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, although he may worthy of short article if more information could be gathered. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 4 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, removing WotW52s vote as a salvage attempt. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-click[edit]

Non-notable website. Prod tag removed without explanation. Delete. DMG413 16:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am objected to this proposal for deletion and will be editing the entry to, hopefully, make it better.--Waroftheworlds52 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blog. If Waroftheworlds52 can update to show notability and provide verifiable sources, I will be happy to reconsider. Gwernol 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An advertisement masquerading as an article. The blog is currently nn / does not meet the WP:WEB guideline. Also Wikipedia is (WP:)not a soapbox. Politepunk 17:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the above points I've come to the conclusion that I'm not going to be able to satisfy the criteria of the site. As the author I no longer hold an objection to this entry being deleted. --Waroftheworlds52 18:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waroftheworlds52 did not create this entry for any reason other than a reference to the site, who's popularity is growing rapidly, NOT as an advertisement. MagicalTrevor

Keep.User MagicalTrevor's statement is correct. This wikipedia entry was intended as a site reference and not an advertisement for the site. Furthermore, as proof of Ctrl-click.com's notability, it is the 7th result produced by the PageRank technology when searching for the query Ctrl-click on Google- http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Ctrl-click&btnG=Google+Search&meta= . I realise this comment perhaps does not mirror my earlier sentiments but in the light of the recent comment by MagicalTrevor I felt it best to verify his statement. I would also like to point out that there is now a link to the ctrl-click.com collection of podcasts found via Apple Computer's iTunes software- surely the site is of some not if it produces podcasts worthy enough of a music download service which has recently sold over 1 billion tracks?--Waroftheworlds52 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that 50% of the (4) past and present staff members of the blog listed in the article have argued for the retention of the site doesn't really cause me to doubt my initial impression about the purpose of the article. The article (or your arguments here) don't establish the notability of the your website sufficiently to make me think that it warrants an article. Sorry. Politepunk 22:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt's just a blog, with no indication that it's any different from any other blog. Any site turns up high if you search for its name - the fact that it turns up seventh (rather than first) is an indciation of how unknown it is. DJ Clayworth 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Engadget is also "just a blog". And CC may not look too different, but with up to 300 hits an hour from all over the world, it's a very popular blog, just like Engadget. And of course, there's PSPCC and The ninjUX Project, I belive we deserve an entry.

UPDATE: We're changing to a full site, with many subdomains. MagicalTrevor

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday People (band)[edit]

Delete. Non notable. Couldn't find google hits. Soumyasch 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. T K E 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jonas Silk 14:22, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Fairmeadow[edit]

Nn, web, autobio, van, unrelated info. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-02t17:51z

Delete non-notable vanity bio. Fishhead64 21:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BIO violation. Like her name, though. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:54 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a good name. "Wikipedia, I am appealing to you not to allow persons with possible Neo-Nazi leanings delete my Angela Fairmeadow article. Every word I wrote is true, and because I have solved literally hundreds of Bible mysteries, I deserve an entry in Wikipedia. No one else in the world has achieved this. Why let persons with possible Neo-Nazi leanings dictate to you? from: Angela Fairmeadow" (from OTRS) -- Zanimum 19:10, 4 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. — TheKMan^talk 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobosexual[edit]

I'm fairly sure this article is a joke, it seems more suited to Uncyclopedia. Modular. [[User_talk:Modular|(Talk.)]] 18:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't even belong there, as it's not funny. T K E 18:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfunny joke, previously deleted article. (aeropagitica) 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, why are we wasting our time on AFD? silsor 19:34, 2 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. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Schulze (naturopath)[edit]

Delete unless verified - it has had a verify tag and comments on it since January, and no action has occurred, and it is now high in the Google ranking for this subject. Midgley 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Oh, come on now, the objective is to build an encyclopedia, not gum up the process with ill-conceived serial AfDs. The article was cleaned up and expanded before the nuisance verify tag was added. There is plenty of evidence around the net that this practitioner has had a long and noteworthy career that a quick goofle search would have confirmed, for whomever put on the nuisance tag, which in turn has been proffered unreasonably as an excuse for deletion. Ombudsman 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No previous afd has been conducted on that article.

The identity of the poster of the tag is visible in the history. WP:V is only a nuisance in a certain sense, that of being one of the three bases of WP. It is also hard to see how it could be reasonable to describe such an action as "a nuisance tag" without having looked at the article enough to see who tagged it, and when.

Stifle produced this for cleaning up, User:Stifle/Delete_unless_cleaned_up, which is good, and would be appropriate if this was an afd about an article needing _cleaning up_ but this is an afd about an article that is unverified and has remained so for sufficiently long that it is now effectively being presented to the world as evidence of importance - WP Is Not for Heisenberging Google. Thank you for taking an interest. Midgley 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and may I mention WP:AGF and WP:NPA again? "Unreasonably" is an unjustified comment in any case, articles may persist through not being noticed to be bad, but making the rfa is not a personal attack on the author, nor should it be responded to as one. Thank you. Midgley 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Without a WP:QuackTest, I'm at sea here. Is this guy real? Yes, several of the publications listed can be found in the Library of Congress. Is he notable? I've no idea. I suspect, however, that some of the details here are false, inflated, or mischaracterized. (Taught at Oxford and Cambridge? I doubt it.) Delete per copyvio per Gu (below) and lexis/nexislessness per Thatcher (below) Bucketsofg 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio Labeled as possible copyright violation. Text copied from [6] Gu 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one article of a class or type, which share some commonality in their initiation and in responses to both requests for them to be verified and for citations, and in the responses to proposals to delete. Midgley 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any assertion of notability here. The PROFTEST doesn't apply, because the article doesn't claim he's a professor. I don't know if he qualifies as an author, because I don't know if his books are self-published. I do know that anyone claiming to cure disease through nothing more than "colon cleansing" does not have science on his side.

Brian G. Crawford 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I have to laugh at orthodox medical 'science' www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html] "85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation" and "the average medical general practitioner is correct in his office diagnosis approximately 12% of the time". If you study natural healing www.whale.to/w/nat.html] you will see why cleansing is so effective. john 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Whaleto is just returned from a 24 block for various sins including WP:CIVIL. It doesn't seem to have modified his behaviour at all. The variety of "natural" "healing" referred to here is Gerson "therapy" which consists largely of pouring coffee up your bottom an eating crushed fruit. The UK cancer help view on it is at http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default_printer_friend.asp?page=6019 and the US NIH surprisingly anodyne note is at http://www.cancer.gov/templates/doc.aspx?viewid=16bae44e-dd9f-4c43-8d9b-92512697e3e0&version=Patient&sectionID=4&#Section_14 . There is a hint of what is wrong with this, and a collection of other articles started by John in his comment above - the New York Times is a prominent and WP:RS resource, but what John offers here - not in support of the article but in an attack on me and a class of editors and reputable professionals - is what somebody else is said to have said in the NYT. The tropes involved do circulate, the latter looks like rubbish to me, even based on last week's clinics, but the 85% one was tracked down by David Sackett to a conversation involving Archie Cochrane in New Zealand (if I recall correctly) and reported and examined on the evidence-based-health mailing list at jisc.ac.uk (formerly mailbase.ac.uk). Far from being true, it turns out to be inverted, with examination of the evidence base for the primary intervention in common significant conditions showing a clearly evidenced basis in around 85%! And all of that is entirely irrelevant to the afd, being simply an attack by User:Whaleto using whatever unreliable anecdotes he finds to breach WP:NPA and WP:AGF. This is a pattern which has made him a nuisance on USENET lists for many years and deserves censure. Midgley 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is really only notable to a few of the editors here, otherwise for the most part as notable as any other practitioner of alternative medicine. Andrew73 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lexis/Nexis has no hits on "Richard Schulze" and ("Osho" or "colon" or "naturopath"). Therefore, even if notable for being a book author, claims are not verifiable. Remind Ombudsman and others the burden of verification is on editors wanting to keep. Did he really teach at Oxford and Cambridge or did he give a single free lecture sponsored by a student group? And so on. Thatcher131 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When Ombudsman becomes all words it's a sure sign the article is unsalveageble. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. After a few Google tests, there is nothing nothing verifiably important or even verifiable about this guy: 1) there is no evidence that his "Osho School for Herbalists and Natural Healers" exists, 2) there is no evidence that "the School of Natural Healing" in California exists, and 3) there is slim evidence that "Trinity Medical School" in Ireland exists (one other alternative practitioner claimed to go there and an obituary for someone in the 1800s said another gentleman went there[7]). -AED 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)edited 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no, Trinity Medical School does exist (part of St James's Hospital, Dublin). Tearlach 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goes by College.[8]. It is down the road from the slightly anomalous Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland by St Stephen's Green. A very pleasant city. Midgley 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now we know the reason for the nuisance tag. Shulze is the number one natural healer and herbalist in the world, so there is the reason to delete him--curing the incurable is annoying to them. Midgley does have a habit of deleting medical industry irritants [9], [10], [11], [12]. Why hasn't he signed his deletion proposal, is this an attack of shyness? john 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF WP:NPA WP:DICK Midgley 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that John asserts there is no better or more notable natural healer or herbalist than this in the world. (I'm not misinterpreting this am I? All others can be said to be inferior, quoting this?) Midgley 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - material that comes from a single promotional website is deeply weak by WP:RS and WP:V standards. For instance, I can find no "Osho School for Herbalists and Natural Healers"; and Cortijo Romero is not a university as claimed, but a 20-room Spanish villa offering residential course holidays. Tearlach 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a copyvio, I think we should leave this to WP:CP. Stifle 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wider Comment. Stifle blanked the copyvio content in this article, Ombudsman has now reverted it, and removed the copyvio tag with no discussion here or on the article discussion page and providing no indication of a licence for this to be published here. In the several links to largely irrelevant afd discussions that User:Whaleto provided, there are edits by Ombudsman of other people's comments, and an edit of the discussion after the closing. Clearly the request on a closed discussion lacks the force of a direct order backed up by locking the database record, but all fo these acts seem to me to be objectionable, and part of a pattern of behaviour which has persisted despite periodic comments and exasperation by various other editors at least as long as I have known of Ombudsman. Is the contribution of the trio of Whaleto, Ombudsman and the anonymous IP address user calling himself "The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219" sufficient to outweigh the effort required to fix this sort of entry and the disruption caused by such behaviour and edits? Midgley 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"""Appears to me that Midgley has a problem with Ombudsman. Who was the "Invisible Anon"? Is Midgley the official Wikopedia guardian? Is there one? I am a newer editor, but it appears that there are some vicious battles.

Delete as above and Comment: I originally put the copyvio tag on this article and there is still a rest of the copy of the biography on [13] left, so I'm going to remove that copied sentences too. Gu 08:17, 4 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, nomination withdrawn and closed early by nominator. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 9 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 keep per withdrawal. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty chair[edit]

poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article grafikm_fr 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poorly written, non-wikified and highly opiniated article. It was proposed on the talk page to delete it and redirect Child time-out. grafikm_fr 18:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for redirect since it isn't a common term. JoshuaZ 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per JoshZ. Bucketsofg 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if rewritten a rubbish page, but if rewritten could be useful— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.107.54 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Child time-out. The term may not be very common, but I think it's common enough for a redirect. --Allen 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Amcbride. This term is likely to be searched for. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalistroadster and Allen. -AED 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. New edits look much better. -AED 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just edited and wikified it - largely restoring it to the situation it was in before being vandalised. It had attracted three different editors before being attacked. I wouldn't know which way round to redirect or merge, nor the significant differences between a general time out and a naughty chair, but would suggest at this stage leaving the article to develop and see what happens. SilkTork 17:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, your version looks much better! ^_^ grafikm_fr 18:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SilkTork. Grue 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems like everyone agrees to keep the new version of the article. I'm removing the afd tag on the page! grafikm_fr 14:23, 8 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard 'the Lionheart' Morris[edit]

NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but tag was removed by page creator. Listing here now. -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

KEEP Richard Morris is a significant local campigner on Anti Racism Anti Fascism issues and is noted for his work in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.107.54 (talk • contribs)
KEEP This person seems to be adding to Politics in his area and is known for doing so, we should support him here. we should not silence a politician, this is not the place for a dictatorship to start — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.172.219 (talk • contribs)
Keep Jon Welch and Richard Morris both student politicans who are emerging, their articles should stay 82.36.107.54 19:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe is well known within the Birmingham University Guild of Students and the University of Birmingham. He is one of the most recognisable students after his election campaign and has a lot of involvement in committees of both the Guild and the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.144.237 (talk • contribs)
Keep He is in part responsible for allowing students to give blood at the Guild, saving many lives and is fighting for an improvement in the library reform system to allow mature students and home students a fair chance to an education, which is very valuable and he deserves recognition for this.81.132.155.19 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biographies for the pair of student politicians, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do you realize how many times we've heard these sorts of claims about dictatorship? Please read WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT a crystal ball, student of whom "it is believed" that he might run for local office. Sandstein 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points cited in the Keep votes above. They clearly show why the entry does not qualify. Fan1967 20:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio, original research, vanity Bucketsofg 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn-bio Gu 20:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in fact this is a CSD A7 speedy candidate. David | Talk 21:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was a student politico too - where's my article? Fishhead64 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:BIO. Even if he does run and win in a local election, he would still be non-notable, because local politicians are generally considered as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Greg321 22:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I sat on the student council in 10th grade. I would be a nn-bio candidate. Don't take it too hard, but this does not come near WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elf-friend 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7

Delete He is a student politician standing for a position on a significant council. He is therefore not notable at the moment. If he were elected, he might be notable enough. I removed the CSD tag because notability is asserted. Capitalistroadster 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His contributions even at a local level are laughable, consisting of getting drunk and harassing minority groups. Nothing worth remembering.
Delete. This is so non-notable even god hasn't heard of it. Bobak 21:46, 6 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 {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Welch[edit]

NN, vanity. Initially tagged as speedy, but page creator removed the tag. Listing here now. See also AfD-Richard 'the Lionheart' Morris, page created by same editor. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 19:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only a student politician, but also entered the Caffe Nero Young Barrista of the Year 2006 competition.
Keep Jon Welch is a legend, and will be famous!!!!
Keep Jon Welch and Richard Morris are both student politicans who are emerging, their articles should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.107.54 (talk • contribs)
Keep Support politics, dont create a dictatorship. politicians should remain on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.107.54 (talk • contribs)
Keep He has made a very valuable contribution to the Guild and is generally considered the best ever Independent chair.81.132.155.19 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biographies for the pair of student politicians, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like the Morris article above. Sandstein 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC
Delete nn bio, original research, vanity Bucketsofg 20:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like Morris. Fan1967 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and it's a CSD A7 speedy candidate. David | Talk 21:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, about as notable as Morris. Nothing to show that the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. Montco 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I agree with dbiv that this really ought to be an A7 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Policy on Vanity Articles states that; Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Therefore this is not a CSD A7

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Express[edit]

Fails 1, 2 and 3 of WP:CORP Mikker ^(...) 19:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very large chain store— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.107.54 (talk • contribs)
Keep Very well known national UK chain. The guideline (not policy) referred to by the nominator is badly written, inadequate and biased towards deletion. Osomec 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep and expand notable chain. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They were the main innovators in fast service optometry (?) in the UK, so they must have had external coverage in the relevant specialist publications back then. Carina22 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. --kingboyk 18:09, 5 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Rootbeer Float[edit]

Yet another non-referenced and poorly written page on a non-notable cocktail. Already transwikied. Previously prodded but that was contested. Quale 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; also shades of original research. Bucketsofg 20:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article: "relatively new invention", which is AfD-speak for non-notable. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:45 (UTC)
Delete per above; also, no google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF? It's an article about a mixed drink, and it doesn't even tell you what's in it? Brian G. Crawford 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaina Basile[edit]

This was created to parody the student author of a controversial article at my school. It is not a factual page, serves no informational purpose, and should be deleted. Murkywave 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete patent nonsense and/or hoax. Bucketsofg 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gu 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. 159.91.0.0/16 is owned by Trenton State College of New Jersey. Kotepho 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Montco 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Realism[edit]

No evidence there is such a style. The article is an incoherent, unsourced, POV essay. Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV -- noosphere 19:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Arniep 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR.--Blue520 22:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.Bjones 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 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 User:Geogre under A7,G4 Kotepho 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ible[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no evidence of current notability. --W(t) 20:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, yet still used for vandalism for some reason. [14] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (After the vandal edit in question someone claiming to be Ible asked me on my talk page whether the article could be deleted [15].)[reply]
Delete not notable Agathoclea 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnWh e re ^(talk) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tagged it as A7. Kotepho 00:02, 3 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. -Doc ^ask? 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi_Howard_Z._Plummer[edit]

I began this article on Rabbi Howard Z. Plummer, however, I cannot easily cite sources beyond the literature (books, website) published by the Church he once pastored. Hence, I recommend deletion. Cogasoc member 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Is deletion really necessary, a short verifiable article is better than no article. Have a look at WP:V and WP:RS.--Blue520 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blue520. Monicasdude 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the user was wrongfully convinced to delete. -Mance 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should not be deleted. Verifiable.--Dakota ~ ° 23:58, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoweredBoard[edit]

Prodded as Advertisement for non-notable software. 0 Ghits - didn't know that was possible. Still scoring Zero but prod tag has been removed.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So new that the home page link in the article redirects to an empty forum, and the features list points to a nonexistent page. They didn't even complete their own website before creating this article. Regardless of whether this software has a future, it certainly has no present or past. Clearly non-notable. Fan1967 20:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the board has 4 registered users Wh e re ^(talk) 23:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amcfreely 02:38, 4 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 now relocated to correct namespace. Esteffect 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy of Mechanicians Project[edit]

I believe the creator of this article wanted to start a WikiProject, so I moved all of the information to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of Mechanicians. The page is not a suitable encyclopedia article. ~MDD 46 96 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Rob 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGill Redmen[edit]

~~Apparently this article is only on the name of the team, and not the team itself, and thus isn't notable. Delete Ardenn 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Afd nomination withdrawn. Ardenn 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are already a number of articles about American university sports teams, and no reason why the current article here can't be used as the base of a similar article. --DMG413 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have articles like this for all the Canadian university sports teams too. Having a separate article about each specific team would be much, much worse. Adam Bishop 21:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand User:Ardenn has been systematically targeting all articles having to do with McGill University. I'm going to assume good faith and not accuse her of having a random vendetta against McGill, but there is plenty of precedent for an article like this. Not to mention that in a discussion on the talk page, I had just agreed to a compromise before she nominated it for AfD. pm_shef 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a guy. Ardenn 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsies! Sorry. pm_shef 22:16, 2 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melya Gorbinski[edit]

Couldn't find anything on Google about her Snailwalker | talk 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. --W(t) 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Wh e re ^(talk) 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both she and her book appear imaginary. Fan1967 00:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly the author of a book which might not exist.. WHAT? Kotepho 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:05, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always Island[edit]

I think that this article should be deleted, as it has no meaningful content and does not have any references--Snailwalker | talk 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. grafikm_fr 21:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it were sourced, it would deserve to get folded into the article about the book. --DMG413 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never heard of the book 82.36.107.54 21:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and if an article is written about the book, redirect there instead. Obscure fictional place in a somewhat obscure work of fiction. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:47 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

It seems that the user ImaGINAtion has added quite a few rather strange articles to Wikipedia, including 1944 in Video gaming (deleted now). I think someone should watch him/her... --Snailwalker | talk 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book returns no google hits and is probably a hoax Wh e re ^(talk) 23:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V. Based on Google, there is nothing to indicate that either the book or its author, Melya Gorbinski, ever existed. Fan1967 00:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the book is real... we don't need this place. Quite a depressing place, really. I'll say. Kotepho 01:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:06, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithorapto[edit]

This page is a copy of Rio Grande do Sul. Lithorapto is not a word that has anything to do with Rio Grande do Sul or anything else in the world. It's just a nonsensical test by a user and should be deleted. Ricardo630 21:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also Lithorapto gives no google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well spotted Ricardo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:06, 3 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 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp columbia[edit]

No claim to notability. Sounds like an ad Bige1977 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It has many hits on Google, but I don't know if it is important enough -- Snailwalker | talk 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:06, 3 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. -Doc ^ask? 22:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Zelda[edit]

A Zelda-based manga. Seems to be internet only - Less than 1,000 Google hits for quote "Bad Zelda", the bulk of which seem to be simply the term, and not about this manga. Thus not notable - Seems to just be a minor web thing between fans. Nowhere to redirect page so delete. Esteffect 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is, in essence, fan-made Zelda porn. Slapping the word "manga" on it does not make it notable. Nifboy 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fanstuff. -- Mithent 01:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of only two Zelda hentais in existance. It's lack of circulation. It is indeed drawn in the manga style, so calling it that is appropriate. The reason for the lack of circulation is that it is originally written in french. 'Bad Zelda' is the english name it goes by. I am unsure of what the french translation would be, but that explains why it has not shown up on engines. Possibly a mirroring en francais article can be made. Tyciol 04:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 21:23, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Clare[edit]

Seems like a hoax (possibly an April Fool). Can't find any reference to Patrick Clare online and the photo uploaded is of George Cartwright [16]. All other edits by the author Kolkra (talk · contribs) have been vandalism. johnSLADE (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as hoax by vandal editor. —ERcheck @ 22:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX or just due to lack of verifiability WP:V.--Blue520 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; the search '"Patrick Clare" +Etobicoke' yields no google hits Wh e re ^(talk) 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedy if possible. Bearcat 02:00, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim's Family Restaurant[edit]

Non-notable, article is an advertisement Bige1977 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Ad. Guy didn't even link to his own restaurant right. Carlo 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom.--Blue520 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn restaurant chain Wh e re ^(talk) 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the chain likely doesn't meet WP:CORP, possible advertising. About as notable as the Jim's Restaurants chain that I was thinking about. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sound good, and I'm totally there if I am ever in the area, but the chain fails WP:CORP and deletion would be consistent with about eleventy-billion other AfDs. youngamerican (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Members[edit]

Nonsense/hoax/unsourced. --W(t) 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Probably should have been {prod}. Just silliness. Carlo 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Hoax Bige1977 22:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. Gwernol 01:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per all above. Rockpocket 01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. per all above. --Mboverload 01:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Not a speedy candidate however since hoaxes are not speedy candidates. Weyes did the right thing when bringing it here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It has come to the attention of the Saintly Members that their believers have been oppressed with respect to posting their beliefs on the wikipedia. While the Members are generally peaceful and loving, the rage they feel over the removal of their teachings from the wikipedia shall cause them to descend from the Blackcombs of British Columbia and bring forth chaos to all the oppressors." I think that says it all. Delete at any velocity, unless verified through the use of reliable sources. -- Saberwyn 07:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. --ManiF 07:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably just looking for publicity. Article should be in uncyclopedia. Dessydes 09:25, 6 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leavenworth cable listings[edit]

This has been reprodded for the second or third time, so I'm moving it here. The last prodder gave no reason, but the first, User:Mithent, said "just a list of cable channels". Relevant policy is probably WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NickelShoe's reasoning. --W(t) 22:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info, #7 Directories. —ERcheck @ 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT(indiscriminate collection of information).--Blue520 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a television guide Wh e re ^(talk) 23:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate information. A list of local broadcast channels makes sense as a part of the city's article, but a list of cable channels in its own article? Too much. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be marginally notable for a wikialmanac somewhere, but not for the 'pedia. youngamerican (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The update never came, anyway! -- Mithent 01:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course. chowells 02:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. User(s) who listed this has/have been blocked indefinitely for "repeated childish vandalism", so don't expect an update. --KHill-LTown 01:45, 4 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. -Doc ^ask? 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diva (software)[edit]

Non-notable software (first release less than a week ago). --W(t) 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 22:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some misunderstanding here. The first release of this software was nearly a year ago. The first "1.0" release was less than a week ago.[17] This is also one of the most highly anticipated new pieces of software for open source platforms this year. Those who are using Unix and Linux for video editing are anxiously following this project. Existing project, Kino already has a page, so I'm not sure on what basis we would remove this one. BTW: I have nothing to do with the project, nor the article. -Harmil 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first "release" in July 2005 was a "demo". The current release # is 0.0.1, which implies a "pre-release" — according to the Diva site, "The project is still in the early stages of development but we encourage you to try it out and get back to us with your comments." This is not a production release. Too early to have an article. —ERcheck @ 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I was wrong, sorry. Like I said, I'm not associated with the project. Yes, it's 0.0.1 and the Novell site I pointed to wasn't really helpful, as it was a non-functional flash-based demo. It's still a very important piece of software for Linux that many people have been anticipating. The digg article is highly ranked. [18] It's also open source software. gaim had an article here long before it was 1.0. Linux would have, but that was pre-Wikipedia. Firefox [19] had an article a year and a half prior to 1.0. Open source software is often widely used prior to 1.0, where proprietary software almost never is. The real question is: how notable is this software. As someone who knows some indie film makers, I can tell you that the lack of decent video editing for Linux has been a serious problem, and that diva has been widely anticipated for just that reason. It's a niche market, but among that niche, this is a bomb-shell. -Harmil 12:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My company's software FORscene was thought non-notable in the AfD, even though it has been the subject of dozens of press articles and it has been used in the post-production of many broadcast programmes. And it won the Royal Television Society Award for best advance in post-production technology last December. So I'm looking for some consistency here. My personal view is that a lot of interesting software is deemed non-notable. The proposed new software guidelines may improve the situation. How does Diva fit with the current proposed guidelines: WP:SOFTWARE? Stephen B Streater 06:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Let's review the WP:SOFTWARE points:

Published works: yes on the second metric: many lesser publications: [20] [21] [22] [23]
innovative, significant: yes, see sources for 1
core products: hard to say, but I'll say no (see below)
major OS: yes and no. I'm sure that it's being provided by Novell as an updte to SuSE, but that's sort of a back-door yes.
trademark loss: no
award/honor/top 10: not as such, though as one of two applications in its class for Linux....

Hope this helps -Harmil 12:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are the published works independent? Are they written by people involved in the project? If so, or if we can't tell, they don't count, as independence is the key for Wikipedia. If they are demonstrably independent, I'd go for notable.

We use Linux at work for our development and have played with Kino - I'll ask if anyone has tried this out. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems not to be particularly notable. Stifle 23:28, 3 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zybez[edit]

Delete Already deleted once before and I feel it should be deleted again. This is simply a fansite. I did not vote speeedy as this is much longer than it was before. J.J.Sagnella 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted content. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:52 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted stuff. --Arnzy (Talk) 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy candidate, since the version deleted in the first AFD went "Zybez is a RuneScape fansite.", this article is a hundred times longer and not "substantially identical". However, I agree that this fansite does not come near WP:WEB.
Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sjakkalle. This is not G4 as the previous two deleted versions were not the same as this, as this adds significantly more information than those deleted versions. Pepsidrinka 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. pm_shef 04:12, 6 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 Move to List of famous Rutgers University alumni Proto||type 09:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University alumni[edit]

Delete the page was created to take out information from the Rutgers University article. I put the information back into the Rutgers University article so we can discuss any changes there. As it is now, this page is redundant with the Rutgers University article and should not have been created. Jersey Devil 22:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay. I certainly don't think this sort of thing should be in the main article. Move to List of famous Rutgers University alumni. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:48 (UTC)
Move per cuvienen and link to the page from the article Wh e re ^(talk) 23:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per cuvienen. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not move. Use a category instead. Stifle 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable alumni pages are par for the course. This seems to be part of some kind of bizarre edit conflict involving Rutgers. AfD is not the venue for this. -- JJay 00:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page, which is essentially a list, contains many names of people who have no Wikipedia articles and have no source citations to show either that they positions they are said to hold, or that they have attended Rutgers and graduated in the year they are said to have graduate. This does not meet the verifiability policy. Every name on the list should be sourced in some way. If the names are perchance taken from some other single source, a list existing somewhere else, this needs to be stated clearly and the source indicated. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:07, 4 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 move to List of famous Rutgers University faculty Proto||type 09:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University faculty[edit]

Delete the page was created to take out information from the Rutgers University article. I put the information back into the Rutgers University article so we can discuss any changes there. As it is now, this page is redundant with the Rutgers University article and should not have been created. --Jersey Devil 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of famous Rutgers University faculty, per my comments above. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:49 (UTC)
Move per cuvienen and then link to it in Rutgers University Wh e re ^(talk) 23:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move, don't merge, as per Cuivienen. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rutgers article is too long. It is common to do these types of daughter articles. Rutgers is not some joke school so why is this nom trying to severely undercut our coverage of Rutgers by nominating all the Rutgers pages for deletion? -- JJay 00:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move - a renamed article solves the issue at hand. Alansohn 12:45, 4 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 (aeropagitica) 09:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student organizations at Rutgers University[edit]

Delete the page was created to take out information from the Rutgers University article. I put the information back into the Rutgers University article so we can discuss any changes there. As it is now, this page is redundant with the Rutgers University article and should not have been created.--Jersey Devil 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a link repository. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 22:50 (UTC)
Delete per cuvienen Wh e re ^(talk) 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. The information is unencyclopedic and non-notable. It certainly shouldn't be on the university's main page. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities are about students when you get down to it. This is a list of student organizations. I see nothing wrong with striving for comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of Rutgers, which is a fairly well known school in New Jersey and some other places. -- JJay 00:40, 4 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Hammarskjold's Faith[edit]

non-encyclopedic Austrian 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School essay and original research. Brian G. Crawford 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. There's already a perfectly good article on Dag Hammarskjold. Gwernol 01:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though this could have been done by redirect. DJ Clayworth 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Montco 02:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. Bige1977 04:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gwernol. Also, no blue links can be found in the article. That is bad form. Until just a few moments ago, I had no idea who Dag Hammarskjold was, and it would have been nice if I could have simply clicked on his name and been informed.--Pal5017 05:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pal5017. --ManiF 07:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete?- this is source based research as defined by Wikipedia rules "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." If it needs editing please give direction. I have responded to your comments already regarding blue links. I have also edited out personal analysis. Thx P. H. Betancourt-author

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. (Nomination withdrawn) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoober stand[edit]

Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2100 hits on Google such as [24], [25] and [26]. Seems like a notable enough monument that people would want to find in an encyclopedia. I'd like to see the article improved (tag with {{expand}}, {{wikify}} etc.), but I vote to keep. Gwernol 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gwernol. Seems like a tourist attraction that has garnered enough press. Yes, article need wikifying. Kuru ^talk 04:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how do I withdraw my nomination? Alex (t) 04:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You just say that you want to withdraw it, and if nobody yet has wanted the article deleted, we have a speedy keep guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 3 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 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rise at Orangeville[edit]

Non-notable geographic entry. Alex (t) 23:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming it is a National Natural Landmark. DJ Clayworth 01:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a national landmark seems notable enough. -- Mithent 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a National Natural Landmark, so apparently the US government thinks that it is noteworthy enough to spend money on. The article does need work though (: --Jon 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, establishs notability. Just a stub at the moment, though. Kuru ^talk 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Alex (t) 19:09, 3 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 Proto||type 09:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptation to global warming[edit]

~~Survival guide of sorts for global warming. ~~ Alex (t) 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request review of expanded and revised article[edit]

I admit that the original article was anemic because the content was just text extracted (perhaps prematurely) from the Mitigation of global warming article. I have expanded the original article substantially and I believe it no longer is subject to the criticisms leveled below.

This is not to say that the article rises to the full quality standards of a "good" Wikipedia article. Not yet anyway.

I'm just saying that it is as good as many other articles. It still needs further work but I think that could be tagged as {needs cleanup} instead of {candidate for deletion}.

Please reconsider and vote as appropriate.

Richard 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I see that my original response to Alex's criticism missed the point of his criticism. I thought he was suggesting that it was a bad idea to try to adapt to global warming. I see from the comments of others that the point is that Wikipedia should not have "how-to" instruction manuals. The article is not and was never intended to be a "how-to" instruction manual and Alex was wrong in characterizing it as such.

Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is a "survival guide"?

What makes you sure that global warming can be stopped? If it can't be stopped, shouldn't we figure out how mankind can survive? This is like arguing that we shouldn't have seat belts and airbags because good driving will keep us out of accidents.

Your criticism of the raison d'etre for this article sounds very POV to me. It is not the intent of the article to argue against global warming or even against mitigation of global warming.

If global warming is a fact and if the world is unable to mitigate it quickly enough, there will be significant effects on the environment. We cannot be pollyannaish and assume that global warming can and will be stopped. We must be prepared for the possibility that the predicted temperature rises will happen and that the expected climate changes will occur.

If these "doomsday scenarios" do come to pass, how will mankind survive? Those are the points that this article is meant address.

There is significant evidence that the world is being very slow to address global warming and that current attempts won't decrease the generation of CO2 quickly enough. Some people argue that irreparable damage has already been done and that temperatures will rise. From their POV, the only question is how much they will rise and whether we can stop them from rising even further.

IPCC Working Group II makes the following observations:

1) Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation Efforts.

2) Those with the least resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable

3) Adaptation, sustainable development, and enhancement of equity can be mutually reinforcing

[27]

More to the point, this article is composed of text that was extracted from the Mitigation of global warming article. Discussion on Talk:Mitigation of global warming suggested that the article be split into two articles, "Mitigation" and "Adaptation". I am "being bold" and acting on that suggestion made by others.

NOTE: If this article is deleted, please put the text back into Mitigation of global warming

--Richard 23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How-to guide = misplaced content = wrong website. From WP:NOT:

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..

This falls into that category, delete. — Apr. 2, '06 [23:51] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

No it doesn't. Read the article again. The proscription against "instruction manuals" is about "how-to" manuals primarily for individuals (tutorials, cookbooks, etc.). This isn't a how-to for individuals. It is a list of policy alternatives. Read the article again, please. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This how-to OR article cannot adapt to wiki standards. --Mmx1 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after updated article. --Mmx1 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is extremely POV to assert that the article cannot adapt to wiki standards. The original article was admittedly a stub and perhaps should have been labelled as such. I don't know if it is OR (original research?). Somebody else wrote the text. I do know that there is an IPCC report on Adaptation so the methods in that report would not constitute OR. It is no more a how-to article than the article on Mitigation is. Both articles are about policy alternatives and recommendations. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Mitigation of global warming. WP:NOT an instruction manual or a place for original research (which this seems to me to be close to, if not actually violating WP:NOR). Also, this article seems redundant of Mitigation of global warming. Hbackman 00:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to keep after seeing the expanded article. I hadn't realized that this had been suggested as a fork from Mitigation of global warming, either. That said, this definitely needs an introductory section and more transitional text between sections so that this reads like an article rather than a list of information that's just been pulled from a bunch of other sources. Hbackman 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would seem redundant of Mitigation of global warming. That's where the original text was pulled from (at the suggestion of people on Talk:Mitigation of global warming).

No, it's not an instruction manual. Read the article again, please.

No, it's not original research (at least not by me). If there is OR in it, we can pull it out. There is a reputable source for the general topic and that is the IPCC report cited in the article and above. I cannot certify at this time that every item in the article can be sourced in the IPCC report but that's an argument for deleting parts of the article not the article itself. Richard 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above comments are missing the point of the article. I admit that I contributed to this by not immediately challenging the characterization of this article as a "survival guide". Thus, the above comments seem to be based on the idea that this is a "how-to" guide. It is, sort of. It is a "how to guide" for policymakers and, as such, is describing policy alternatives that can be implemented at all scales from personal to national to regional and international. As such, it is the same type of article as Mitigation of global warming. All we're doing is separating out "Mitigation" from "Adaptation".

Please re-read the article. While some of the topics may seem like "how-to survive global warming" for individuals, at least half of the recommended measures are things that only corporations and governments can do (e.g. damming glacial moraines, weather control and increasing the capacity of stormwater systems).

Also, please read the discussion on [[Talk:Mitigation of global warming] about separating that article into two articles which is exactly what I have done in creating this article. I have already expanded the original article beyond the original stub text that was extracted from Mitigation of global warming.

Finally, please note that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) specifically calls out Adaptation as being a necessary complement to Mitigation. (see references in my response to the original deletion recommendation by Alex Richard 00:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soapbox. Fan1967 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This criticism of the article is also off the mark. My defense of the article here may be a bit of a "soapbox". The article itself is not meant to be one and, if you read it again, is not one. Well, at least, no more than the Global warming and Global warming controversy articles are.

If not deleted, it needs lots of work to become more than essentially a list of related topics. Alex (t) 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I am mining the IPCC report for material. Perhaps the creation of this article was premature. One of the writers on the Talk page for Mitigation of global warming said that he was waiting for the section to be further developed before creating this article. I jumped the gun and created the article assuming that I would have time to develop the content slowly. Please give me that time.

Delete. I can't see how this is encyclopedic.Montco 02:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am continually frustrated by this kind of comment. The topic is encyclopedic although the article in its current form may not be.

I think that one contribution to Montco's POV is the following text in the article:

"If global warming is a fact and if the world is unable to mitigate it quickly enough, there will be significant effects on the environment. We cannot be pollyannaish and assume that global warming can and will be stopped. We must be prepared for the possibility that the predicted temperature rises will happen and that the expected climate changes will occur. If these "doomsday scenarios" do come to pass, how will mankind survive?

There is significant evidence that the world is being very slow to address global warming and that current attempts won't decrease the generation of CO2 quickly enough. Some people argue that irreparable damage has already been done and that temperatures will rise. From their POV, the only question is how much they will rise and whether we can stop them from rising even further."

I stand behind the ideas in the text but I suspect the wording sounds unencylopedic. I have deleted it from the article and will eventually put back something more encyclopedic.

Richard 04:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. The topic is encyclopedic, even if the current presentation needs a lot of work to reach encyclopedic standards. The topic used to be part of Mitigation of global warming, but the talk page comments there favored splitting off the adaptation portions, which Richard took it upon himself to do. The article should (and more or less does) focus on the role of adaptation within existing government-level strategies and recommendations for dealing with global warming. In this sense it is (or should be) a discussion of an important part of the political actions planned and taken in response to global warming, and not, as some people have suggested, a personal how-to manual. As an aside, might I suggest to Richard that it is not necessary to provide lengthy rebuttals to every negative comment made here. Dragons flight 09:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But add some history of adaptation to global warming. For instance, humans have been adapting to rising sea levels for centuries. At the time of the Roman invasion of England at Richborough, sea level was three to four meters higher than today. Human's are even more adapable today.--Silverback 11:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the article. Hardern 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per all the above keeps. This isn't a soapbox or a how-to anymore William M. Connolley 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination and hoping the article continues to improve. Alex (t) 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep can become an interesting article...sea level rise will be insignicant unless we see a major meltdown of the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps where the vast majority of frozen water is located.--MONGO 07:03, 4 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 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VeryCD[edit]

Article about an random P2P site which offers illegal downloads chowells 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable website, fails to meet WP:WEB. Gwernol 01:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Alexa rank 148! That surprised me. The page certainly needs work, but we can't not include it on the grounds of the legality of the site. -- Mithent 01:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that's a pretty serious Alexa. Article really needs cleanup to sound less like an ad and more like an article.Kuru ^talk 04:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:WEB. Grue 21:25, 3 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.