Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 19 April 21 >

Purge server cache

April 20[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew VanWickler, 3dvw[edit]

Delete - no claims of notability, obvious vanity. If anyone else besides the author/himself has proof of his notability, please provide it. Wickethewok 05:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I am also nominating his production company, which also does not seem to be notable. Wickethewok 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Vanity. -- RHaworth 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both. Why was the article not tagged speedy in the first place? AfD is for when there is an argument over whether or not to delete. --Chris (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I was met with protest over my prod for Andrew VanWickler, so I sent that here. I added 3dvw, as it was created at the same time by the same editor about the same subject. Just thought it'd be easier to get them both out of the way at the same time. Is there grounds for speedy deletion for articles such as 3dvw? Wickethewok 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would seem there is no such criteria. My mistake. How I wish there were though; I'm tired of having to bring such obvious non-notable vanity to AfD. --Chris (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - this seems like an obvious case. Esn 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious. --Mwongozi 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above ShootJar 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete non-notable/vanity. Cool3 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. incog 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IT audit resources[edit]

This seems to be a combination of advertising and a directory with nothing useful or encyclopedic. Paul 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Riddle[edit]

This is a multiple nomination, here are the other articles nominated:

Who is Travis Riddle? A flagrant self publicist from what I can see in these articles. Written by a User:EightSlicesOfPie, this also happens to be Riddle's handle in their forums and on their contact page. Is he notable? Are any of his projects notable? Neither of their domains, http://www.retards101.com/ nor http://www.colonelsandurz.com/ gets any Alexa rank. His webcomic, incidentally is part of the UTurn Creative Studios, which incidentally had another webcomic deleted a few weeks back here. Travis is not a notable human, and his projects are non notable websites. Wikipedia is not the place for this. - Hahnchen 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portkey.org[edit]

Non-notable fanfiction web site. Attempted prod; author removed tag. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Neutrality as patent nonsense.. --Hetar 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googolseptendeciplex[edit]

  • How is this number useful to talk about?? Is this article really useful?? Please delete. Georgia guy 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia != Infinite no matter what the everything is notable crowd say. - Hahnchen 00:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable numbercruft. I'm not convinced by the article that this number even actually exists as a named number. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:33 UTC
  • Delete. Google shows nothing [3], so I'm guessing its a hoax --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Numbers are not years, they need to exist AND be useful for something. Deizio 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Isn't this basically patent nonsense? Ronabop 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Ray[edit]

Non-notable, unverified and possible hoax article that is also unbalanced and violates WP:AUTO. Delete Ardenn 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I really don't think you needed all those templates on the page though. Just the factual accuracy one or the NPOV would have sufficed. If the author wants to show us how notable he is, please indicate the book ISBNs. A google for the name makes it look like he does exist and is a poet, but all the books look like they were published by minor publishing houses. - Hahnchen 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Further input from other users, and from Wayne himself have caused me to change my mind over this article. - Hahnchen 22:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is no different than any other poet or writers page, I can see a couple of items that look pompous but I have edited them out. You might as well delete all the poets in all the lists because they all contain relevent information on the persons accomplishments. Who is saying it is a HOAX?? All information is true. What is unvarifiable? Where is the material used in the accusations. Are you going to delete my other articles?? I am not tooting my own horn but I am known in Canadian poetry circles, I have made a contribution to Canadian poetry and Canadian "Small Press Publishing" and No to deleting me or any other poet just cause you dont know them. I will continue to try and learn wiki principles and editing practice and I DO rework pompous or personal pages to appear more neutral.

    There is such a thing in both Canada and the USA calles Small Press Publishing. Not all poets start out or continue with major publishing houses. Local and regional Small Press Publishers can publish famous and not so well known poets and authors. As far as the ISBN's I rarely noticed them in other authors pages, however I have taken note and mentioned that listing a book without the publishers name is the same as just making it up and writing anything down, THAT is unverifiable. I have been endeavouring to update and add many Canadian Publishers so the wiki links are there. Personally I never think of the ISBN in verification because the name of the publisher is usually listed and I know many of them. WayneRay 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

  • Comment For what it's worth, my local academic library has five of Ray's books. CJCurrie 00:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually frown upon when people write article about themselves. All the claims of notability are seriously weakened. Additionally, the objectivity is questionned. And this is not just a Wikipedia policy, judges recuse themselves when a family member is involved, scientists have others review their papers before publications. Tony Bruguier 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional Comment - I just went through all my Canadian Poets pages (see my WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay page) that I have written or edited and they all read like mine, most have Small Press publishers and some have major Canadian Publishers. We all know them and the names and the editors etc, You don't, and they are classed as minor? Hardly any had ISBN numbers attached and several had no publisher at all. They are still notable in the Canadian literary scene. Are you or someone going to delete them all??? I can go through the lists of American poets (etc) and I bet I will find the same thing. WayneRay 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
    • Comment - I've not written any articles on authors, but if you type out the ISBN then Wikipedia will automatically link to sources for that book like ISBN 0590353403, it just makes it easier to check. I'm however, not too sure on Wikipedia's guidelines on ISBN numbers in authors articles. And don't take this nomination too harshly, let's wait to see how it pans out, I may change my vote. - Hahnchen 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:BIO. Amazon shows nothing to prove he's notable enough[4] and Google only shows 640 results [5]. However on the bright side, I did enjoy his "I Came Across A Field One Day" poem, very well written --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you say *only* 640? Do you think 640 is small number of non-similiar results? What do you think is a sufficiently high number? --Rob 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Around 2,000 or higher results usually indicates notability. However, please remember that of these 640 unique results, not all of them are about Wayne Ray the poet. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you show me a link to a Google search which shows more then 1,000 *unique* results? I would be interested, because that would exceed Microsoft's unique hit count. --Rob 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heh, you got me there. I was advise by some other editors on AfD to use unique results instead of all results. But I guess we all make mistakes sometimes :)--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • [6] Has 4 billion hits, but google stops counting uniques at 917. Ronabop 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, tricky to verify importance and per the fact that even editors who might be notable should really resist the temptation to a) write about themselves, and b) go down the "If A is ok, why not B?" route. However, the template fest is totally unnecessary. Deizio 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 230/1,430 google hits [7], borderline nn/vain. Ronabop 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO and too few google hit. Protection would be required too as author may recreate this (maybe if it get recreated, let's assume good faith for now) Tony Bruguier 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable per all the above. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No books listed on Amazon and no ISBNs provided in the article are strong indicators of insufficient notability. It is unlikely that the subject's publications have the 5000+ audience that is usually required. Autobiography is not in itself a ground for deletion, but WP:AUTO contains very good advice: "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." dbtfztalk 04:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to keep per recent changes and discussion (though I really wish editors would respect WP:AUTO). dbtfztalk 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable author with large publication history. Kind of surprised at the delete votes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known in Canadian small-press publishing; I agree the article needs improvement. The notability of poetry is inherently hard to judge in an age when even well-known poets sell very few copies; I would hate to think that this means poetry is inherently unencyclopedic or that a quick google equips one to judge its notability. There's also some history here: the nom's suggestion of hoax may seem bizarre, given that a quick google shows he exists. But in fact the same nominator was behind two failed AfDs for Chris Faiers two months ago; the second was opened ten minutes after the first was closed as no consensus ([8],[9]). Given that Ray and Faiers are close associates, this nomination has a bad smell. · rodii · 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This University of Toronto biography provides verifiable evidence of notability for mine.[10]. It shows him as winning a Canadian Author and Bookman price in 1989 and he seems to have been publishing poetry for over twenty years making him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Writing about yourself is generally bad, but it seems a mistake to delete an article, because the writer was blatant about it. He could have picked a different account name, and this probably would have been kept more easily. Note to User:WayneRay: I suggest you put back mention of the prize, which you removed (with sources, of course), and add in any other prize(s) you won (again, with sources). It's a little to late for modesty, and that kind of thing is needed to demonstrate notability. --Rob 05:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep assuming all of the above is in fact true. I would like the references to be stronger than they are but as is they are acceptable. rodii also raises a good point about the nominator. SorryGuy 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. For great justice. 05:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jcuk 07:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some peoples notability criterions are getting ridiculously strong. Loom91 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, others. Samaritan 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't imagine that none of his poems have appeared in a publication with circulation of 5,000 or more. NoIdeaNick 10:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable as well as per Capitalistroadster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Ong (talk • contribs)
  • Keep seems to pass WP:BIO, but needs careful monitoring per WP:AUTO. User:WayneRay defintely needs to step back from editing the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to all Thanks for the positive and negative input. I took a look at 30 other Canadian poets in the List of Canadian Poets and theirs or most of the Small to Medium press published poets, have a similar article page to mine so why not delete all of those?? I shall endeavour to do a Google search on US and Canadian poets just to see what the counts are and put them beside the poets names. ALSO in regards to Amazon.com: As a publisher I was heavily involved in listing my app. 200 paper and electronic books but after 5 years deleted them all. The Canadian Poetry Association has its own electronic bookstore as does the League of Canadian Poets. Maybe I and others are staying Canadian! You might want to also try www.abebooks.com as well. I will add the ISBN's to the book lists as well as update the List of Canadian Poets ISBN's as there are very few listed there and on many US poets pages. And put back the award after I verify a link with the CAA. WayneRay 13:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
  • Keep, notable author; concur with JzG's recommendation for User:WayneRay to step back a bit.  RasputinAXP  c 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Add user page to Category:Notable Wikipedians. Agree with JzG as well. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable local poet. Referred to by Guelphites as "THE London Poet". If this page were determined deletable based on WP:AUTO I would personally recreate the entry. User:celsby
  • Keep Notable entry. Sure, it biolates WP:AUTO, but any bias created in such an article may be edited out by other editors and by using third party references. --Bob 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Wayne Ray should let others take it from here. Mangojuice 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think others have established notability here, WayneRay should step back and take JzG's advice though.--Tollwutig 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not a hoax Dlyons493 Talk 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AUTO isn't supposed to be a death sentence for the article. The notability seems supportable. He should recuse himself as its major editor but no reason to delete it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh noes! The spite in this one is strong. As GWH says, he should, ideally, recuse himself, but WP:AUTO is a guideline, not policy, and trying to improve articles is a good thing, even during AfD discussions. · rodii · 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF pardon my French Ardenn, BUT, didn't above users just tell me to update the page with references and ISBN numbers to verify the information. You really should give me examples instead of just criticism. There is way less information on almost the entire List of Canadian Poets and a few others US and foreighn ones I have been working on, why don't you go put a delete logo on all of them and then take a relax pill.Will someone other than myself and Ardenn please put the page in the correct tone, I will leave it alone for now. WayneRay 13:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Whether or not WayneRay follows WP:AUTO is irrelevant to this AfD. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

93 Highland Yes, I had not finished writing and editing it, i saw, a paragraph that I was going to delete, while away this week on vacation. The last paragraph should have been opmmitted, the plant list one. Maybe it is just under the wrong heading, should be part of U of Toronto and I may have it linked under botanical gardens. Delete the whole thing if you like, I am not back for a week to do anything about it. There are three photos on the page actually and yes, that is the President's house photo for the University of Toronto.(wrong phot what happened to the one I put there ????? Thanks for the note and I will endeavour to correct things I missed, after I get back home. WayneRay 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

  • Comment. This last discussion should probably go on the AfD page for 93 Highland. Looks to me more like a relatively inexperienced editor being enthusiastic about the possibilities of Wikipedia than vanity, though. · rodii · 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMF'NG[edit]

This is not a notable webcomic, it's 40 strips can be found on Freewebs here. I'm also nominating the two stars of this hit webcomic The Kdrmns here as well. They also "champion" 2 videobloggers, which I'm nominating separately because they probably aren't connected to this non notable webcomic. This website is wholy non notable, a websearch for OMF'NG gives 90 links almost all of them unentirely related to this webcomic. These articles were written by a User:Dvdkdrmn, the author maybe? I don't know, but it makes no difference - Hahnchen 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Neutrality. — TKD::Talk 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Schlich[edit]

vanity piece by non-notable writer &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F. Spencer Hunley[edit]

touching story -- 3 hits &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm confused. The article was originally created about the older guy. But based on googling, everything about him is garbage. It is impossible to be an academic at that level, with published works, and a tenure as a university chancellor, and not show up on Google, but there's nothing there, not one single hit. There never was such a professor. Everything I can find that seems relevant points to a 19 or 20 year-old KC kid with autism who's active in Missouri politics. Was it a hoax and then someone else came along and repurposed the page to talk about the kid? Fan1967 01:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. It is also possible that the anon editor and the creator of the page are the same person, perhaps who created an account specifically to create the article and then edited it as an anonymous IP. Either way, the original content seems to be a hoax and the current content is non-notable. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:40 UTC
  • Delete - nn, vain, and advocates practicing medicine without a license, too! Ronabop 02:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. --P199 04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't diagnose yourself. It's a bad habit. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ronabop and Samir (The Scope). JIP | Talk 07:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 11:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. And as for the self-diagnosis... Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albums of xtina[edit]

Appears to be a copies of Christina Aguilera related articles, pasted into one. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. WP:CSD A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shibito[edit]

Maybe when they've played some gigs, been signed to a contract, released a few songs... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND. Nothing relevant on allmusic. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under {{db-band}}, per clear admission in article. Deizio 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, those violating WP:BAND usually have *some* evidence of actually playing, uhm, instruments! Ronabop 02:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Why is there even a vote on this? As other users have stated above, even the article's author admits that the band has no notability whatsoever. No songs + no concerts + no contract = no Wiki article. -- Kicking222 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete hasn't even played a show for god's sake!! Does it get more obvious than this? Grandmasterka 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per TBC. SorryGuy 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--blue520 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as per above. Chairman S. Talk 08:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. Clear db-band candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nornna[edit]

A videoblogger who uploaded loads of videos of her life on YouTube and then realised it was a bad idea and took them down. Googling her name brings back a number of blog posts about her, but is she notable? Are any of these blogs anywhere near a reliable source? Is Nornna anything else other than a footnote in YouTube's history or a lesson in why uploading every facet of your life for the men in suits is a bad idea? - Hahnchen 00:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because it's pretty much over doesn't mean that they should take it down. It's really cool to find just about everything on Wikipedia and find out more info about. Plus, the pet rock was a fad that is over, but it's on here. tynews2001 07:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VANITY --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:V isn't bloody likely. Ronabop 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would cite more but three WPs is more than enough. SorryGuy 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nornna youtube produces 18,800 ghits. Notable enough. Loom91 07:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 136 of which are unique hits, and the overwhelming majority of those are blog, Myspace and Livejournal entries. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! Nornna is a hero to a lot of people, she was living her dream, until people started being over-critical over her.

Keep her, she is essential to YouTube.

  • Comment: A "hero?" Based upon what? She seems to have been one of many hundreds of Webblips who become momentarily noticed on some site and just as swiftly vanish again. Three months from now there'll be some other flash-in-the-pan and "Nornna" will be long forgotten. But if YouTube thinks she's essential, I'm sure YouTube can supply a tribute page right on its own site. RGTraynor 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Must look for more info yet. Maybe keep it. Music Master
  • Delete The fact that 99% of her videos have now been taken down virtually guarantees that in a few weeks/months, she will be all but forgotten and merely a footnote in the history of Youtube. She may have gained a following, but stop and think for a moment. Will this article be at all relevant a year from now? I think not. SteveJ2006 10:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's just another nobody whos using the internet towards a weak attempt at fame and obviously just putting on an act to garner attention. The whole thing is just a phase that will die out by the summer. Overall, she doesn't deserve the attention shes getting.. Look at the more noteworthy articles in Wikipedia (Ghandi, Churchill, Einstein) and ask yourself if this Kid deserves to be alongside them. Somehow, I don't think so. Frequency24
  • Delete This is nothing more than the exploitation of a mentally handicapped woman that doesn't understand that most of the people watching her videos are watching her out of some sick form of entertainment. If the New York Times and Time Magazine had done their homework, they would not have used her name in their articles. Now, if the bio is to stay on wikipedia, then it should be truthful and not sugarcoated, because while she is gaining "fame" from YouTube, it's a known fact that she is disturbed and is currently in therapy for having a sexual fascination with children.
  • Delete WP:VANITY Don't most Wikipedia entries have factual citations or references? Just because she has a following from a bunch of children does not allow her to become part of this site. Remove this trash and lets never speak of her again.
  • Weak Delete Not as convinced as the majority here, but the situation just seems like a minor fad which has died off fairly quickly and failed to leave much impact or notability.--Cini 17:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Exodus International. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chambers[edit]

This article was created by its subject, Alan M Chambers, a new WP editor. He may have been trying to create a user page. There's virtually no content. There may be something over at the user's talk page that may be salvagable, but I'm not convinced it is notable enough. eaolson 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy to User:Alan M Chambers, then redirect the page to Exodus (organization) (as he seems to be leader of it)--TBC??? ??? ??? 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Boy can Wikipedia look forward to the inevitable POV wars at Exodus International. - Hahnchen 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect sounds like a good option.--Larrybob 00:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It appears that the user has added his bio to his new user talk pages. Redirect makes the most sense, despite concerns about edit wars. Ande B 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems fine to me. SorryGuy 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If it cannot be expanded, redirect. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and redirect per TBC, which is what I would have done in the first place. No admin action necessary, just be bold :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creatheism[edit]

Delete. 11 real Google hits; none on Google books; claims to have been "introduced in the early 21st century" - apparently introduced via Wikipedia. BD2412 T 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Awesome word though, I may start using it in ID discussions. "I'm a creathiest myself", awesome ridiculous phrase, because ID pushers don't really deserve rational conversation. - Hahnchen 00:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. By the way, sometimes, neologism does get populized with the help of Wikipedia (anyone remember the Gospel of Hermes incident?) --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a "neologism" that never even achieved any noticeable acceptance. It certainly does not warrant an entire article. If the initiator of this article feels strongly about the term perhaps he/she could find a proper place for it in the article for Matthew Fox, Creationism or other article concerned with ultimate, supernatural origins. Ande B 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism that never even got close to being on the radar. A theistic concept that sounds like "atheism" probably never had much of a chance. Fan1967 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. --Allen 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research or neologism. Gwernol 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protocruft Deizio 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFT Ronabop 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Surprise, surprise, he is just too good about WPs. SorryGuy 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT, WP:CRUFT, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong 11:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gwernol. 69.138.229.246 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Will (E@) T 06:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googolquinquagintiplex[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ivci[edit]

This is virtually advertising for a small, non-publicly listed company of no particular noteworthiness. Librarianofages 01:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete advertising Tony Bruguier 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising used to direct reader to corporate links. Ande B 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. SorryGuy 06:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete monograph of Anthonydelia (talk · contribs), no evidence of passing WP:CORP, spam. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete small company, but there is a mention of Inc magazine has named the company to its Inc 500 list for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. I'm not too sure though if Inc. 500 is considered well-known or important enough. AndyZ t 22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akana Noto[edit]

Possible hoax article for a NN musician. Search on Yahoo! for "Akana" and "Macarthur Park" (allegedly the name of her most popular album) shows 4 hits, all of which are somehow mirrors of this site [12]. I couldn't find a IMDB listing for her either despite the allegation that her music is used for television sports themes. --Ataricodfish 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a hoax page. If not a hoax then not notable. Ande B 01:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V Ronabop 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ronabop. SorryGuy 06:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ronabop. ~ PseudoSudo 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, I know Akana Noto. She's been very influential in the new age music world. Please don't delete this article. I don't know why it isn't more prevalent on the internet, but i own all of her albums. She is very real and "notable." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.93.248 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Per Amazon.com, there are no hits for any of her products, despite the article listing an autobiography and over ten CDs. [13].--Ataricodfish 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFEDI[edit]

Speedy deleted on 8 April, taken to Deletion review which upheld that "Unremarkable people or groups" does not apply to companies. This is a sub-stub that makes no claim to notability, so unless citations are provided that demonstrate this meets the guidelines for inclusion of companies I recommend deletion. brenneman{L} 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but needs a lot of work. This is a governmentally formed associated entity in the UK. It may be noteworthy as a reflection of the perceived economic and political concerns that brought about its creation. Its methods of and effectiveness at meeting its mandate could be of interest to UK readers. That said, the BBC on-line news pages don't turn up a single entry for SFEDI on their search pages. Ande B 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be a government formed entity, but more of an organization that works for the government--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are right, TBC, and I should have clicked through a few more links. But I don't know how different this entity is from SCORE, which has its own article. As it is now, the SFEDI article is rather worthless. I don't personally care if the article gets deleted but it seems to me to be more of a candidate for serious improvement than deletion. Ande B 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve. Having found some useful articles on other entities in the alphabet soup that is the British vocation qualifications industry, I created the article as a sort of placeholder, hoping that someone would add detail. I believe it is a noteworthy body, and will myself fill it out eventually, if no one better qualifed gets there first. Please be patient: Rome wasn't built in a day etc. The article should probably be under SFEDI's full name, with a redirect from "SFEDI", but I don't know how to do that.TobyJ 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it is not obvious from the article, this is a company set up (and largely funded) by the UK Government to design standards for training in the small and medium enterprise sector. Its influence is out of all proportion to its size. Although it is not I think a QUANGO as such, it is pretty close. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very cursory run through UK Google under the full name turned up references for this outfit on the government's SBS site [14], the Scottish Parliament site [www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/x-enterprise/inquiries-01/lli-submissions/ell-038.pdf] , the BBC's website [www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1178057] , the London government website [www.londoncentrallsc.gov.uk/upload/lclsc-web/1-5%20Partners/PR06ESFLearner%20achievesSFEDIacceditation.pdf] among many others, and turns up over 500 unique G-hits. This is pretty solid, folks. RGTraynor 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badly in need of improvement, but a stub is better than nothing and it seems pretty clearly notable to me based on the comments above. Keep.-Polotet 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applied for the deletion review, and I am glad to know that the process works. My vote, however, is Delete per WP:CORP. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making Runescape money[edit]

Delete as original research and also because Wikipedia is not a game How-To guide. Was prod'ed but the prod notice was removed. Note that there is also a merge-to tag on this article, but I believe that all of the content is original research/How-To, so there is nothing to merge. Gwernol 01:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as repost, apparently. Just zis Guy you know? 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little Girl[edit]

  • This title was on Afd once with a consensus to delete, but it got created again a few hours ago. Please delete. Georgia guy 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant (obviously a little girl is a girl at a young age)--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Girl. --Allen 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't even bother with a redirect. This is beginning to look like a page being created as an annoyance. It also appears to reflect nothing other than the writer's own personal definition. Ande B 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. I know, that's an unusual vote, but it seems like the best solution. The page should certainly redirect to girl as it is a likely search term. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 01:44 UTC
  • If this had a pop culture section with stuff like "Mike Myers played a character named Dieter in Sprockets who would pull out his shirt and pretend he had boobs while saying 'I'm as happy as a little girl'" it would be more difficult to delete this, unfortunately. Since it's a dicdef, delete it. Brian G. Crawford 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If necessary, redirect and protect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is remarkably unnecessary, and in my view doesn't even deserve a redirect. --Kuronekoyama 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what Kuronekoyama just said. dbtfztalk 04:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Zero sharp 06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be a Speedy as re-creation of deleted material, IIRC. I don't think a redirect to Girl is necessary or useful, and would perhaps discourage an actual article with this title (which there could be, someday, I think, if one gathered together references and shades of meaning etc.). However, if an article like this is created once again, then screw it, Redirect and Protect. Herostratus 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-repost}} candidate.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious and non-expandable dictdef. The picture could be used somewhere, though. JIP | Talk 07:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "no encyclopaedic significance"; also as quasi-blatant paed~ -- Simon Cursitor 08:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy Delete per (aeropagitica).--blue520 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect these little girls, per Cuivi. LambiamTalk 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per (aeropagitica). ~ PseudoSudo 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action Gamemaster[edit]

Non-notable vaporware console that was only announced, never actually developed. BackInBlack 01:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is nothing notable about a product that never existed. Might be properly mentioned in the article about the corporation that failed to produce it, Active Enterprises. Ande B 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Tom Harrison Talk 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaporware from an obscure outfit that only came out with one mediocre product before the owners went off to sell cars instead? Derezz this puppy ... err, Delete per nom. RGTraynor 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaporware from minor manufacture of unlicensed games - I don't think it gets a lot less notable than that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have searched for information on this topic before. It might not be notable to you but it is to at least me. --ReptileLawyer 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The entry is encyclopedic, and could be the perfect article. History like this should be recored. Meta:Wiki is not paper McKay 23:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent, well-researched article. Why on earth delete it? Richard W.M. Jones 08:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Active Enterprises with full honours. Kind of infamous "item" among people interested of game system history, but really, due to lack of evidence, it's just a ghost story, and not even a substantially creepy one at that. Can't possibly justify it's existence as a separate article unless something substantial shows up, like actual prototypes or something, but since the AE article is a bit short, it could use some meat. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and well written. There are several unreleased or protoype consoles that have their own articles (such as the Sega Neptune) so I don't see why this cannot have its own article either.--Cini 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Hendricks[edit]

No notability asserted. Fails WP:BIO. Possible vanity created by a user with one edit UnOrthodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few weeks ago. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Arbusto 01:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs major work. The author has several books related to "Christian living" on Amazon and shows up on Google with a sufficient number of hits to look as if he has some following. Ande B 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability (people) for authors. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. For great justice. 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. C'mon, one of his books is in the 6000s in Amazon's sales ranks, another is in the 5000s. I see that nom's edit history is heavily slanted towards smacking down Christian-related articles, but picking them apart for alleged inaccuracies works a heck of a lot better if we do some cursory research ourselves. There's no way I'm going to AfD an article (or vote to do so) unless I'm personally satisfied as to the non-notability of its subject, and doing so takes all of two minutes. RGTraynor 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two AfD's of articles started by new users without sources and notability conncted to the same seminary that has been repeatedly vandalized by a banned user is not "smacking down" any group. Arbusto 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, no, your contribution history is littered with slapping fraud tags, deleting doctorates issued by institutions whose bona fides of which you're not convinced, stripping links, adding Controversy & Criticism sections, so on and so forth ... thousands of such edits to Christian-themed articles; it's far from out of line to make such an inference. Of course no one can or should support banned vandals and puppetmasters, and I bear no love at all for the fundamentalist right, but no personal crusade to ring their chimes should override our obligation as editors to conduct fair, balanced research. Otherwise, their claims of vendetta would be justified. RGTraynor 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "doctorates" if they come from an unaccredited school who does business by mail. And you bet Benny Hinn, Kulhman, ect. get fraud tags; no one can "raise the dead," heal the sick by waiving their hand, ect. And you bet someone with an unaccredited degree who claims they are Indiana Jones-like with Biblical relics without any academic support should get a "controversy and criticism section." If you think questioning Smith Wigglesworth's claim that he raised the dead (14 dead to be exact) is "smacking" a article down, that's your problem. Arbusto 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and someone turn it into an actual article...--Isotope23 17:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badly in need of cleanup and expansion, but keep as a stub until someone provides that.-Polotet 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Expand. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maddland[edit]

I think this webcomics is not notable enough to be included. Searches in google [15] [16] return too few hits. Tony Bruguier 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't even have its own website--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - The Google links given above are actually incorrect as the name has been mispelt. However, a search for maddland with the correct spelling shows up nothing reliable, no reviews, no proper press and nothing to distinguish it from any of the sea of webcomics that exist out there. - Hahnchen 03:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I got a fair amount of hits from a correct search [17]. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Signals on a Land Raider[edit]

I do not think this webcomics is notable enough [18] to be on Wikipedia Tony Bruguier 02:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja training[edit]

This belongs on a joke website, not Wikipedia. Valermos 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Bonus & Incentive[edit]

What is this? Neutralitytalk 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This may be good advice for someone considering enlisting, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a page from an employee's handbook, not for an encyclopedia article. Also appears to be author's soapbox. Ande B 04:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I does not matter if you delete this or not, however I rather see the information moved to another article if possible. The infomation in the article was in support of the following chart under G.I. Bill intitlements. However I will let popular vote decide upon it fate. Paul.Paquette
  • Delete, violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, too little context, mostly just a link collection. JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o prejudice; no doubt a neutral and encyclopedic article could be written on this subject, but there is very little here other than a collection of links with brief editorializing. The links themselves might be worth merging somewhere. If an article is rewritten, it needs context showing it's about the USA. Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Room for Magic[edit]

Too few google hits [19] to be notable Tony Bruguier 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep This is a Keenspot comic, and it's by Count Your Sheep creator Adrian Ramos. The article needs serious fleshing, though. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This probably isn't going to be deleted, even given it's total lack of content. When websites like Able and Baker are undeletable purely because they belong to a Webcomics promotion collective Dayfree Press (their slogan is "Power in Numbers"), you're probably not going to be able to touch Keenspot comics, I haven't tried. I know an Alexa webrank of the hundreds of thousands and no media coverage other than the site it's hosted on would get normal websites deleted, webcomics are special, on Wikipedia anyway. - Hahnchen 05:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Possible merge to Adrian Ramos as part of a list of his minor comics, but this article has nothing to commend it. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of Adrian Ramos's writing of it, in the same way we might keep a less notable band based on a more well-known artist's presence in it. Also, I'd like to ask Hanchen to consider that his comment here might read as a bit uncivil, and to try not to attack even by implication people who disagree with him.-Polotet 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ETA: and yes, article needs significant improvement, but I've always felt that an accurate stub is better than nothing.-Polotet 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well I still think there's a double standard on Wikipedia, as I mentioned in the comparison to a non-webcomic website. We are much more likely to keep the article on the webcomic, and yet ditch the website. But I didn't vote to delete the article because of its association with Adrian Ramos and Count Your Sheep, which has won lots of awards. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/44 Scotland Street, the author of that book is way more notable than Ramos, but it looks like that article will be deleted because of its lack of content. Wikipedians seem to believe that a webcomic is inherently more notable than other subjects, and that they should be treated with greater leniency. A website with an Alexa rank in the hundreds of thousands and no press outside of their own circle would be deleted, yet a webcomic probably won't be. Claiming that just by belonging to a webcomic collective like Keenspot or indeed the Dayfree Press as mentioned above is like claiming that all published books, all signed bands, every single TV episode is notable enough for an encyclopedia. And that's something I don't subscribe to. - Hahnchen 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My comment regarding your incivility was based on what felt to me like an assertion in your first comment that people voting keep on this article, and webcomic inclusionists in general, are hypocrites who simply pound in "keep" on webcomic AFDs without giving any thought to arguments for deletion. Your more recent comment is completely civil and, while I don't agree with it completely, does a much better job of getting me to understand your point of view. (And thanks for pointing me to that AFD, I hadn't seen it and think it's a clear keep).-Polotet 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable Keenspot webcomic, meets nontrivial publishing. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At the end of the day it's still a webcomic, and Keenspot doesn't establish anything. --Hetar 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it provides the bases for all of its comics passing WP:WEB. If they weren't at Keenspot, half the comics there could be validly deleted. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign that this article meets WP:WEB. A brief mention in either Adrian Ramos and/or Keenspot articles may be appropriate, as per WP:WEB's "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, passing WP:WEB #3 isn't good enough anymore? Keep it. -- Grev 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're trying to make a case that No Room for Magic is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ..." you may want to mention which site and show evidence that this site is both well-known and independent of the creators, rather than just posting a rhetorical question. If you're speaking of Keenspot, Keenspot falls well outside of my definition of "well known." In other words, could you give more detail on your reasoning, please? -- Dragonfiend 18:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic Age[edit]

Lacking in encyclopedic content (lacking in content period). Clearly should not be a stand-alone article. Arch26 02:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rez rat[edit]

This article's only point is that it describes a piece of slang. It is not of encyclopedic quality, it does not follow style guidlines, and even if it IS relevant, it probably does not need to be its own article Arch26 02:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Relist separately Redwolf24 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson[edit]

No, this isn't for the JT article himself, it's for the two sub-articles:

The Jack Thompson article was recently ripped apart and put under WP:OFFICE for having "unreliable sources." That has since been remedied by going to print sources. Given that the two sub-article also have primarily online (which have been determined as "unreliable") sources, they should be deleted before Jack Thompson tries to sues us again. Hbdragon88 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that Thompson is a prominent media figure, I believe that keeping Wikipedia's record of these incidents as a part of the information on Jack Thompson is important. Merging the sub-article into the main article would make sense, or any other relocation/cleanup of the information, so long as it is not removed for the sake of censorship.
Comment I think the articles should be nominated together because online sources are the backbone of the article, both are Jack Thompson-related, and are both sub-articles.
  • Relist on AfD under the names of the actual articles up for deletion. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Modest Video Game Proposal, merge the video game players stuff back into Jack Thompson via the best way possible deemed by people working on the article there. That may mean keeping the sub-article, but I'd rather leave that one up to those who dealt with the WP:OFFICE action first hand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per above. dbtfztalk 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Relist the individual sub-articles. Ande B 05:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please relist the articles you want. This is currently a useful disambiguation page including Jack Thompson, one of Australia's leading film actors. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these, but trim them to what has been verified. For great justice. 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Modest Video Game Proposal - Notable and verifiable. || Keep and cleanup Jack Thompson and video game players - Notable, but contains heaps of unreferenced material. || Relist AfDs named after articles which are not up for deletion. -- Synapse 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist AFDs are named after articles listed for deletion not for disambiguation pages. --Terence Ong 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Jack Thompson (attorney). At least one of these looks like a POV fork, and we have enough trouble keeping a lid on one article as it is. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trim per Synapse. AnonEMouse 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as A modest video game proposal is a notable event, which has gotten quite a lot of fame in the gaming industry so it needs a keep where as Jack Thompson and Video Game Players could probably be remerged back into Jack Thompson (attorney). This has been discussed on the Jack Thompson talk page on occasion (now archived) with no real concensus as to what to do, because of the strict scrutiny Jack Thompson (attorney) is for verifiable sources. --Tollwutig 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately. Neither really hold water as standalone articles, IMO... but it is rather misleading to list them this way.--Isotope23 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist And what is with this automatic call for AfD every time someone thinks an article is substandard? Is it that hard to use the talk page to ask for a cleanup, or talk about what parts need to be redone? Jabrwock 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that no-one has used the talk pages for either article to discuss cleanup, citation requests, or reliability concerns. So why the sudden jump to AfD? Jabrwock 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can someone point me to where the policy of noting online resources as unreliable is located? I am aware of the rulings on blogs etcet, but is there any rule in place saying that online resources are inherently less reliable then print ones? I consider this quite the oddity concerning that wikipedia itself is striving to become a reliable online resource. SanderJK 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which provides details about how various sources fit in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Really, an item in an edited and peer-reviewed online publication is more authoritative for our purposes than one person's unchecked opinion that gets into a print magazine. It's just that online stuff has much more original un-fact-checked material compared to "reliable" material, so people overgeneralize. Barno 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see absolutely norhing wrong with Jack Thompson as is. It is a shining example of a redirect page McKay 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if McKay's opinion isn't sarcasm, this is a shining example of why this AfD needs to be split and relisted.--Isotope23 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Even if it IS sarcasm it is still a shining example of why this AfD needs to eb split and relisted.--Tollwutig 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, but cleanup to get the same level of sources as the main article. VegaDark 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The amount of Jack Thompson articles at wikipedia is insane. We have literally everything the man that has ever done covered, including such none events such as Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders. Gamers are Wikipedia and net savvy, and whereas that's great for projects like WP:CVG, it also means that we do have an asinine amount of detail on JT's hair colour changes and his thoughts on the new coldplay album. Some of this stuff does need to get deleted, but I really doubt it'll ever happen, the gaming community just won't let anything go. - Hahnchen 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not really a good reason for AfD though. A reason for cleanup, absolutely, but not for deletion. Jabrwock 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, if the articles get merged with the main one then all the Gamepolitics stuff will be removed --Shaoken 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would. The reason for this is that because of wikipedia's verifiability and sources rule, gamepolitics.com counts as a blog and forums. Which are not verifiable sources by wiki rules. Now i could be tempted in a debate to consider the front page of gamepolitics.com as a news source not a blog, since it's written by multiple people on a professional level, and it's hard to draw the line between what constitutes a blog or an independent source. However anything that happens on the livejournal forums is 100% unacceptable unless a secondary news source reports on it. Wether that's fair or not is personal, but such are the rules. It does make some sense though, since already in the past bans have deleted slews of source material for the original article. SanderJK 11:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary source, maybe? It's limited, but with it, you can at the very least mention his constant posting on there. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Modest Proposal, Merge VG Players into main article, with some major trimming until we have everything sourced. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danceflur Kriminalz[edit]

nn band, does not have a full length album yet ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the band's web presence, I think it can be considered a web meme in addition to a band. Therefore, not having a full length album isn't necessarily a limitation. Moremoire 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I changed my mind -- it should be marked for deletion. Sorry. Moremoire 08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. NoIdeaNick 10:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete: No album, apparently no significant tour schedule, but they were featured in a possibly notable 2006 film festival [20]. It seems this still falls a tad shy of WP:MUSIC. -MrFizyx 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moremoire's second comment. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roserklinik[edit]

Contested prod. This used to be promotional, but it's been cut down. It's a health clinic in Germany which doesn't give evidence of meeting WP:CORP. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The northern mage tower[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails to meet WP:WEB guidelines for the inclusion of Internet forums, and has no external verification of sources. None were evident from a web search, therefore this is likely to be unverifiable. Ziggurat 04:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:WEB criteria, no assertion of notability. -- The Anome 12:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add a speedy delete category for clearly nn web forums? ;p-Polotet 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Pak21 12:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgantowngamers[edit]

Violation of WP:WEB jmd


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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog power[edit]

Relevant policy: WP:CORP

Written as an advertisement, no indication of notability. Contested PROD. Sandstein 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Rewrite - This is definitely an advertisement, but it could be rewritten. I think it has potential. --Valermos 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, NN. Ardenn 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 18:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus/Keep Redwolf24 (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double Fine Action Comics[edit]

Not notable [21], doesn't even have its own web site. Tony Bruguier 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the number of hits on Google is too low (about 350). Tony Bruguier 01:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Redwolf24 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail therapy[edit]

Slang. Merge/redirect to compulsive behavior? Neutralitytalk 04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge not redirect to compulsion as its own subsection. Keep. as per Capitalistroadster. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 08:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - neutrality has totally misunderstood this. It relates to the use of shopping (usually satirically) as therapy, not to a compulsion to shop. For great justice. 05:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Requires citations and/or references in order to be useful to a researcher.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference. With a Google search for "retail therapy" coming up with 1,300,000 hits with the first returns from Forbes, the Guardian and the Melbourne Age, this is both notable and has verifiable sources. [22]Capitalistroadster 06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have started adding references to the articles. It still needs further expansion but it is a start. Capitalistroadster 09:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Capitalistroadster, well-known, even infamous, term--A Y Arktos\talk 11:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roadster. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used term. Keep it factual and referenced, well worth an article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Capitalistroadster MikesPlant 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:JzG --TH 22:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but is the intro POV? "improving" is stated but the first referenced title is "Shopping can make you depressed" --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Place[edit]

Non notable [23] [24] [25] Tony Bruguier 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Longitudinal_wave. HappyCamper 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longitudinal_electromagnetic_wave[edit]

factually incorrect. contradicted by Longitudinal_wave Rmcii 05:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange on Campus (Exonc)[edit]

You are incorrect sir, the site is merely FOUNDED in DC, that does not mean it is limited to DC. And whoa re you to determine if it is innovative? The idea of having online classifieds is surely not. The specific way in which it is done, it is not you who should be determining its innovative nature or not.

Is there some threshold level of success Wiki requires before Exonc could be relisted. For example, say the site was really successful, would it then be banned from explaining what it is then as well because it is of "marginal" interest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bornnomadic (talk • contribs) 23:56, April 20, 2006.

Non notable/Advert Appropriate Username 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "While the idea was not original...". No Alexa rank; not innovative, non-notable website of partial interest only to students in Wash. D.C., as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd take more seriously assertions that this wasn't a DC-only site if the front page didn't say "Built by GW to benefit GW," "GO COLONIALS!" and the Find Items function didn't have two options for location: George Washington University and "All DC Schools". (It's worth a look for a laugh, because the 'Others' section has among their thirteen whopping items for listed sale a box of half-eaten matzoh, a gold chain stolen from a professor, air, bongs, and a gangsta rap coloring book.) Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RGTraynor. --Saforrest 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Aero, and RG. Joe 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all delete voters so far. Wikipedia is not the place for detailing recent non-notable innovations. Ansell 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6pm.com[edit]

Delete since Advertising material, hence not suitable fow wikipedia WP:NOT Vijrams 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan E. Orlov[edit]

nn person, but I'm not sure Will (E@) T 06:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ivan I. Orlov widely cited in the works on non-classical logic, especially relevant (relevance) logic, being the forerunner of the latest, and paraconsistent logic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bazhan (talk • contribs), author of the article.
Shall we take that as a keep vote? -- RHaworth 07:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperstition[edit]

Non notable material Rainman420 06:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to have something of interest. Explanation, history, references.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 07:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons best stated in the first sentence: "Hyperstition is a neologism and portmanteau combining the words hyper and superstition." Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs some work, but I'd say it's notable enough to keep. --Valermos 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hate neologisms that combine Greek and Latin. More importantly, it's just not notable: 231 unique Google hits, most of which are for pages that point to one blog. David Sneek 21:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research if nothing else. Denni ☯ 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism and original research Jaranda wat's sup 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the first four words of the article. See WP:NEO. However, don't say "non-notable", please. Stifle (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, blog material, vanity. "faith moves mountains" is not exactly a new concept and doesn't need a flurry of cheap neologisms. dab (ᛏ) 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, but noted with slight inclination towards deletion. Also, move to Austrian Student Mission. HappyCamper 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Österreichische Studentenmission[edit]

Delete - Christian student organization with no claims of notability. Wickethewok 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still in work - a couple of more things need to be added: history, organization background... Tomzi 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are thousands of Student clubs. Let's not create a page for all of them. jmd
    • This is exactly what I would expect from an encyclopedia. If I wanted to find information for christian movements in austria, if would search for it on wikipedia, i would find probably IFES and ÖSM. If i wouldn't find ÖSM, i would look for larger organisations, if i knew what to look for - like IFES, find the local movement in Austria - voila - i found the ÖSM, and all the background information on it :) Isn't that exactly the same way you would look for birds, trees, animals - everything that splits into sub or local species Tomzi 08:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded. Grafikm_fr 08:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment this appears to be a national grouping rather than a society at an individual university. (I'm not voting as I'm a militant atheist and therefore biased). Average Earthman 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for God's sake move to Austrian Student Mission. This is the English language Wikipedia. Smerdis of Tlön 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to see some numbers before anyone votes keep, as in, how many people are part of this organization? Wickethewok 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless more evidence is provided of notability; otherwise rename to Austrian Student Mission as per Ihcoyc. --Saforrest 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since i created the page. This local christian movement exists already almost 40 years - notable?! Need to look up the details. It's a good idea to move it to Austrian Student Mission, and just redirect from 'Österreichische Studentenmission'. Tomzi 08:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - do you have any sources in English, so that editors here can verify its notability better? Or, if any editors here speak the language, thats good too. Wickethewok 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is the German equivalent of UCCF and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. This might be further explained in the article; this might give some potential to the keeping of the article when expanded? SietskeEN 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't see how this group is important or special. Open to change, though. If kept, rename to English. Stifle (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. incog 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless actual indications of notability appear. It's a national organisation with (apparently) active branches in most Austrian universities, and would thus make a prima facie case for notability. The websites (I read German) have no info on the number of members, though, and the forum (of the Vienna branch) has 24 registered users. Also, there is no indication of any real-world impact (media mentions, etc.) and it has 453 Google hits. Not very indicative of notability, all this. Sandstein 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. HappyCamper 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'Thun[edit]

  • Keep I can't believe that this is even being discussed. I am not a WoW player, however this character was mentioned in a forum by other people. I was glad I could find out about it here on wikipedia. WoW has a significant cultural identity and following, and being able to garner a bit of history on this character was enlightening to this non-player. So, deleting this would be subtracting from the knowledge about this increasingly important game, whether you play it or not. If it's burdensome to have this entry, it should be put in another article that could be redirected/found through search. This really should be a no-brainer. And this is coming from someone that doesn't play the game. anon 09:05 26 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete: One of the "Gods" from World of Warcraft. He's not even physically in the game, although his eye does serve as a raid boss. I am recommending deletion as gamecruft. --Hetar 08:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with World of Warcraft. Grafikm_fr 08:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a regular contributor to that article, I feel its already more than sufficiently long, and doesn't need minutiae like this. WOWwiki [26] already has a more lengthy and more appropriate article on the subject. --Hetar 08:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, merging into World of Warcraft would be the wrong course of action. For being a "God" it's not that major of a character for such a broad article. Instead I say merge and redirect to Ahn'Qiraj, the dungeon where C'Thun is a boss. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense, changing my vote to merge and redirect. --Hetar 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as I love World of Warcraft, the cruft is getting obnoxious.--Isotope23 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, do we have an article on the Gods of World of Warcraft? There are apparently more than one. If we don't yet, move this there, and slightly edit the page to turn this into the first entry. Fans are going to make more of these; may as well deal with it. Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I still support deletion, but Smerdis of Tlön's suggestion is a good one and a proactive way to deal with the inevitable.--Isotope23 19:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the [[World of Warcraft article is too large and this god is too minor to justify inclusion in the main article, I think it would be better (and consistent with how WP:FICT handles characters and narrow topics in other types of fiction) to merge all WoWcruft articles to sub-articles such as Gods of World of Warcraft and Dungeons of World of Warcraft. I don't think that dungeons such as Ahn'Qiraj should have their own articles, as they have no relevance to non-WoW-player readers no matter how notable the game system is. Barno 20:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has some merit, but does need to be improved. I would also support a Merge With Ahn'Qiraj, but a delete is not necessary. McKay 23:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ahn'Qiraj.-Polotet 00:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or Merge if you want, a singular character with apparently zero back story as of yet should not have its own article. Every MMO has a good handful of god characters, and they really should not have their own articles. - Hahnchen 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, he does have much more backstory than is presented in this article. But I agree he's certainly not significant enough for his own article.-Polotet 01:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warcraft is about as popular as some minor religions. If Shintoism or Baha'ism have individual pages devoted to minor gods, why not Warcraft? Even if everyone stopped playing Warcraft tomorrow and no other MMORPG ever came out, Warcraft would still be fascinating as a cultural artifact and worthy of research. In any case C'thun is in the game; the Eye is just the first stage of the raid encounter. There is more backstory to the character, as mentioned above; this article is merely incomplete. Marvelli
  • Transwiki to WoWWiki. Stifle (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know nothing about WoW, but I used this article to understand one of my friends nicks in MSN Messenger. It is useful. -- DJ John 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Fuel[edit]

"Gay fuel" energy drink gets under 600 ghits. There are no reliable sources cited. It is discussed on YTMND (surprise surprise) but there is no reference on Snopes. I call hoax, failing that non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN and possible hoax.Undecided Grafikm_fr 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure why, but I get 90,500 hits for this on Google, not 600. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39283] [27] [28] [29] If this is a hoax, it sure is an elaborate one given that it is cited in the Detroit Metro Times and was recently being auctioned off on eBay. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Clown-fearing one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the above. I also get 95,000+ hits. It may be a hoax, but it's certainly notable. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction- Search ["Gay Fuel" energy drink] does indeed get only 606 hits. ["Gay Fuel"] gets 95,000+ however. Badgerpatrol 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, notable enough. bbx 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable. WP:NN Is this really notable? Gayfuel.com is owned by specialtyspirits.com who produced the homoerotic labeled Cabana Boy rum. It may be a real product. It seem to only be fuel for chuckling pundits, and bloggers. Dominick (TALK) 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, being from the D, I will say that Detroit Metro Times citing something isn't overwhelming evidence of notability. I'll spare you all my diatribe about how it actually used to be worthwhile reading material... Appears to have quite a few cites per Can't sleep, clown will eat me... just not sure if I consider those publications to meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn product from nn company. Does seem to exist though. Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't found any reviews of this product on the major beverage review sites (like BevNET). Also, in that BevNET category, there are a lot of energy drinks out there that have since been discontinued. I'm not sure if Gay Fuel's sales figures or longevity have been proven yet. I'm leaning toward delete on this one, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's non-notable. --Elkman - (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per clown and his recent additions/citations.--Andrew c 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. VegaDark 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. How notable is this drink? The only reason I've heard of it is through Wikipedia's unusual articles. It was produced by some small bancrupt company which would no way be notable anyway, and so their funny little product isn't either. - Hahnchen 02:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!Grace Note 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? Every ruddy drink isn't popular or notable, just like every supermarket product isn't worth having in an encylopedia nor is every drink. This drink is obviously produced by some random drinks company, is this even their flagship product? It's not like this is Ribena isn't it? So delete the thing. - Hahnchen 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It means that a person who has not noted Hamlet cannot be counted on as a judge of what's notable. Every supermarket product is worth having an article on. What a fantastic concept! An encyclopaedia that contains every supermarket product. I'm glad to have the chance to work on something so ambitious, so wonderful. Grace Note 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i've seen this product at clubs... its not a hoax.  ALKIVAR™ 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would any packaged drink you could buy at a single bar be suitably notable? (Probably not) 100 bars? 100,000? (almost certainly yes) I honestly don't know about this one. Do we have any sales figures for it? Do we have articles on every microbrewery for example? I'm convinced this is not a hoax. Any proof that it's influenced anything though? The articles given verify that it exists, but not that it's notable "enough". Hence my question. Anyone already determined how many beverage articles we have total? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How notable is this drink?" A new low. Keep, obviously. Grace Note 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was that in reference to me? It seems a reasonable question. Some drink that someone canned 100 cans of on a lark and gave away to their friends presumably is not notable. Michelob presumably is. Somewhere in the middle is a dividing line. Where? 1 bar? 100 bars? 10,000 bars? And which side is this drink on? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I drink it, I note it. End of discussion. Grace Note 05:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, realise that might be too cryptic. If there is a verifiable drink, it is "notable" is what I meant. Grace Note 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And no, it wasn't directed to you (I used quotes because it was a quote, see?): you are indulging in angels and pins. You'd save yourself a great deal of anxiety by taking a more pragmatic view. Grace Note 05:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think my view is fairly pragmatic, and I'm not at all anxious about it. But I'd like to ask you perhaps to consider being a bit less cryptic if you can (your comment was right below mine, after all so it certainly seemed like it possibly was directed at me) and perhaps not quite as sarcastic. "It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!" as you said elsewhere just does not seem like it's adding a lot to this search for consensus, which turns on notability (I feel verifiability is satisified)... it's a legitimate question being asked. Show us how notable. How well does it sell? If it doesn't sell well, how much impact has it had in other ways? I'm coming around to "it's notable enough to merit a keep" but it's not because of your comments. I have found in the past that comments that might be perceived as combative undermine the case. People ask because they care. Even deletionists care. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you feel verifiability is satisfied, only you know why you're still arguing about it with me. You must surely know that I, and many others, simply will never agree that a thing needs to be your or Hahnchen's idea of "notable" before it gets an article written on it here. Given that, it comes down to whether you are able to muster up sufficient votes for deletion to convince an admin to delete it. The notion that a good argument wins over many, many votes is laughable. Anyone who has made a good argument for keeping an article that was subsequently deleted knows that. Grace Note 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On further examination, it's notable enough to satisfy me. Would still like to see more sources though. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ALKIVAR. This crusade against YTMND and anything that has ever related to it must stop. Bubby the Tour G 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it exists only in your mind, the solution is for you to stop imaginign it - it will then go away :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gay Fuel is actually very real. I haven't seen it myself, but [30] claims to be a distributor of the gay drink. Just look at these, eh, gay boys handing out samples here. [31] Not that I would actually drink it, but you know, gays would. I think we all need to take a big gulp of Gay Fuel right now. 6 pack for everybody. Bubby the Tour G 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, this drink was so popular that its original distributor, Specialty Drinks LLC are bancrupt. The only reason this is here is because people thought it was funny, not because its of any encyclopedic use. - Hahnchen 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable outside its own website. Need more reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Popularity" is not a requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. The subject is perfectly verifiable (through reliable sources, thank you) and we should, without question, be able to provide this information to the casually interested visitor. Silensor 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche casino[edit]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable online casino [32] Feezo (Talk) 08:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regatta%C2%AE_Implementation:_Preliminary_phase}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danceflur Kriminalz[edit]

nn band, does not have a full length album yet ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the band's web presence, I think it can be considered a web meme in addition to a band. Therefore, not having a full length album isn't necessarily a limitation. Moremoire 03:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually I changed my mind -- it should be marked for deletion. Sorry. Moremoire 08:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. NoIdeaNick 10:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete: No album, apparently no significant tour schedule, but they were featured in a possibly notable 2006 film festival [33]. It seems this still falls a tad shy of WP:MUSIC. -MrFizyx 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moremoire's second comment. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US CMS Products[edit]

This is linked from Comparison of content management systems. We deleted Canadian CMS Products a while back because there was no evidence of market specificity; I think the same applies here (as per the Countries column, which clearly shows that many of these are not US-specific). In software, for English-language users anyway, it is more remarkable if a product does not originate in the US than if it does. Most of these are redlinks. I don't see what this adds to the parent article other than additional miantenance overhead and lots of weblinks to products without articles. Just zis Guy you know? 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If the company is not-notable, a list of their products is even less so. --Hetar 01:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, i.e. material which you would not expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Stifle (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regatta® Implementation: Preliminary phase and Regatta: adoption method[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Queensland Cowboys History[edit]

There is no need for two pages that cover the North Queensland Cowboys. Furthermore, much of this material is unsuitable and some of it copyrighted.

  • Merge relevant content to North Queensland Cowboys. Doesn't look like a second article is justified. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the North QLD Cowboys website. Stifle (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The North Queensland Cowboys article already covers their history as comprehensively as you could wish for. Capitalistroadster 10:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Roisterer 14:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content and delete -ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I really can't tell what to do with this. The main article is not an unmanageable size, but there's nothing wrong with splitting it up either. I don't understand the duplication of effort - a cut-and-paste of the exising history section would have made for a better quality article. Peter Grey 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Harro5 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Unconvinced of need to delete. Andjam 02:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dear god, I wonder how many other sportscruft pieces have proliferated thoughout Wikipedia.--cj | talk 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster EMBaldwin 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleap[edit]

Non-notable training program. Was PRODded, but tag removed after article edited to remove advertising. Notability not established or asserted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to me, beta services should be given the opportunity to rise or fall. Kinda "eating their young" mentality going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.84.42.234 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Didn't realise it was also only in beta. Another reason to delete it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal Is that why Gmail is in Wiki. It even has a nice Beta sign on its logo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, unless it can be proved through the use of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources that this web-based training program meets the criteria displayed at the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline. The current-proposed criteria at the Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline proposal may also apply. If deleted, this AfD discussion should not prevent thr re-creation of this article at a later date, provided that the above criteria can be demonstratably met. -- Saberwyn 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • eLeaP reviewed, I will encourage readers to follow Saul Weiner's review of the eLeaP platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pungu (talk • contribs) .
  • Do not delete, I have been looking for a way to streamline my orientation practices in healthcare and this tool is something I'd like to test for usability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.245.175 (talk • contribs) .
  • Is it normal to delete from wiki a complete and useful tool? mke 81.181.126.68 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • If it cannot demonstratably meet the guidelines and criteria I have mentioned above, usually yes. "Useful" is a very subjective term, and should only be used when backed up by a reliable source, such as a review from a newspaper or computing magazine. -- Saberwyn 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note, a large number of unsigned votes or comments from unregistered authors may be seen as detrimental to the 'cause' of keeping an article on Wikipedia. You are free to make your point, but be careful --JeffUK
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable beta software.  RasputinAXP  c 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still reads like an ad and fails any objective notability test I can think of. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. RGTraynor 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advertising for nn software. AKADriver 14:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Pete.Hurd 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords of the Ancients[edit]

Advertising spam TexasAndroid 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Cinthorc, Luciendar, Mithrodin. and Valermos, specific sword in the collection. All spam, IMHO. - TexasAndroid 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, adverts. --Tone 21:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as advertisments. NoIdeaNick 10:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur on delete -- this reads as an advert, no more. Formally, I dispute notability. -- Simon Cursitor 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability Non-notable, no verification of "collector's item" assertion. Run them all through and bury these articles under forgotten barrows. RGTraynor 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Kit Rae. Cleanup is also required. Sorry, RGTratnor, but speedy delete is *WRONG*, and I personally think his vote (and others?) should be discounted. Please read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Kit Rae is notable enough. McKay 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hm, I suppose that the author calling the swords "collector's items" is an assertion of notability, however much it's an unsourced, unverified ad claim, so that takes A7 off the table. I've changed my vote to just plain Delete. What's your basis for voting to keep, while we're questioning one another's votes? RGTraynor 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant advertising Pete.Hurd 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe: The Ballads[edit]

This article on a rumoured Britney Spears album does not cite its sources, and Googling yields no related results (apart from Wikipedia mirrors, or websites using Wikipedia as a source). WP:NOT a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. WP:NOT a crystal ball. NoIdeaNick 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -MrFizyx 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unsubstantiated crystal-ballism. Stifle (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 08:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Psoas Muscles and Abdominal Exercises for Back Pain[edit]

This looks like original research, and is a direct copy of http://www.somatics.com/psoas.htm. Eron 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, also looks like advertising for website. If there is non advertising merit to this article should be moved to Back Pain.--Tollwutig 18:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel § 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iscathamiya[edit]

The article's title is misspelled and the content on this page is mostly the same as Isicathamiya, the proper name for the genre. LBM 18:48, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, it seems to be a fairly common spelling[37]. -MrFizyx 16:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as above. McKay 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, replace info with a redirect to Isicathamiya. -LBM 18:57, 22 April 2006 (GMT)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel § 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dukes[edit]

I can't WP:V any of this and even if I could, he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Delete--Isotope23 17:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. ~ PseudoSudo 09:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Capitalistroadster; allmusic verifies notability (sorry for that jump). ~ PseudoSudo 06:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily verifiable [38],[39],[40]. The article already has a link in from his songwriting credits. As a studio musician he may fall through the cracks of WP:MUSIC, but there is no doubt that he has worked with many significant people on significant recordings. -MrFizyx 16:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to Allmusic.com, he has an extensive lists of credits for work with artists such as Billy Joel, Jackson Browne and Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers. That makes him notable enough to meet WP:MUSIC see [41]. Capitalistroadster 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Allmusic.com is good enough for me. Englishrose 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TGSN[edit]

Non-notable Lycos-hosted website and free-hosted forum. Google returns lots of results - all mirrors, old hosts or entirely unrelated. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Off! 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article asserts that it's a game review site, but seems to have just as much content for a private gaming clan. Only claims to notability include a relatively low alexa rank and a mention on IGN. AKADriver 17:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't satisfy WP:WEB. --Hetar 08:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CR Comics[edit]

Probably a hoax, due its relationship to the Charlie Randall article. There does appear to a Japanese something called CR Comics, but it's doubtful that it is related to this stub, as it exists now. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Charlie Randall article was deleted, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be as well. Radagast83 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meaningless sub-stub. The AfD notice was vandalized by an anonymous user connecting from 68.1.163.241, which is the same IP that created the article back in November. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not-hoax, then I would dispute notability, which the text currently does not assert, and support delete -- Simon Cursitor


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LONG ISLAND CLUB SCENE 1970-1989[edit]

Article is not WP:V and apparently violates WP:NOR as it was posted and "verified" by a booking agent familiar with the club scene in the 70's and 80's. Delete.--Isotope23 16:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. WarpstarRider 10:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No published sources. It's probably all true, but not acceptable per WP:NOR. Slowmover 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road 34 Bike Bar[edit]

Previously unlisted.Listing now. --Melaen 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a perfect example of non-notable content. Slowmover 15:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. -MrFizyx 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second thought[edit]

Appears to be non-notable musician, does not pass WP:BAND. One self-burned CD-r album. Prod contested without comment. "Second nomination" apparently because the common phrase "second thought" was nominated earlier. Weregerbil 14:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Purlieu (album) for deletion. Note I'm doing this after User:Isotope23 cast his vote (...yea yea AfD is a discussion not a vote...) but let's say he agrees with the bundling as he suggested it. Weregerbil 16:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBSN[edit]

It seems to be more a non-notable curiosity (introduced very recently) than a widely accepted identification number. In addition, the whole page was copied from http://www.hewop.com/~ibsn/, with no indication of permission. I am happy to be proved wrong, so no recommendation Schutz 09:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to do so, in parallel with this AFD. I would even be ready to rewrite the (short) article to solve the copyvio problem, but I'd like to know if it is worth spending any time on this article or if it is not notable anyway. Schutz 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Schutz 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the original contributor, he translated the text from the Spanish Wikipedia; the website actually copied his text, but I did not manage to contact them. Schutz 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus Kotepho 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Flaxton[edit]

It has been suggested that I was wrong to userfy this guy. Could I have a notability check please? (Treat my nomination as abstain!) -- RHaworth 09:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although there are *some* links in to this article, none of them strike me as significant; the content doesn't ring *any* bells with me, and there appear, currently, bto be no links-out. Weak delete -- Simon Cursitor 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. [43] [44] [45] [46] and a few hundred more. Clearly viewed as notable in his field. How about a speedy keep,you two? Monicasdude 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys- I'm really sorry I created all of this. When I sat down and followed links to video art (as I explained to roger) I found all the usual subjects listed. There's a hundred unlisted artists who should be on this list and sorry, yes roger, vain or no, I should be in there. It's a matter of history really. We didn't all do this work for no reason. It was amatter of comittment. Anyway, the list is the list and I sat down and thought right I'm going to write the bio and put in info about myself and some of the people I knew doing this stuff. What's nice about Wikipedia is that histories can be written NOW - and also by those that were making that history. This is fundamentally different from his story as written in normal encyclopedias - this is a digital change. I completely understand the issue about all and sundry writing themselves as heroes in their own lunchtime and maybe I do fit that category - dunno, I shall make the work anyway and my day job pays for the art. I've talked to a few other people in the area and at this moment other histories are being written (the Rewind Project at DUncan of Jordanstone in Dundee) but wether they can outweigh the official histories time will tell. Hang in there and of course whatever you choose so be it.

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

The result of the debate was {{deleteagain}}. Mailer Diablo 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neocodex[edit]

Was deleted a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neocodex. It seems to me that the original reasoning still applies. (However I cannot compare the article with the deleted version) Aleph4 09:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising and such. Possibly a speedy candidate as well. WarpstarRider 10:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per recreation of deleted articles. I know some comments were aout nonsense, but many were nn and per nom, which means no cheating. These two still apply. Fetofs Hello! 12:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with User:Fetofs -- Simon Cursitor 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as the site is nn, the entry is an advertisement, and db-repost can be applied. -- Kicking222 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as repost. --Tango 19:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4. It should be said, though, that while the site is nn, the justification of several voters at the original AfD that the site promotes cheating and is therefore inherently unencyclopedic, which justification isn't really essayed here, is altogether inconsistent, IMHO, with the relevant criteria for deletion/inclusion. Joe 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It should be deleted for being nn, a notable cheat site would be perfectly encyclopedic. --Tango 21:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Will tag soon. Remove it if this is not really a repost. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Borisov[edit]

nn artist, also include F.R.U.I.T.S. for deletion. James Kendall [talk] 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 18:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contra (Series/Ports)[edit]

The article in question is redundant and the information is already available in each game's specific article (see Contra series#Contra games. Vic Vipr 09:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Merge (and strong clean-up) as the info could be contained on the main page for the series (and some of said info is not currently in the Contra article). But when I say "weak merge", I mean weak, as in, about half a step away from outright deletion. -- Kicking222 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think just having the port info in each game's article is sufficient here. BryanG 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guthrie Memorial Adventist Chapel[edit]

This is an orphan page and appears to be an advertisement. MyNameIsNotBob 10:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It seems barely notable. It doesn't look like an advert to me, really. --Tango 19:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability I can discern. Looks like a cute little church, though. AKADriver 14:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as minor church, don't see how it's different from all the others. Stifle (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 19:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoholism[edit]

Neologism. 2 Google hits. Ashenai 10:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep: Search for "pseudo-holism" returns 25 pages. Perhaps this should be merged into holism, if no-one is ready to expand upon it? I don't feel like doing the research myself. Edward Grefenstette 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's only a dictionary definition, anyway. --Tango 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete psuedo-dicdef, with prejudice. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apat na Takas[edit]

Unverifiable. Can't find on IMDB. The wikilink to the director links to a billiards player. Creator has history of creating unverifiable articles -- see his talk page. The JPS 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. [49]. PJM 11:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the creator has tried to introduce many articles on Filipino films and actors which are not easily found on Google and poorly represented on IMDB. If you look up the words individually on IMDB (eg, "Apat") you can see that there are a few Filipino films listed. I'm neutral on the decision, because the articles he writes are full of typos, badly organized, and basically unverifiable by the current editorship on WP, but I do think he's acting in good faith. Slowmover 16:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no more reason to believe that the editor is acting in bad faith than any other, but Wikipedia's rules and guidelines governing verifiability and notability aren't suspended for Filipino articles. Has he responded to any of those various entreaties for sourcing? RGTraynor 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Sound[edit]

Non-notable website. Article written by one of the site's creators, in violation of WP:AUTO. Matt Eason 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notability and biased writing do not a good article make. -- Kicking222 14:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an ultimate waste of time. RGTraynor 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tango 19:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands[edit]

Badly designed list of bands. Original list is done on the Gothic Metal article after much discussion to show the stylistic divisions of the music by listing the most Notable and Recognisable bands of each stylistic division. This list is also closely monitered with several bands pending their articles creating by the WP:HMM project. As such this article was created with several Non Notable bands added and more Notable bands removed, it also makes little sense as the bands listed are not of the same forms of music, and is generally a bad My favourite bands version of whats already on the Gothic Metal article. Ley Shade 11:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, lists of this type should be about one defined key genre to minimize subjectivity. Also entirely redundant to the lists at Gothic metal, which is by no means too long to require splitting. Deizio 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 11:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as doomcruft, until and unless seven random goths can give me a coherent, consensus explanation of how "gothic doom-metal" is distinctive from mere "doom metal" or "death metal", and some sourcing as to whether the bands tabbed as being GDM groups are happy with the allegation. It reminds me annoyingly about how Winamp's category listing has about ten different kinds of rap while at the same time identifying every piece of music written before 1920 as nothing other than generic "Classical." RGTraynor 18:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send an officious letter to Winamp concerning Orchestral, Instrumental, Vocal, Chamber, Baroque, Opera, Romantic.... etc. categories of classical music, per RGTraynor's complaint. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Gnosticism[edit]

Modern Gnosticism describes the personal theories of the article's author, synthesized from a motley collection of philosophers, novelists and films. It thus constitutes original research. It began as a "modern mysticism" section which (s)he first added to the Demon article, but then removed and expanded to form the Modern Gnosticism article after its verifiability was questioned by other editors. After much debate and coaching (sorry, there's a huge amount to read there) the article reads (at first) a little more like a bona-fide article, however I'm fairly convinced that almost nothing in the article is representative of anyone's theories but the author's. The name of the article itself, "modern gnosticism" is somewhat arbitrary (the author also suggested "modern mysticism"), and is not an established technical term that would distinguish it from Gnosticism in modern times. I am not suggesting a merge with Gnosticism in modern times since most of the material here is very personal and ideosynchratic, and any reuse would involve substantial rewrite. Fuzzypeg 11:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nathcer 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm a patient fellow, and I'm familiar with mainstream Gnostic views, and my eyes started to glaze over after thirty seconds. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 13:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let the author come back and try for him/herself to add anything meaningful from it to the Gnosticism in modern times article (I do not entertain high hopes). Lundse 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Per nom, but please note that, once this is deleted, he's going to edit war to re-include this text elsewhere. Not saying this should change our decision, just something to look out for. Alienus 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, per RGTraynor, and per WP:BALLS. I see nothing approaching a fact here, and I read the whole thing (ouch). Barno 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gods, I recommend either a pot of strong tea or a glass of a strong drink. You're a tougher man than I am, and I applaud your perserverance, even your sanity must now be in doubt. (grins) RGTraynor 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I need no sanity; I have been endowed with the Secret Hidden Knowledge and am therefore empowered to get along without ordinary people's logic or rationality. (This is the most sense I can ever make out of tracts like the nominated article.) Barno 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read it all, but I have to say they lost me with the camel case in "TechGnosticism". --Saforrest 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumblebee[edit]

Delete non-notable band. A Google on Rumblebee "Sonic Riders" yields 2 hits. Was prod-tagged 2 weeks ago but the tag was removed. --Bruce1ee 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, if you look at the talk page, it's claimed that the real name of the band is in fact "Runblebee." That puts a whole 'nother complexion on it ... why, Runblebee attracts a whole 15 G-hits! Delete the living daylights out of these wannaBees. RGTraynor 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and a big LOL to RGTraynor. -- Kicking222 14:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buzz Off Delete as non-notable. doktorb | words 19:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-notable band, but I vote Redirect to Dodge Ram. The name "Rumblebee" is far more notable as a Dodge advertising mascot from the 1960s, brought back recently for a truck model. AKADriver 14:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead hand problem[edit]

As much as I like this article, it should stay in Wikipedia. However, I'm having difficulty proving this term actually exists. A shame that, so I'm gonna have to AFD it. Dangherous 13:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless the article is somehow built up significantly. Good catch, Dangherous! Kukini 13:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! We can't have articles that don't belong in here for over a year! I wonder what the longest time an article has remained wrongfully deleted... --Dangherous 13:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, wastepaper dicdef. RGTraynor 13:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would like to say keep & expand. But the problem is verification WP:V, (usually) when used the meaning is seen as self evident and not explained, causing problems with citing examples. The term is used beyond interpreting the United States Constitution, but with interpretations of laws/contracts/constitutions (and so on) in general and in the meaning (interpreters perspectives) of texts/document in regard to history or philosophy and the like. As well can refer in decisions and debates to where some lingering interest or influence (intentionally or unintentionally) is attached onto some thing (for example with wills/laws/contracts) and it is seen as a problem. For poor of example of this have a look at the legal rule Rule against perpetuities.--blue520 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although I'd be curious to see a good definition of the term now. Amazon turns it up in Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution and a Google search turns it up on some webpages pertaining to law, e.g. [50]. But I don't know if it could be expanded beyond a dicdef or not. Шизомби 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands now. In law, a variety of "dead hand problems" arise. The phrase is more familiar to me in matters of wills and trusts: to what extent do we want the dead to be able to direct the lives of the living by putting various conditions on inherited money. The law of mortmain sought to restrict tying up land indefinitely by giving it to churches and other corporations. (Might make a good redirect.) This sense is rather minor. Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for reasons cited above, and lacking any real article content. I don't think there's one best target for a redirect of this title, as it's not specific to Rule against perpetuities or mortmain or the US Constitution. I've heard the term used both in constitutional law and inheritance law, but not in a way that I could find citations worth using here. Barno 21:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Off Or Die[edit]

Non-notable group Mushintalk 13:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, NN spurious group. Article represents user's sole contribution. RGTraynor 13:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn webstuff Deizio 15:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity, NN, per nom. Slowmover 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you can always call another AfD again, have you contacted the author and asked him to fix problems like Verifiability? If the article isn't improved the author I would vote for delete. --ReptileLawyer 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the author maintains a watchlist, he gets alerted. RGTraynor 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused, I'm sorry, "keep" on what grounds? Deizio 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the article has been given a fair amount of time to evolve. The deletion might be premature. The author hasn't voted here yet so I doubt he's been notified. --ReptileLawyer 20:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this, then: Four unique Google hits. The one with the most hits is the Wikipedia article. The 'Nuclear Inferno BBS' referenced has zero hits. This could eventually turn out to be the spiffiest-looking article in Wikipedia history, but no one has ever heard of these guys. RGTraynor 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. The "topic" carries the notability, not the article. This topic carries no notability whatsoever. Feel free to contact the author and tell him that a) he has created an article on a non-notable topic, that will b) soon be deleted. Deizio 21:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Personal Identificator[edit]

Delete: This appears to be a recent project primarily run by a single person; it has not gained widespread discussion, and it remains unimplemented. "Unique Personal Identificator" gets 27 Google hits, seven listed as unique, and only two that are not related to the Wikipedia article. Both were written by the inventor of this system, Jiří Donát, who also wrote the entirety of this article's substance and has not contributed anything else to Wikipedia. Adam Atlas 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--blue520 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is "identificator" even a word? Isn't it "identifier"? --Tango 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Spelling "identificator" is not listed in the OED. :) --Adam Atlas 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levy Geographical Theory[edit]

nn, possibly vanity, original research, Wikipedia is not for thigns you made up at school one day etc Batmanand | Talk

Delete as per nom. it was probably a cute joke if you were there. Lundse 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The theory describes the regions of the Earth by splitting it into four areas: 'London', 'North', 'Sea' and 'Foreign'.. Yeah, sure... <_<. Delete this thing please... Grafikm_fr 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BJAODN. There are actually only two regions: the one containing the Levy theory and its author, and the other one where the rest of us live. They must be kept apart. Slowmover 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BJAODN. --Doug (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of economical cars[edit]

adding Historical comparison of economy cars 2006 to the nomination as the original article has been copied and pasted there.

Unencyclopedic buyer's guide, see WP:NOT. AKADriver 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the type of thing which we would expect to see in an auto magazine, not an encyclopedia. The cars chosen appears to be entirely arbitrary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The cars chosen are popular cars. And expect other cars to be added. Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Lundse 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an accepted definition of encyclopedic somewhere? The article is informative and good for people doing research on such things. Daniel.Cardenas 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What "per nom" are you talking about. Its verifiable, npov, and no copyright infringments. Daniel.Cardenas 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed to Historical comparison of economy cars 2006. Please compare with: History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation)
    • The video game console article (which is pretty good) lists three consoles which make up pretty much the entire market for these products and includes some description about them in general. This car article however just picks three cars which make up only a fraction of the economy car market. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt you would have considered the early version of the game console article very good[51]. Perhaps you want to give this article time to mature.
      But to where could it mature? It will never be anything but a comparison. If you'd like to see it take on some real context, try merging it with Economy car. The video game article as it exists now could stand on its own without that comparison table. AKADriver
      A representative sample would be sufficient to help researchers understand what options were available in a time of concerns over global warming and smog. Daniel.Cardenas 02:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Who decides what's representative, without adding a biased POV and original research? Someone doing this type of research would be far better served by primary or secondary sources (such as automotive publications or the manufacturers themselves). An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It's a quick reference, a digest, not a source for serious research. AKADriver 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll add more cars if that is what you think will make a difference. I was thinking about adding the Toyota Corolla. I was hoping other people would add cars when it became more popular. Daniel.Cardenas 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comments re: the video game article on this article's talk page. Also, if you wish to move an article, don't just create a duplicate under another name. Try moving it using the instructions at Help:Moving a page. Don't forget to make sure this AfD discussion still points to this article. AKADriver 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think I may have stumbled over a debate that's grumbled on for a long time - whether comparisons can be encyclopedic. Some users have even left the project agonizing over this question. Personally, I'm with that guy - unless there's a large amount of non-comparison context for it, such as the 7th gen game console article, or the comparative lists of weapons used on either side of the Seven-Year War. Comparisons are somewhere in the grey area between encyclopedic knowledge, original research, and how-to guide. In this case, I think it's pretty clear that, whether intentional or not, this article reads like a buyer's guide (which is implicitly verboten in WP:NOT as a form of how-to) and contains the author's original research (his definitions of an "economical car" or "hybrid body design"). AKADriver 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it does not belong, it might be able to if it included someting approaching all relevant cars, which it never can. Comparisons should be used to sum up an (in itself) encyclopedic article, not stand by themselves. Lundse 12:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article can only be original research. Stifle (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources cited. Do you want more? Citing sources is contrary to original research. Daniel.Cardenas 02:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. If data from existing sources are synthesized in such a way as to create a novel idea, that's original research. While this article doesn't attempt to draw a conclusion, and the vehicle data is factual, the comparison itself is novel and therefore original research. AKADriver 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. I did not count votes from anonymous IPs are users whose only edits were to the page in question and to this AFD. Without those votes the decision was unanimous. Chick Bowen 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UGOPlayer[edit]

The website fails WP:WEB, google links, once you strip out the links on the site itself, amount to six pages. This can be seen by typing UGOPlayer into google yourself. The page is vanity whewre it is not spam and wikipedia is not a web directory. There are no references provided, there are no external sources meeting WP:RS on which to build an article, and so I bring it here asking the community to discuss whether policies should be bent to allow this article's inclusion. The original discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGOPlayer had a discussion which involved alexa rankings. Alexa rankings may show this topic has appeal; it cannot, however, provide us with sources from which to write an article. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Either we change that principle or we enforce it. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam, advertisement, non-notable (per nom). Slowmover 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It seems extremely popular which makes me wonder why there's so little written about it outside of this article. AKADriver 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I honestly can't decide either way about this article. Under WP:WEB it fails, but it has a popularity greater than that of many other sites on Wikipedia. So it seems very possible that someone might visit that site, then look here to find out more information on it. But because it seems not to have any references outside of its own domain, the article cannot be sourced, so only things that are self-evident from visiting UGOplayer itself can really be included. And that means this article will provide no new information that couldn't be discovered from just visiting the site, rendering it fairly pointless. I will remain neutral, for the time being Trebor 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If neccassary, I'll bring in my username, but I trust you all know that I have one and don't use it very regularly. It has high alexi ratings, it has many google hits, and it is probably one of the 5 largest non-centered forums on the web (EbaumsWorld, YTMND, Newgrounds, SomethingAwful, and Flashplayer. All are based on user submitted work, and have no direct focus on any topics). If that is not notable, then I do not know what is. It has 60,000 members, unless you for some reason believe the site lies regularly. I disagree with the notabiltiy "Requirements" for a website, and this is the most obvious case. I think keep, and change the notability requirements to include something on ratings or hits.68.192.25.106 19:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unless you login and post a comment, the closing admin is highly likely to discount your recommendation. Stifle (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CertificationHere. I'm logged it. I vote strong keep.Sbloemeke 01:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now, since I've been involved in an edit war and am tempted to vote to delete for the wrong reason. The IP above is the other party, and nominator has been editing the article recently also. Fagstein 05:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question should not be one of notability here, it should be that there are no sources from which to build an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is, quite clearly, not a web directory; therefore we require independent sources from which to document a given topic. In this instance they do not currently exist, and thus an article which does not violate original research cannot be written. Note that WP:V requires that Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources. There are no credible third party sources for this article to rely upon. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no reputable third-party sources are covering this website, we cannot either. Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the monkey This is a fairly new article, I think you should keep it up just because it need long enough for it to grow. Sources can be found, links can be made and etc. so dont kill the baby, its like abortion.Arby A3K 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam (IP editors), advertisement, non-notable. --MaNeMeBasat 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per verifiability, WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolpmp[edit]

Tagged as a speedy delete as a "neologism", and I was very tempted to zap it. But I googled and I saw that LOLPMP is used sometimes (although the definition given in the article is wrong, it's supposedly "Laughing out loud, peeing my pants"). Since I think there is a finite probability of a consensus emerging for this being merged with list of internet slang or LOL (Internet slang) I thought it best to bring this here. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Lundse 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "LOLxxx" (and its older Usenet sister "ROFLxxx") are freely expandable acronyms; having articles for each of the infinity of possible variations -- or even just try to enumerate them all in the main article -- is nonsensical. Nothing to indicate that -pmp is of particular encyclopedic interest. Henning Makholm 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Henning Makholm. Slowmover 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not sufficiently notable/widespread, let alone important, to keep nor to merge to other articles on slang. I agree with H Makholm. Barno 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Henning Makholm.--blue520 07:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sembwinds[edit]

Delete non-notable band. A Google on Sembwinds "Sembawang Secondary School" yields 8 hits, 7 of which are blogspot.com pages. Their only claim to fame appears to be having won a few local compitions. --Bruce1ee 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Gauntlet[edit]

Vanity article probably created for self-promotion. JoachimK 14:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Lundse 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, advertisement. "Currently in production" should be a speedy criterion. Slowmover 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it hasn't been released yet, it hasn't had a chance to prove its notability. Also, from the screenshot, the graphics need a lot of work. --Elkman - (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Nakia Yelland[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO - not notable, IMDB only one obscure credit [52] mtz206 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Slowmover 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My brother-in-law has more IMDB credits than that. RGTraynor 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Lee[edit]

Tagged as a speedy with the reason "Non notable airman. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database nor a collection of obituaries. Why is Willie Lee notable compared to the thousands of other airman slaughtered in WWII?". Nonetheless, at the bottom of the article we have "His name is on the Roll of Honour in the Hall of Memory at Auckland Museum.". This is in my view an assertion of notability, although I am not at all sure that it is sufficient for inclusion. Still I think we should discuss this one. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; no assertion of notability -- I wouldn't consider the standard listing given to every NZ soldier who died in WWII such an assertion. It's a well-written article (and is the original editor's sole contribution, so I don't think anyone would mind Rchan writing more noteworthy articles), but from what I'm seeing this is just an average joe who signed up in time of war, like everyone else, and died in training before ever seeing combat, as many did. Wikipedia is not a memorial. RGTraynor 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that Halls of Memory record every person who served and as such is not a claim to notability. Delete unless we can establish a verifiable source indicating notability. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete; The reason that I wrote the article is that that Willie Lee is the only Chinese Spitfire pilot in WWII (how many of them did you think there were?). How can this be non notable? Where I come from, his story has inspired generations of Chinese New Zealanders (I should know, I'm one of them).

Unlike other "average joes", Willie wasn't just another volanteer, he literally forced his way in. And all this for a country that disliked him and where he was a second class citizen. In his shoes I would have left them to it. If any of us achieve half as much in our lives then we'll be lucky. I'm sure the article about Winston Churchill says where he was born and when, where and how he died. By your definition sounds like an obituary to me but I don't see anyone trying to delete that article.

To say Willie Lee is non notable is an insult to a unique individual and thousands of Asians that "stood up to be counted" in a war that quite frankly was none of their business (Does "defending your way of life" include getting spat on in the street and getting the cr*p kicked out of you regularly? Don't even get me started on this topic.).

As I'm still trying to write the article (and probably will be for the next several weeks), I'm highly disappointed that you all are so set on shouting me down and deleting my work before I've even finished. Your response will dictate whether I continue to contribute or write off Wikipedia as just one big joke. Rchan

If Willie Lee has inspired generations of Chinese New Zealanders, there must be some articles or a book written about him. If there is no such written material, then the article becomes unverifiable. Even if the written material is only available in Chinese, please provide a reference to it. It doesn't have to be online. I vote reluctantly to delete the article, but I'll change my vote if such a reference can be given.-gadfium 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think notability has been demonstrated by the editor who created this article. Let's see how it develops. --Bduke 00:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability has been demonstrated, especially since the article not only lacks sources, it's mostly speculative. And this is for a fighter pilot who, if the article is to be believed, never saw combat and died in a training accident. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am disappointed that the editor has chosen to be so upset about this AfD. As someone who has suffered serveral AfDs and continued to write, I think he should gird his loins. I put this article up for a speedy on the grounds that there was no notability indicated in the article. The editor makes a range of assertions but has not backed them up with verifiable evidence which is what WP requires. The editor says that deletion of this article shows WP to be a joke. I suggest otherwise - that it shows a willingness of fellow editors to make sure that articles that appear demonstrate notability. There are 120,000 dead Australian soldiers, sailors, airmen and nurses listed at the Australian War Memorial. Nearly all were volunteers. Many were 'foreigners' and yet we do not write articles for all of them. I am happy to change my vote if you can show he was notable and the information you present is verifiable. And by making this statement I am not insulting anyone. Maustrauser 10:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete, but I'd change my vote to keep if we can find something published that indicates he was inspirational or was the only Chinese spitfire pilot. -- Avenue 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources and notability is dicey to say the least.--Cini 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn bio. incog 02:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. SushiGeek 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuebing[edit]

Unnotable rabbit. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete; it had already been transwikied. Chick Bowen 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance_-_legal[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Rmcii 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was already created as an article and subsequently moved to the Wiktionary. As such, the Wikipedia article has no purpose. -- Kicking222 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete per WP:WINAD. Stifle (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Geedubber 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Wolfville[edit]

Sounds like small production, only of local interest. Complete ad — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mask of Destiny[edit]

Mask of Destiny is a rather unremarkable Bionicle fan site; the article on it is unnecessary and could be considered advertising. Drakhan 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tawker ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whip shoe[edit]

No explanation of where it came from, in short makes no sense what so ever Johnny Copper 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have speedy deleted this. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was CSD A7 Delete. Tawker 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risin' Star Records[edit]

Non-notable/vanity. Google yields two results, both of which are personal webpages. [53] Sulfur 16:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The label is just over a year old and is still finishing its first release. That's not notable. --Several Times 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 17:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you going to delete every upstart label? You see, Wikipedia is not paper, and if a guy wants to spread his pride in the label's success, you should let him. M. Burmy
  • Nothing personal M. Burmy, it just doesn't appear to be notable. Sulfur 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering you are affiliated with the label in question, this counts as vanity, along with non-notability. If the label had had the success you claim, things may be different. Trebor 22:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all can just go to hell. I'll recreate this. M. Burmy.
  • So you're saying that you don't cover independent labels on wikipedia? M. Burmy
  • Comment: No. We just don't see any grounds indicating why Wikipedia should cover yours. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board, a blog or a Myspace entry. It's a private encyclopedia with rules and guidelines about the verifiability and notability of a subject. Take a look at WP:NOT, WP:VAIN and WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and protect per M. Burmy. --Eivindt@c 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just in-the label just cut me. So, delete away!!! M. Burmy
  • Delete Not notable and seems a clear cut case of a vainity page.--Cini 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taranatha[edit]

original text that was afd'd [54]

An extended-length POV rant, including section titles such as "False ideas about the Jonangpa Origin of the Kalachakra" and "Why is this (making the ban known) very important to the world ?". Interestingly, this article as written is not primarily about Taranatha, but about the banning of the Jonang school of which he was the leader, a topic which is the subject of its own article, written in much the same style. Taranatha himself is an interesting subject, and I pledge to write a short article about him in the near future. Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, by common consent, I am withdrawing my AfD nomination. Let's work on improving the article. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ban on Jonang, since you note that such an article already exists. --Several Times 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ban on Jonang suggests a merge with Taranatha and vice-versa. I'm not familiar enough with the topics to make a strongly educated decision where these should reside if they are indeed merged, but if merge is the consensus, the merged article needs a cleanup tag. Both are written in a tone that is decidedly unencyclopedic.--Isotope23 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ban on Jonang, and tag for cleanup as noted. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It wasn't clear to me from the responses above whether people have understood me as endorsing the Ban on Jonang article, which is not what I intended. I have removed the sarcasm from my statement above. After reading through it, Ban on Jonang is, if anything, worse than Taranatha is, containing statements such as "The present article is written under the auspices of the Ngorpa school which is furthering the cause of peace and also that of the Sakyapa school despite several Sakya followers having sided with the Gelugpas" and "Now, it is the Ngorpa school that is cleaning up the mess they've made. And the prophecied return of Ngorchen Kunga Zangpo, the Second Buddha .... is here indeed, to save world-Buddhism against the meddling and disastrous situation ...", etc., etc.
I'm not really sure what the best way to proceed with these articles, and I would appreciate opinions. I started this AfD this morning after I started trying to clean-up Taranatha; when I realised that most of the text would have to be removed altogether, I decided it would be better just to AfD it and start over. The tricky thing about these articles is that they are explicitly POV, and they cite websites as sources, which makes it hard for a non-expert to separate fact from opinion. However, they contain such a large amount of editorialising relative to factual claims, that it might not really be practical for an expert to go through and clean it up, rather than just writing a new article.
In any event, I don't think that Taranatha should be merged with Ban on Jonang. Taranatha is an interesting historical person who is certainly not significant only in connection to the ban on Jonang. There's no reason he shouldn't have his own article, and I intend to write one. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you plan on a rewrite, no real need for AfD. Remove the text of Tarantha and start a new article there with WP:V information and sources listed. AfD of the article followed by a recreation of a different article with the same name just makes more work for the admins. If you run into content/edit wars with the party who has created the current version there are all kinds of other resources you can use (help from other editors, RFC, or arbitration if it gets really heated). Go ahead and boldly do the rewrite.--Isotope23 14:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good point. Should this AfD remain open now that I've started it? I'll do a brief rewrite either way. Meanwhile, I've boldly redirected Ban on Jonang to Jonang for the time being. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I set it back to a stub for you to start editing it, since it seems like you wanted to start from scratch.--Isotope23 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Keep, don't merge. The Ban on Jonang article has been deleted (properly), so the merge discussion is outmoded. Nat, I've started the rewrite stub. As we known, Taranatha is a major scholar and deserving of his own page. That is, one that is actually about him and not a crazy rant. Sylvain1972 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please just delete this completely distorted POV page: this is not a biography of Taranatha as it is supposed to be and the so called "Ban on Jonang" has not been enforced for over 300 years, it is simply very, very old news. By the way, the "ban on Jonang" page was deleted for the same reasons, but certainly Taranatha deserves his own page without this nonsense! rudy 20:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, don't merge. I think this is probably something that should be expanded into its own article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Marimba[edit]

Probable Hoax or Original Research. This article cites no sources that prove the existence of such a character, even within mythological bounds. Instead, all sources (including [55]) point to information about Marimba the instrument. Ziggurat 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure it's a hoax, see this for example. It's definitely original research though: "Dr. Michael Sisson came to the same conclusion that I have regarding the morphology of the names, however I took it one step further by picking out the actual root of the word, which would be imba." And, the lead is written in a metaphorical, unencyclopedic style. The anonymous author has made many contributions, and is actually editing today. So, I'm inclined to believe it just needs some serious cleanup and referencing. Brillig20 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That link states at the bottom that "It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Marímbula." ,so I'm more likely to think that it came from this article than the reverse. It may be possible that this article refers to a specific mythological figure, but currently there are no sources that can back that up. If sources can be found, fantastic! Ziggurat 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I left a note on the author's page. If he doesn't reply & with references, then I agree with deletion. Brillig20 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something consistent which refers to her as an African legend. The article does have some references, just not web ones; the book by Paul Berliner for example. But, I'm not sure if it's worth chasing that down, because the article isn't suitable at present anyway. Brillig20 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a reference in this book: [56]. Seems like it's a real name, just an unsuitable article, as you say. I'm unsure what the best course of action is in this case. Ziggurat 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Humansdorpie 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. The 'etymology' is very tongue-in-cheek and uninformed. The part about the queen is unverifiable, although I am aware that the term 'Marimba' has been applied to an ethnic group in Africa (not in Tanzania, however, but in eastern Zambia/western Malawi; cf. Langworthy 1971). — mark ✎ 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mark--Aldux 15:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. HappyCamper 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Park Concrete[edit]

Nonnotable company; 241 Google hits (212 without Wikipedia and mirrors). tregoweth 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value or obvious significance. Ande B 00:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's significant in the context of Marvin Heemeyer, the guy who fortified a bulldozer and knocked down half a town. Apparently, it all started because of a rezoning involving this company.[57] Possibly redirect to the Heemeyer page, but I'd say leave it as a stub to service that page with a bit more detail. Brillig20 00:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Marvin Heemeyer. This article only seems to be relevant within the Marvin Heemeyer story, not on its own. --Elkman - (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's significant in the context of Marvin Heemeyer... So significant it's not even mentioned in the article. Besides, even if so, it's significant ONLY in the context of Marvin Heemeyer. Nothing to merge, so Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing to say & nothing to merge Pete.Hurd 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was All Deleted. Tawker 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skin care, Skincare, Body oil, Body Lotion, Vera Ross[edit]

Delete Vanity spamvertising page. Prod removed without comment by author. Gwernol 17:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I added Skincare, which has the same content. bikeable (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Adding Body oil, which has identical content. Delete all, which claim to be about general topics but are pure advertising, without an attempt to be encyclopedic. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also add Body Lotion which is the same article text again. Gwernol 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Add Vera_Ross same text again. Gwernol 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete all as spamvertisement. Vera Ross is the only one with a claim, but while her brand name (Verissima) may be notable, I see no evidence that she is. bikeable (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unabased advertising under the name (but not guise) of a general topic. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as advertising. Matt Eason 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, spam - but we should have articles on skin care and body oil. BD2412 T 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Concur, but we don't. Should skin care be a redir to Dermatology do you think? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or improve to be actual useful articles. Tzepish 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - I searched and couldn't find anthing en google. Tawker 08:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manav Ratti[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but there was a claim of notability. Reading this makes me think there's something worth considering. At the moment, I'm neutral. No vote. Rob 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tawker ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karnook[edit]

Nonsense involving aliens. phh (t/c) 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist List[edit]

non-notable Tony Bruguier 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB, I suppose, although there are other categories into which one might place this; it is, in any case, non-notable. Joe 04:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per WP:WEB, Alexa ranking of 48,278 [58] --TBC??? ??? ??? 05:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but preserve the information as an external link at linguistics. The site itself is a pretty good link repository. Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge per Smerdis. I agree that it's a good website, but all this article is is a weblink. RGTraynor 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete add link at linguistics Funky Monkey 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Smerdis, but be sure to add the link to Linguistics--WilliamThweatt 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure thought i would point out the LinguistList was responsible for the creation of the ancient language codes that are now part of ISO639-3....also a powerful player in the online linguistic world. just saying... Hospitalhill 03:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was once one of the giants of the internet, and is the website for linguistic information sharing and discussion. Of course, this isn't reflected in the article as is, but it should be. --Drmaik 16:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I only know about the project because of ISO 639-3 and feel this alone is reason enough to mention them in wikipedia, so I've extended and wikified the article a little to reflect this and to make it a little more viable as a true article/stub and notable per WP:WEB. Others may want to improve on the article and add info on other activities of the project. Cheers nl:Pudding4brains
  • Keep based on new info.-Polotet 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was substantially changed towards the end of the discussion, indicated by the line. To generate a fair result I am relisting this on today's AfD page. Thryduulf 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ISO 639-3. If the material is expanded, it can be split into a separate article again. Peter Grey 05:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The mailing list is used by prominent linguists worldwide. A quick search to Google Scholar yields 652 results, including mentions in many academic papers [59]. Ziggurat 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

It was speedy deleted in Aug 2012, but then restored. There were 700 incoming links at the time. — kwami (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger Fanniness[edit]

Non-notable Neologism (contested prod). --rehpotsirhc 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this could be a one-liner in another article. Sulfur 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't add as "one-liner" in any other article. Neologistic nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism & POV article, WP:NPOV violation.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete What have the Canadians got against this? A word of warning: just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it's nonsense - the attitude displayed by Killer Chihuahua seems to be a good example of blogger fanniness. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.144.120 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete - Agree with the above poster. It isn't POV when it has become something of an online phenomenon - not nearly as prevalent in the printed media, and perhaps caused by people hiding behind their computers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.75.65.14 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment - To the two posters above (if you actually are two distinct people): please read WP:NEO. Also, you might want to be advised that the sudden appearance of anonymous, combatively-phrased keep votes in rapid succession is pretty much gauranteed draw the ire of established editors and doom an article to deletion. --rehpotsirhc 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the first poster above - I'm not sure how you put your name on this, hence the anonymity, but I can categorically state that I did not place the second post up. I also think that there is something scary and very wrong with your answer - are you seriously saying that the veracity of Wikipedia is based on whether posts on a debate make established editors angry? Is that the proper way to go about things? I apologise if my post was "combatively-phrased" I was merely noting the irony of one of the prodelete posts virtually proving the case of blogger fanniness!
  • Comment I actually left the second of the two "Don't Delete" votes above, and just forgot to sign. I know people who have had perfectly good Wiki articles deleted without even a vote taking place - therefore the whim of one particular admin decided the fate of an article. I already had this 'Fanniness' article removed within 1 minute of being posted -with no vote - a couple of weeks ago, and decided to try the community once again. It looks like I'll lose this particular vote but at least the due process is being carried out on this occasion. --Gashdot
  • Delete, for all the above reasons. 137.28.94.22 17:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:BALLS. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, non-encyclopedic Pete.Hurd 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking Kitty Corner[edit]

Delete I apologise if I have judged this wrongly, but this is just an amateur film with no notability. Completely nn. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sum total of encyclopaedic notability revealed by this article: none at all. Just zis Guy you know? 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Average viewers range between 500-1000 per week. Wiki article has been requested by viewers. RSS feed currently ranks 59th in a major vlog directory that includes well known vloggers Steve Garfield, Michael Verdi, and Josh Leo. Was recently linked on Rocketboom, a vlog averaging 200,000 daily viewers.Pdelongchamp 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, unless you can tell me what part of WP:WEB this site satisfies. Those external links are nothing more than mirror sites. RGTraynor 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I you're reffering to Rocketboom as a mirror site, you may be approaching this from an old media perspective. Vloggers are part of an online community and often share content with others as well as feature content from others. This is made possible by Creative Commons copyright licences.Pdelongchamp 21:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We know. They remain globally insignificant, just like almost all bloggers. Just zis Guy you know? 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was responding RGTraynor's comment. I don't believe your comment adds anything to or even addresses the missunderstanding upon which I was trying to clarify. In any case, please try to be more specific in your comments. Your blanket statement calling all vloggers globally insignificant is negative and, more importantly, incorrect.Pdelongchamp 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is indeed negative, but especially in an area of Wikipedia where we decide whether articles are worth keeping, few of us would buy into the inference that Negative = Evil. As to whether it is correct, hm. Can you name us a few globally significant vloggers? As in "recognized by the mass media" or by the populace at large? The overwhelming majority fail Google checks, and you'd think that they'd fly above the radar there, if nowhere else. RGTraynor 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The medium is still very new and terminology has yet to be standardized. Cooking Kitty Corner could fall into the categories of Video Podcasts, Video Blogs, and Internet TV to name a few. Here are a few references relating to your question.
              • In addition to these references, Rocketboom, currently one of the most popular vlogs found on the internet recently reported having 200,000 daily viewers. The vlog also made headlines when it earned $40,000 in eBay auction, promising five 15-second ad spots to ATM maker TRM.
                • Rocketboom, as well as host Amanda Congdon's personal blog, has featured and linked Cooking Kitty Corner content and its website.
              • Regarding what you said about being negative, you raise a perfectly good point. What I should have said is that your comment wasn't constructive. Frankly, I was insulted when I read it. Blanket statements are often perceived as an attack and rarely add any valuable argument to a debate.Pdelongchamp 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Mm, I think you're missing the thrust of our discussion in tying your thesis together, although if this was the proper venue for a debate on its merits, I wouldn't compare podcasts to radio stations, but to the number of programs on radio stations, which is far less of a superficially impressive ratio. Be that as it may, none of the above addresses in which fashion Cooking Kitty Corner satisfies the criteria under WP:WEB. An argument based around why we should find Rocketboom notable, and therefore CKC must be notable because its content is linked on Rocketboom, is circular at best. RGTraynor 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I agree and understand that radio stations aren’t easily compared to podcasts. I was thinking the same thing as I read the article (stations vs programs). Can you please, however, address the fact that I responded to your question? I find it confusing that in response to my answer, you question the appropriateness of the venue. As for Rocketboom, I’m not arguing its notability. Rocketboom is notable. Therefore, Cooking Kitty Corner having been the subject of Rocketboom, whose source is independent of CKC, reveals notability. Pdelongchamp 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have double checked Guy's math and concur.. zero. In the off chance that we are both in error, please at least clean it up. I find Cooking Kitty Corner non-notable; I find the article itself substandard (How the hosts met: Kim and Pat met in highschool and became roomates in December of 2004.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been cleaned up and now reveals notability. Pdelongchamp 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topic is notable. Information has been added regarding it's reaching rank 98 in iTunes Music Store's Top Podcasts category containing 10 000s of audio and video podcasts. Pdelongchamp 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape quests[edit]

Delete Users have expressed their concerns as to how useful this page is due to the website itself recently releasing this. Technically though it is just a game guide and hence should be removed for that reason as well. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete game guide. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transwiki to WikiBooks, if they want it. Jkelly 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm a MMORPG player myself, and this kind of information proliferates on dozens of websites. How well-written or useful it is doesn't change that I'm waiting to see what's encyclopedic about it. RGTraynor 20:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that's what Wikibooks is for. --Ixfd64 21:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Move to WikiBooks. RedWolf 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge Kotepho 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Reale[edit]

Per WP:BIO we have articles for holders of significant offices. That does not include real-0estate agents who failed to be elected to office, and the offices listed in WP:BIO are all well above the highest level achieved by this person, namely city counillor. He failed in his bid for the (still IMO insignificant) office of mayor. So until WP:BIO is amended to include serial losers runners-up, I say non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election and redirect; the subject is surely insufficiently notable to merit an article. Joe 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I hope the real estate biz works out for him. RGTraynor 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I wouldn't object to a merge if others feel there is sufficient verifiable encyclopaedic information to merge. Thryduulf 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This guy came in 2nd, with 34% of the vote. The NDP candidate, Simon Strelchik, who got 8%, survived an AfD last week. IMO we should delete all losing candidates unless they have genuine notability, but somehow it seems wrong to delete this guy and not Strelchik. Fan1967 02:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Simon Strelchik's afd was closed as no consensus, the debate was filled with sockpuppets and allegations of sockpuppets so I wouldn't cite it as precedent for anything! Thryduulf 09:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following some nonsense this morning, the Strelchik article has been deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then Delete this one, too. Fan1967 16:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Joe, or Delete. Ardenn 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Joe, Merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per numerous precedents set. Luigizanasi 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Joe. Ground Zero | t 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compress to a redirect and Merge. CJCurrie 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While it is interesting that he assaulted Mario Racco, that does not warrant an article. It should be merged with 2006-election Conservative candidates (or whatever the specific title is), perhaps with the briefest of bios. Theonlyedge 20:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Theonlyedge is a sockpuppet of Pm_shef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CopperTopOnTheEdge (talk • contribs) .
    • Cut it the f*ck out, right now. There is no evidence that this is the case, and you will kindly stop stalking him to assert it every time he opens his mouth. Bearcat 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we keep getting articles on random Canadian election candidates? Merge to a list of candidates. Stifle (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because people keep creating them during the campaign (even for candidates who don't have a prayer) and then they're left behind when the campaign's over. Fan1967 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above Pete.Hurd 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge. Precedent has already been established here. Bearcat 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (to delete); hence, keep. Joe 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics Proponency Office Internship[edit]

Contested PROD. The article's subject is a Department of Defense internship; it is, it should be said, broader in scope that a traditional internship, inasmuch as the program seems designed to produce career employees. Nevertheless, the program is non-notable and the level of information in the article unencyclopedic. A merge to the relevant defense agency might be considered, but I don't think such disposition to be appropriate; hence, delete.Joe 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In view of my own inclinations and the suggestion of KillerC, I've moved the article to Logistics Proponency Office and refactored it such that the topic is no longer an obscure internship. The article, I readily admit, is altogether shoddy, if only because the original provided very little detail on which to go (though it also seems exceedingly difficult to find much good info on the Office), but I think it's now encyclopedic enough that I can support weak keep (the "weak" qualifier is because I'm not certain that the Office is sufficiently notable and think it probable that we should merge into Transportation Corps, but I also find that we've a ton of articles on similarly-styled offices within divisions within corps for the United States Army, so there's no clear answer...) Joe 17:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this training brochure. I would say salvage what can be salvaged and move to Logistics Proponency Office, but there's not enough here which isn't Internship specific to make a stub out of. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Joe. Very good nomination. -- Kjkolb 09:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominate keeping this entry. This is a very good entry, and very informative. With the new changes, I think this website is very informative and should remain - --155.217.1.34 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although possibly trim. I think it's a little messy, but not unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The new version is substantially different from that I nominated for deletion, so I wouldn't be altogether opposed to "keep"; nevertheless, the internship should not be the title or focus of the article. Might you support a move to Logistics Proponency Office and a cleanup such that the article focuses on the ostensibly notable agency, as against the internship? Joe 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Nlu (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofor[edit]

per WP:CORP, maybe even WP:VAIN (see username of the original author) Dijxtra 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, less than 100 entries in Google for "Kristofor travel company", and a good portion of that seems to be spam Google Search. Lankiveil 13:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 18:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobstars[edit]

Delete. Unimportant little street gang (25-50 members according to the article itself). Was prod-ed by Jahiegel earlier, but notice was removed without assertion of notability. discospinster 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and as nn. Joe 18:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as probable hoax. Only two directed G-hits, one to a fantasy baseball site and one (??) to a Hungarian WoW site. Nothing off the IPD gang warning site. RGTraynor 19:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was going to tag the article as a possible hoax, but since MadMax, a prolific contributor to many organized crime-related articles here, added categories to the article, I assumed he thought the gang to be legitimate; it's altogether possible, of course, that the tagging was pro forma, in which case the article might well be about a hoax. (I've modified this comment; for some reason, I thought Max to have been the article's creator earlier.) In any case, fantasy baseball can be competitive; I can imagine myself rounding up some friends and undertaking a drive-by shooting if a fellow participant claimed off waivers a player whom I wanted. Joe 20:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT advert site for nn gangs and promotion of their activities.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out (website)[edit]

Article is exclusively POV and unreferenced claims about size: "The website is probably one of the most influential gay community sites (certainly in the UK where it has most of its members)" " The main differentiator of the site is the organization of events that take place in the real world and the emphasis on friendship." " the largest social networking club for gay people in the UK. The site is free of charge for casual use, and provides member profiles, a messaging system..." " involved with a number of charitable causes" "The site now has around 50,000 active members, and claims rapid growth." Reads like an advertisement. My vote Delete - Glen T C 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can track down a reference for the membership numbers, but this can't be checked without access to some very sensitive information from the site owners I would imagine. It isn't exclusively POV, the feature list is factual, the date of inception is factual. As another member has stated, the Alexa ratings are factual. The info about SING is factual. None of this is POV. I would also draw your attention to the article Out (magazine) that is written in an almost identical style, with more hype! I'n not suggesting that a bad article is kept because there are similar ones on wikipedia, but a consitant approach is needed. The website site is a genuinely important one with a history (especially) in the UK which is pretty much unique. Many of the 50,000 members would vote for the entry to stay I'm confident.David scholefield 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fantastic, if they vote then it stays, that's the idea! And while I agree that its Alexa rank of 35,000 is respectable, as it is the article reads like a PR release or commercial... All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! Maybe a rewrite is in order.. remember this is an ongoing process, if you improve the article then everyone's happy :) - Glen T C 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are also misunderstanding POV - if I wrote an article about me that just talked about how much money I had, how big my house is, how many BMW's I own and my Black Amex card - it could all be factual (no in my case it's not but you know what I mean) but only shows MY POV. The article needs balance. Hope this helps. - Glen T C 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'POV and unreferenced claims' is emotive and suggests that my article is not substantiated. The point I'm making is that the membership figures can not be completely substantiated beyond the owner's claims and common sense arbitration through personal experience. The remainder is my POV, but is also factual (as is the case with most scientific theories if you want to get philosophical about the nature of fact). In some ways the comments about it being a bit like an advertisement I agree with, and a re-write is probably a good idea. This is a long way from immediate deletion though isn't it?David scholefield 14:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David currently the article IS unsubstantiated. And unreferenced is certainly not emotive. And rest assured this is not 'speedy delete' and certainly not an immediate process. Let's take this to the talk page of the article as this is not the place okay? - Glen T C 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a good re-write. Article is weakly sourced and POV, but notablily is there. I think ia stub tag is more appropriate. Bah I can't figure out a strikethrough. Changing to keep due to rewrite. Still needs a stub tag hopefully for further improvement.--Tollwutig 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --Tollwutig 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have fixed the article up. Please review it. --Mboverload 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website is at least as important as other websites such as Gaydarand deserves to be included. -flaxton
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is now (note: I never saw it when it was more POV and ad-like) well-written, it is certainly no longer POV, and it asserts notability well. That's good enough for me. -- Kicking222 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I didnt see the article at the time of AFD, but it asserts notability from a neutral POV. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.PregnancyJourneysAfterLoss.com[edit]

Seems promotion for a web site whose aim seems to be promotion of a book. I am unaware that the book or the website are notable either in their own right or have been cited by other suitable sources. David Ruben Talk 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of this compilation. The book has just been published and is being promoted. Families need support. The book is endorsed by leaders in the field: Ann Douglas, Michael Berman, MD, Michael Nettleton and Sherokee Ilse. It is currently being reviewed by PLIDA, A TIME, A Place to Remember, The Centering Corporation for inclusion on their websites, resource lists and catalogs. I am credentialled as a health educator, have testified in Washington DC on behalf of the First Candle/SIDS Alliance, and consider this book to be a useful tool to any parent facing pregnancy loss AND pregnancy after loss. Please reconsider.Elovesme99
Apparently I did this wrong. Feel free to delete. Elovesme99
Explain why it is a linkspam to list a site of support, information and education? I see there are other sites as such, also who promote and sell things, so I am unclear on what is acceptable. I was followng what others have done. Elovesme99
The spaming is the process of linking to a site/book/article/organisation that one is personally involved in or of providing a link that promotes a site, not whether or not the item is worthy in its own right. The support group would be appropriate to refer to if reliable 3rd parties have indicated its notability, and one can thus cite that source to verify the assertion of a site being notable and thus worthy of inclusion. A link to Ford Motor Company is pemitted because the company is notable and one can cite newspapers announcing their first construction of cars using assembly line techniques, dominance in car sales etc to verify this claim. My local garage might be unusally cheep and efficient, but having no sources to cite that this is the case, it will never have an article about it, nor a link to its welcoming website. I'm sure the boundaries of wikipolicies are hard to define and judgement needs be used on a case-by case basis. Equally I'm sure some articles have been less well checked for adhering to policies than others - hopefully in time all articles will be of consistant standards. If you encounter obvious breaches, then just as any user, you may edit that part of an article, raise a discussion on its talk page or nominate the whole article as failling to meet wikipedia criteria for inclusion. I agree there are quite a lot of polices to become familiar with, so observe how other discussions discuss these or related topics and feel free to continue asking questions :-) David Ruben Talk 15:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede as it's obvious I've made some mistakes. I hope judgement on the part of the Wiki-ers improves over time and that people who make suggestions about deleting something might be credentialled, or at the very least, would have experienced something to know about it. I would never write about having a vasectomy because it's not something I have or can experience. I appreciate Dr. Rubens and the administrators remarks on how to do things and how to improve the article/website etc for inclusion on Wiki, but some of the other people really shouldn't preach what they cannot practice. Elovesme99

Comment. That is all irrelevant. The article is an advertisement and does not belong here. ... discospinster 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. SushiGeek 07:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-Hood[edit]

This time appears to assert enough notability to survive a CSD, so I removed the CSD tag. I have insufficient knowledge in the area, however, to judge whether it should be deleted, so I'll put it to an AfD. Neutral. --Nlu (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be kept.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack, non-notable, and nonsense. --Nlu (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Vicary[edit]

vanity, non-notable, tc, sos Rklawton 19:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I think a {{db-bio}} tag would have been a better choice. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G's Company[edit]

Non-notable web comic. Google search for "G's Company" sees only 287 hits, few (if any) have to do with the article's topic. The article is also poorly written. -- Scientizzle 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn/vanity. --Andrew c 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: another nn web comic. --Hetar 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Umar[edit]


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

The result of the debate was CSD A7. Tawker 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blumlein records[edit]

Delete - non-notable record label. Also this is definitely vanity/spam (the article creator is owner of the label). Wickethewok 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dulwich college debating society[edit]

  • Delete this was utter nonsense, a vanity article written by somebody involved in this school club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bensonby (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Improper nom, fixed. No sources, not much notability described. Kotepho 19:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a 'vote'. Kotepho 16:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was smerge - Liberatore(T) 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bands of Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School[edit]

Was tagged for speedy with the reason "noteability" [sic], but article does claim notability so refered here. No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable club/music group. Joe 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant info should be included in the Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High School article, but I can't see any conceivable reason whatsoever for their past repertoire to be included. Can't see much point in a redirect either (can we merge and delete?) Average Earthman 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As is discussed here and here, "merge and delete" is a theoretical possibility, inasmuch as contribution history can be preserved, as is required by the GFDL; the process is, though, it seems, time- and patience-consuming, and so it is looked upon with disfavor. I do agree that a redirect wouldn't serve much purpose, but that's likely the way we'll have to go in the event that "merge" is supported (I would have suggested a "merge", but I think that most of the information on the band page is unencyclopedic; if the article is deleted, relevant information can surely be gleaned from the school's webpage and inserted into the article about the school writ large). Joe 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to the school. Stifle (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, do not keep. Vegaswikian 06:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John D'Agata[edit]

This article is a mixture of biography and likely slander. It might possibly be saved, but the subject may not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. It was put up for speedy deletion, but this was contested on the discussion page. No vote. gadfium 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think D'Agata should be considered "notable." He's simply a brilliant writer, and has made important contributions to creative nonfiction. At best, he's often credited with inventing the "lyric essay" (this isn't true; it's a form with a long tradition, but the fact that the misattribution is so prevalent [read a profile of him that doesn't mention it] is testament to his role in renewing the essay as literature. At worst, he's won major awards (a PEN) and regularly travels the country because he's in demand as a lecturer, workshopper, and general bright young thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.56.250.181 (talk • contribs) .

Keep - I think it needs cleanup, rather than deletion. There may be hoax elements to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.93.48 (talk • contribs) .

  • Speedy Delete nonsense, no context, nn.Bridesmill 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROFTEST; possible attack page. Bucketsofg 23:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete the nonsense. I believe he satisfies the notability criteria "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" [61] -- he has several books listed at Amazon ([62]). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments by Fang Aili. -- Kicking222 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cho[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person; Google search of "sam cho"+painter brings up no relevant hits. Speedy delete notice was removed with no changes. discospinster 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monitory


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 03:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger McCartney[edit]

Prod tag removed with no reason given. Google search for ""Roger McCartney" "Message from Mars"" (which a former version of this article gave as the title of his column) turns up 3 unique hits, all from the same site. This article reads like an ad, too. Icarus 20:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I don't think there's enough to justify WP:BIO right now. Maybe if the caveman book becomes popular -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 21:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. The article reads like a press release from the subject's agent.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—the preceding comment is by David Janes - 18:40, 20 April 2006: Please sign your posts!

  • Delete. The Caveman book is self-published by an online vanity press. His column does not 'appear' in the US metro- ONE of his columns HAS appeared, not in the print version, but on rather what seems to be the online repository for reader's contributions (see here) the 'Metroblog'. A google search for "Woman magazine" "roger mccartney" returns 3 hits- all of them self-contributed to the vanity press website. The above contributor- User: David Janes - is the author of the article and sole material contributor. His only edits are to Roger McCartney. Roger needs to cut into his savings and get himself a better agent. DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. Badgerpatrol 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that the whole purpose of Wikipedia was that of an encyclopaedia. So that if someone was interested in finding out who Roger McCartney is - and judging by the news articles quoted above - he has some notability, then they could use Wikipedia to look him up and find out more about him. The question is is this person notable? The facts are he writes for "Woman" Magazine, readership 1.2 million. He writes for Metro newspaper - IN THE PRINT EDITION! He has a book out, self-published or not and he broadcasts on radio and TV in the UK. —the preceding comment is by David Janes - 17:21, 22 April 2006: Please sign your posts!
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Tawker 08:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedy deleted under CSD A7

Musical group "The Popular Front"[edit]

Delete. Vanity page. Lacks Notability, not Verifiable --metzerly 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Tawker. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chasen Simmons[edit]

nn student, negligible google results, Delete --Colonel Cow 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 08:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible as myth[edit]

Content Fork of The Bible and History. Clinkophonist 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Deleted (and transwikied to Yellowisis). Tawker 08:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern contracts[edit]

Just an advert. Wikipedia is not dmoz. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Cell Imaging Labs[edit]

Advertising (as per creators user name if nothing else). See also duplicate article now turned to redirects at DCI Labs, Dci labs and Dcilabs. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: nn spamvertisements. --Hetar 21:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of this spam! Grafikm_fr 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad, non-notable —Veyklevar 00:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from author The background for putting DCI Labs here, was that the competitor, Cellomics, is here. Have a look at that site please, and tell me why that one is okay. Thanks. Martin, DCI Labs, 00:11, 22 April 2006 (CET) User:87.64.129.254
  • Comment They claim to be the inventor of the technology, so that's a claim of notability. Being a competitor of the inventor of a technology is not a claim of notability. Also, the article is written as an encyclopedic entry about the company and its processes, rather than a huge free advertisement. Finally, the article is in one place and not dotted all over our encyclopedia, something that puts peoples' collective backs up as it is spamming, pure and simple. Hope this explains the differences. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Poor man's Michael Jordan" and Poor man's Michael Jordan[edit]

Unconfirmed neologism. Also, see WP:NOT. Delete. --Hetar 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mister Five 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- Grafikm_fr 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. frymaster 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —GrantNeufeld 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; see also duplicate at poor man's Michael Jordan, which I had already prodded (and since linked to this afd). Not even a neologism; too generic and commonplace to say "poor man's X" as a comparison that it's not in any way a new or distinct phrase. Postdlf 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. as per above. --Strothra 20:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Deleteper nom. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel § 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Spriter's Resource[edit]

Obviously a small group bigging emselves up. Read the discussion page for this article to see what I mean. -- Willrobbo 21:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless ad and meme... Grafikm_fr 22:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Grafikm_fr. Wikipedia is not pt.uga-q.net. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, non-encyclopedic. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne: Payne & Redemption[edit]

I am quite puzzled by this extraordinary level of uptightness from what I USED to regard as an easy-going, well run online resource. This small page can hardly be doing any damage to the massive, global servers of the almighty Wikipedia. Since its inception, the page has generated a lot of interest from fans of Max Payne and is a useful source of publicity for the film, so I am genuinely disappointed that it has been "nominated for deletion" - I mean, how anally-retentive can a website be that they would deny a small, independent film (which will be available in the US!) the tremendous benefits of a mere page on this resource. So go ahead, you sad, petty, arrogant, self-righteous, stuck-up faggots - delete the page - prove to the world once again that you can 'stick it to the little guy', that there is no help out there for up-and-coming film makers, for independent films. Well done, you've won and I hope it feels great - now go home and boil some babies or something. Oh, and seeing as you're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, you should appreciate the need for correct grammar - "and 131 Google results, coupled with being rejected 5 times from IMDb don't really help the case" - "doesn't really help the case.", thank you very much.

Wikipedia does not exist for the purposes of being "a useful source of publicity" for anything. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you're wrong about your grammatical correction: since "131 google results" is a plural noun phrase, it is properly conjugated with "do", not "does". --Saforrest 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "131 Google results" is understood to mean "the fact of '131 Google results'"; I don't imagine that's the intended meaning, though... Joe 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, kids, this is what we who follow internet phenomena call an "YOU ALL SUCK KTHNXBYE" post. According to some historians - research is still ongoing - it was conjectured to be first used by some annoyed college student in 1980s in the Usenet and everyone just laughed at it then. It has since shown no increase in net effect, in fact, it still fails to register as any kind of criticism that would cause any real effect on Internet communities. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a huge fan of Max Payne, and this movie looks good, we unfortunately cannot have movies on Wikipedia that do not pass our notability standards, and 131 Google results, coupled with being rejected 5 times from IMDb don't really help the case. When the movie is released and is more than speculative (in addition to being notable), then the article may be re-written, provided it passes the Wikipedia guidelines. Until then, this article is not permitted to be on Wikipedia Mysekurity [m!] 14:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Comment on the page deletion by James Hampstine :

Personaly, as a Fan of the Max Payne universe I am exited at the prospect of it being brought to life in this indipendant movie. I think its a shame to delete the page. You talk about notability. Well this is the first serios independant film based in the Max Payne universe. And since Max Payne has quite a large following around the world I think that is a pretty notable thing. As well as having people who are working on the film who are already featured on the IMDB database like Justin R. Durban & Michael Johns.I beleive the director was using a certain amount of sarcasm in his blog post on the P&R site concirning the number of times the film was submitted to IMDB. Indeed the IMDB rules state that for an independant movie it has to be finished or for there to be good proof that it will be finished before they will allow it onto the database.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.164.232 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2006


Comment on the page deletion by James Hampstine : Third party sources. OK How about on Both of Justin R. Durban's websites Here: http://www.justindurban.com/credits.html and Here: http://www.edgen.com/music/projects.html . Justin R. Durban is a well known and respected score composer and is not going to attach himself and his name to somthing that isn't going to happen.

An interview with the director Here: http://www.paynereactor.com/articles/view_12/page_1/

Not to mention all the sites around the internet where this film is being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.164.232 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 April 2006

Hey there, James! Note that I've got nothing against this movie (save for the fact that it won't be out in the States -_- ), but in order to keep Wikipedia from being overrun with descriptions of non-notable Star Wars and Star Trek fan films, Geocities sites or other things that haven't had a big impact on culture aren't really allowed here. What Saberwyn was talking about was that a reliable source would be the Chicago Sun or some other paper, or a seriously notable website like Aint It Cool News, and not someone's blog or a small-time (albeit useful) site like Paynereactor.com. This isn't in offense to you, and once the movie comes out and it has an IMDb page and all that good stuff, the article may be re-created. As an administrator, I have the ability to view deleted pages, and would be more than willing to help you re-write this. Good luck with the shooting, Mysekurity [m!] 23:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. When you post something to a talk page, make sure to sign it by using 4 tildes (~~~~). Also, I invite you to create an account, and stay for a little while.
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This unreleased movie is not notable or important yet. In present form it does not meet the verifiability policy, as the only cited references are to the movie's own website and a forum, neither of which meets the reliable source guidelines. When something about it has been published in mainstream newspaper, film magazine, or a place that meets the reliable source guidelines, we can have an article about it; not before. Presently, it is not even listed at imdb. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this page deletion by Cap Lorien.

The producers of this movie have already done a lot of work and I'm convinced it's going to eventually be released. As such, it belongs here like other such movies. The whole point of this site is to provide information and this is valid information. Please don't delete it.


Comment on this page deletion by Luke Morgan-Rowe, Executive Producer of Max Payne: Payne & Redemption.

OK, I now have a compelling reason, as well as my well justified moral ones, why this site should not be removed. Two seperate French websites, discovered whilst scrolling through our mere 131 google results, confuse our independent film with being the official Max Payne one - a level to which we do not wish to be lowered. We need a page on a well exposed, well respected site (or even online information resource, such as an encyclopaedia), as well as our website, to provide the general public with information about our film, so as not to create irritation and potentially serious confusion, such as the one suffered by our Gallic friends. Now I wonder where we could put a page like that?...

  • Unfortunately, Mr. Morgan-Rowe, a section of one of Wikipedia's main policies states that Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider. Combined with the criteria listed in several other policies and guidelines, including other sections of the What Wikipedia is not policy and the verifiability policy to name a few, material such as this movie should not be included here until it can be verified through the use of external, third-party sources, such as articles in newspapers or gaming/movie magazines. If such information from such sources can be provided, now or at a point in the future, I will be more than happy to stand by its inclusion, but at this point in time, I'm going to have to disagree with its inclusion. -- Saberwyn 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there is probably a consensus above, there is a lot of talk and not a lot of clearly defined votes (and one of those that is clearly defined is an anon). For this reason I am relisting this on today's afd page to gather greater input. If people could be clear and succinct when commenting this will help the closing admin greatly! Thryduulf 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saberwyn and Dpbsmith. --Saforrest 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an advertising hoarding, a free host, an indiscriminate collection of information, a crystal ball; per WP:V from WP:RS, per WP:NPOV (which we can't assess due to the previous two) and because, well, we just don't have this kind of stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 22:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the fact that IMDb won't touch this speaks volumes to this subject's verifiability and notability. --Hetar 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm a biiiiiiig Max Payne fan, but this is an indie movie that can't get itself on IMDb, has no "names" attached to it, and has not been released yet (echoing WP not being a crystal ball). While an indie Max Payne movie could be cool (An aside: does Remedy Entertainment know about it? They might have something to say, especially considering an big-studio Max Payne film is in the works.), it does not deserve a place on Wikipedia... yet. This amazing site should not be used merely for advertising purposes, and in addition, the author of the article writing a rambling, offensive rant does not do much to help his cause. -- Kicking222 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (As another aside: Well, Remedy is actually unlikely to care, since they don't own the franchise anymore -- they sold it to Take Two a couple of years back... -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Unreleased, practically unknown movie with no distribution. It's not Wikipedia's mission to help publicize it. Fan1967 02:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not actually a movie, it's one installment out of six, but more importantly the article does not establish notability nor that any substantial production work has occurred. Even Terminator 4 didn't rate its own article. Peter Grey 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a number of points in WP:NOT--blue520 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, yet another such note from a fan of Max Payne - per crystalballistic fanfilmatious existence. I won't step this up to strong delete for that "You All Suck" rant up there, now matter how tempted I am. This said, I don't mind seeing a short mention of the thing in an appropriate Max Payne article. After all, game articles (in my opinion) can have brief information on upcoming, as-of-yet unreleased mods that are far along their way, while (I think) making full articles on the aforementioned mods may be pretty ridiculous unless they're actually released. A fan movie is in this regard no different from a game mod. So I suggest condensing this thing to a mention in an article, and welcome back with a full article when the thing is actually released in any viable scale. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with wwwwolf. I would also like to add that once the movie's actually out, it may very well become a phenomenon that justifies its inclusion in Wikipedia -- it wouldn't be the first one. As it is, this is an article about a project that may or may not ever actually realize itself. Is the movie even going to be released? It may be, and I wish the best for the creators, but it's also possible that it never actually gets finished. We don't know, and we can't know, but we certainly know that if every single announced independent fan film project out there was actually made, there'd be a lot more fan films out there than there are right now. We are a not a crystal ball or an advertising platform. (Also, this is beside the point, but being called a sad, petty, arrogant, self-righteous, stuck-up faggot doesn't exactly make me full of sympathy. I only hope that the guy who wrote that rant isn't actually involved in the production of the movie itself. I like independent movies on principle, but I kind of have a problem with jackasses.) -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laclede's Lan[edit]

Two attempts the speedy delete this article were quickly reverted by the page creator. Thus this needs a little more protection through the AfD process. Reason: all google/yahoo links don't really show any reason for notability, other than it's a LAN party group based in Missouri, is this notable? The suspicious reverts makes me think not. I put it to the Wikipedians.

  • Nominated and Delete Bobak 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Judging by Category:LAN parties, this particular LAN party seems NN/vanity/BIO.--Andrew c 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for utter lack of notability and spamvertising. -- Kicking222 23:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Jew[edit]

lack of importance or veracity. only supported by one source, and even that appears to be dubious. has been prod'd, but prod was removed by cynical in favour of an importance and cleanup tag. frymaster 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7. Tawker 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ackroyd[edit]

This article appeared and I posted a DB-bio, then the article creator deleted it without disputing the claim (always suspicious). Now that I see its still around, I still don't see notability. Google search and Yahoo search turn up different people under the same name. this appears to be using Wikipedia's great ties to search engines to get some free publicity. With the protection of the AfD process, I put it to Wikipedians.
*Nominated and Delete -- Bobak 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This person's only claims to notability are associations with less than notable websites. --Hetar 08:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as empty article. --Nlu (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAD Monkey[edit]

Non-notable dicdef, if that. RayaruB 16:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sonz of Acworth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band}}. The creator removing a speedy tag is not (necessarily) a reason to move to AFD, just put it back on and leave {{subst:drmspeedy}} on the creator's talk page. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonz of Acworth[edit]

Google search only has 322 hits, Yahoo 71 hits. I initially nominated this for speedy delete-band, but the creator seems to have immediately removed it. Now I throw it at the mercy of the Wikipedians. Yay (keep) or nay (delete)?
* nominated and Delete. -- Bobak 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prayerbaby[edit]

Fixing incomplete nom by Dangherous.--Isotope23 20:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

prolix inventions[edit]

Seems like a nonse term, even if Shakespeare is the "nonce". Small websearch results, and generally bad page. Dangherous 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a dictionary, and there doesn't seem to be any forseeable way to expand the content.--Andrew c 23:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No content that isn't implied by prolix and invention separately. Peter Grey 05:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - is not transwiki to wikt'able. Tawker 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pil Sung[edit]

Korean slang. Not Wikipedia stuff Dangherous 20:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not an Internet slang dictionary Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 21:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Deli nk 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems like an open-and-shut case to me; was it really necessary to re-list it? --Saforrest 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia-en is not a dictionary, let alone a Korean dictionary. Gwernol 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HID Systems Inc.[edit]

Non Notable Corp as per WP:CORP Orangutan 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Central Park. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park Conservancy[edit]

Non-notable spamvertisement for a non-profit organization. Does not meet WP:CORP. Delete. --Hetar 22:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Central Park or clean up seriously. Not really a WP:CORP case, but neither is there much to say about them. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is keepable to Central Park per JzG. If this is truly a nonprofit organisation that has a major role in the preservation and management of Central Park, it would certainly pass any notability requirement I could think of. --Saforrest 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Central Park. The Central Park Conservancy is indeed a nonprofit organization that has a major role in the preservation and management of Central Park, but it is so intertwined with the park itself that it ought to be covered in the article about Central Park. --Metropolitan90 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy (already transwikied). – Will (E@) T 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Historical Society: Its Origin and History[edit]

Transwikied to wikisource - here Habap 19:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Stifle (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Southern Historical Society. WP is not a primary source, so the transwiki to wikisource was a good move. Now we just need to redirect this article to the main article, and merge any relevent content.--Andrew c 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to Conservative Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cooper[edit]

A golf camp owner. Oh and by the way he stood for election. And lost by ten thousand votes. I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK blizzard, 2006[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a notable meteorological event, and the article as it stands is two Met Office/BBC weather reports advising of heavy snow and some links to stories about school closures (which are commonplace during extreme weather). Taken to AFD rather than prod as I was not in the UK when it occurred and I may be underestimating its importance or severity. Canley 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Canley 23:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Snowfall conditions like this happen each and every year in Scotland. This one isn't remembered a few weeks later, let alone in years to come. --BillC 00:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. No big deal. --mervyn 12:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BillC. Stifle (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Carmichael[edit]

Non-notable wrestler. Pugs Malone 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD A7. Krimpet (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra protection project[edit]

Ultra protection project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

518 Google links, and only 44 not-similar. Notable? - Sikon 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --ais523 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN: this is just one script out of the zillons available for mIRC. Tearlach 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7, the article does not assert any notability. -- lucasbfr talk 15:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. No notability asserted. Tagged as such. DarkAudit 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_20&oldid=1081094015"