Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

Purge server cache

April 23[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of remote administration tools[edit]

Delete because Category:Remote administration software already fulfills this role quite adequately without constantly attracting commercial spam. AlistairMcMillan 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Totally agree with nom. I don't mind lists if they contain other information, but this has nothing to separate it from the category. - Hahnchen 00:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft--TBC??? ??? ??? 00:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary article. - Richardcavell 01:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list, but I can think of a handful that aren't on this list or in this cat. Kotepho 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 02:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; per nom — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. History page shows that commercial links have had to be removed often. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- spam magnet, listcruft and there's already a category doing an adequate job. The El Reyko 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Thorpe | talk 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 20:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom said it all. TH 09:02, 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 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboy Almanac (webcomic)[edit]

You can take a look at this webcomic here. This is not a popular nor notable webcomcic, it fails to attain an Alexa rank and the forums that they share with another comic manages around 75 members, which incidentally is roughly how many hits "Fanboy Almanac" achieves at Google. There is nothing to suggest that this webcomic is any different from the plethora of websites out there, this is not notable. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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 08:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sins (webcomic)[edit]

Yet another webcomic , this one can be seen here. Wikipedia is not a web mirror, the reams and reams of crufty material in this article should be on their website. This website is not notable, Alexa comes back with over 500,000, their forums have less than 90 members. A search on Google for sins venials (the webcomic name being Sins: Venials) comes back with 60 hits. About as notable as a dodgy prescription-meds sales website, which is to say, not at all. - Hahnchen 00:08, 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 closed, Tuesday at 8.30. DS 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday at Ten[edit]

Another random non notable webcomic which has made it to Wikipedia's infamous List of webcomics. Around for less than a year, this webcomic gets an Alexa rank of 500,000. Googling the phrase "sunday at 10" is obviously going to be useless as it'll bring up countless TV listings, so I tried a search for "sunday at ten" "wes david" (david being the author) and that came back with 10 scorching links. Using the figure 10 instead didn't help and a search using the name of the other author, "don stevens" fared even worse. - Hahnchen 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm Webcomic[edit]

A webcomic which ran for about 18 months during 2001 and 2002 and can still be seen here. According to the article, it was "moderately successful", what does that even mean? What sort of context or frame of reference are they using? I googled up the author and the webcomic, by searching for "Aaron Littleton" paradigm. It came back with 18 links. And look! The top link is to Wikipedia at Aaron Littleton, which is why this is a multiple nomination. - Hahnchen 00:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy Sunday Afternoons[edit]

Non-notable (student?) film. Doesn't even appear in IMDB. Misterwindupbird 00:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable movie --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. - Richardcavell 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Thorpe | talk 14:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above/nom.
  • Delete, before some wicked goverment finds this movie and uses it to torture people. -- Heptor talk 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Lazy Sunday Afternoon, a hit for the Toy Dolls. Just zis Guy you know? 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is the 40th Dogme 95 film. It is listed in the wikipedia entry for Dogme and on the Dogme website - http://www.dogme95.dk/dogme-films/filmlist.asp. It might be notable for this reason only, but that still makes it notable enough in my eyes. Anyway... probably a bit pointless saying this, but I thought I'd do so nonetheless --Sammysam 10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There are well over 100 Dogme films now. All that appears to be required is filling in an online form in which you state you feel your film adheres to the Dogme "vow of chastity" (which this film clearly doesn't, in any case, though few, if any, Dogme films do). According to the Dogme95 FAQ, on how to become Dogme certified: "it is all up to the new Dogme95 directors. It’s up to their conscience and personal judgement."[1] --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 19:17, 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 07:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitism (religion)[edit]

Brand-new "religion", which the article states explicitly was set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism (Infinitism has the potential to supplant Universism...). Google for "Infinitism religion haley" (to weed out a lot of false positives) gets 14 hits. Author keeps removing the {{importance}} tag, so here we are. Calton | Talk 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: a violation of WP:NFT and a nn religion. --Hetar 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Couldn't find a lot of relevant results on Google, other than of course Wikipedia and its mirror sites. --TBC??? ??? ??? 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Given the nn nature of the religion, the article will not be able to give verifiable info any time soon -- it instead becomes a vehicle to draw potential adherents. Chart123 01:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An obvious vote, since I'm the author; no, I am not David Haley. I like to peruse the philosophy portal and happened upon the article that I spun off into Infinitism (philosophy), which contained a brief sentence about Infinitism also being the name of a religion; subsequent Googling turned up Haley's site. It seemed sufficiently different from the infinitist epistomological concept to warrant a separate entry, but only a stub (which I tagged it as from the beginning). The reference to Universism was an admittedly hasty response to the first {{importance}} tag, and could be reasonably removed; the article was NOT "set up as competition for the already barely-if-that notable Universism." Application of the WP:NFT policy, since this is in reference to religion, seems odd since most people would consider any religion other than their own "things made up ... one day." I apologize if I inappropriately removed the {{importance}} tag; this is my first time creating an article (for future reference, who decides when an {{importance}} tag can be reasonably removed?). I can't respond to the "nn" comment as I am not familiar with that abbreviation. Sketch051 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, "nn" stands for "not notable" --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and "not notable" means that even if the thing exists, it is not (yet) important enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. In this case, there is very little to go on to suggest that this use of the term "infinitism" is notable, in the sense that it has meaning or significance to a large number of people. I would suggest moving infinitism (philosophy) back to infinitism (currently a disambig page), and add a few lines in that (very short) article about this alternate usage. Can't speculate that this will overtake patheism/pandeism/panendeism/whatever anymore than we can speculate that Judaism will overtake Buddhism or the like. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment,Two things: (1)If it's notable enough to be mentioned at all in the epistomological article, why is it not notable enough for its own stub (since it has nothing to do with the epistomological concept)? (2)I see the point you are trying to make about speculation, but I think the analogy (Infinitism:freethought::Judaism:Buddhism) is flawed; a more apt analogy would be Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:Early Christianity. Sketch051 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • More like Infinitism:freethought::Catholicism:(some other religious order that someone thought of, but never went anywhere and died out before anyone else adopted it). We already know what happened between Catholicism and Early Christianity, so to say that Infinitism as a religion might enjoy any kind of success is sheer speculation. I would still include a line or two in an artice on Infinitism focused on the philosophy, but I can't exactly quantify why I think it's a good idea to do so - perhaps just as an illustration that it is possible to assign another meaning to the term. BD2412 T 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The arguments in that sarcastic analogy are crossed. If you're going to be derogatory, at least do it literately. Sketch051 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I intended neither sarcasm nor derogation. I merely point out that this newly invented religion may never amount to anything, so it is improper to analogize it to a religion that we know to have temporarily overtaken the counterpart named. BD2412 T 23:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn religion, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 02:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton and Hetar. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when one of the external links has to be a blogspot, it's not a good sign. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Its like Time Cube except not notable. Roodog2k 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Domthedude001 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NFT - a nn religion. Rockpocket 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, non notable. -- Heptor talk 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article consists mainly of one editor's critique of this ahem, religion. Not only does this fall prey to WP:NOR, but even after extensive cleanup, "infinitism" would still not be notable in the least. --C S (Talk) 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Concerning the religious symbol so-called: first used by J.Wallis in mathematics in 1655. commonly used when sizes of infinity is no matter, or simply when talking of ω. ref. eg symbol for infinity. Listing the symbol as religious is somewhat "bogus". kyrre at mi.uib.no


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King William V[edit]

Speculation, possibly original research. Possibly merge this info into the current article about prince William, but until he's king and actually using this name I don't think it's worth an article Hirudo 00:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. As quoted from the article, "King William V is the name that His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales will supposedly take."--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC. Chart123 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the info in this article is either completely speculative, or it's duplicated elsewhere.- Richardcavell 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC and Terrence. SorryGuy 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: though it might be slightly misleading, it could be redirected to the prince's current article, where the title is mentioned. -- Kjkolb 07:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Preferably merge, though I can imagine most of this is already in Prince Williams article. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball. San Saba 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see why the prod was contested. Eusebeus 13:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't needed at all. --Thorpe | talk 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No point in a merge, this is speculation. --Knucmo2 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such thing as "wrongly deprodded" - just means that someone wants a discussion on a point that is not a candidate for speedy deletion (as is any editor's right). BD2412 T 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, this I understand, but with the obvious consensus this discussion is producing, there is no reason that this prod could not have resolved quietly without the extra work of the editors responsible for listing it for AFD and subsequent voting. Kuzaar 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to, then redirect. --Domthedude001
  • Delete, We'll cross that bridge when we get there. Trapper 04:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-balling. And, is there any reason for the article having been blanked? Robin Johnson 12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name used by a prince is not neccesarily the one they would use as king. For example, Charles could use William, or William could use another name, or William could die before his Dad or his Grannie, etc: ie too crystal ball-ish for inclusion. youngamerican (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: either jumping the gun or time-traveling. In this time frame, such a person with that title does not exist as of yet
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 § 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Besant[edit]

The article is full of lies. None of the albums in the discography exist and their names along with those of The Cortez Trio are complete nonsense. This article along with edits to others were created by Chinamanjoe who is Justin Besant. He is a high school student nothing more. He has never toured through Canada and The Cortez Trio is him and two friends performing at Cafe Bleu which is a school music recital. There has been continued vandalism of other pages such as Annie Besant who Chinamanjoe claims that Justin Besant is the great-nephew of. However if this were true, Justin Besant would be well over 90 years old. Also, the only record of Justin Besant is on self-editable webpages such as this and http://www.last.fm. If one were to look at his last.fm page: http://www.last.fm/music/Justin+Besant they would discover that his albums seem rediculous and all there are are a few songs he made in his spare time on his keyboard in his room. The pictures on his albums are also clearly stolen and the entire thing is obviously fake. This page was also made by Chinamanjoe. Yofoxyman 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, GBS
  • keep, fairly popular in Toronto, notable i think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.33.183 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, couldn't find anything relevant on allmusic --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I dont know who Yofoxyman man is, but he is obviously some bored kid with too much time on his hands. He has made a variety of personal attacks as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t01:08:51z
BTW, yofoxyman was banned for these posts. They are nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:05:23z
Everything "Yofoxyman" has said above is a lie. He is just making personal attacks. He for some reason has something against this artist and wants to remove the page. There is a reason he is currently banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinamanjoe (talk • contribs) 2006-04-23t02:08:41z
The above vote is by the article creator. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z
The above vote is by the nominator, banned for personal attacks. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:43z
  • Comment, I guess Cortez Trio should be nominated for deletion as well. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, hoax. --Terence Ong 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Terence Ong; unverifiable, likely a hoax. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Terence Ong and TBC. Ludicrous hoax. Nothing on allmusic. This diff is also telling, wherein Justin Besant claimed relation to [2] women's rights activist Annie Besant. I live in Toronto, and I've never heard of the Cafe Bleu. I think Justin is just a kid at UTS [3] [4] [5] -- Samir (the scope) धर्म
  • Delete per Terence Ong. Hoax and unverifiable.--Cini 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable I think. --Thorpe | talk 14:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't really understand this hoax concept. Notability, I can understand, but hoax i cannot. Is every page I create going to be considered a hoax, just becuase some wacko highschool kid said so? Is the Steve Koven page a hoax? Is the The Maytones page a hoax? Is the Vernon Buckley page a hoax? How about all those other contriubtions I have made. Are those all hoaxes as well? I think you should reconsider everything Yofoxyman has said. Remember, he is the one that is currently banned. Chinamanjoe 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, likely a hoax.JCO312 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable. I think. -74.12.80.142 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable. -74.12.120.227 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok I did some research. All IPs from the University of Toronto Schools are 142.150.33.***. In this case the following two votes are not from "the creator of the article from different school computers". They are from different computers around Toronto. Chinamanjoe 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC) the precedding two posts both made by the creator of the article from different school computers Yofoxyman 00:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Please provide a source for this statement. The preceeding two posts were made from different locations around Toronto. Not from University of Toronto Schools. Thank you.[reply]

Regarding Yofoxyman's previous statement which I have removed because it was completely false and would just be misleading. -- No, they most certainly were not! I would know, since 1) I didn't vote for them (and I am the creator) and I don't know who did. 2) those IP addresses are clearly not from the same building. 3) If you are referring to the University of Toronto Schools, which I assume you think I am from, which I am not, but anyways, those are not even the correct IP addresses, so I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement since it is completely based on speculation not fact. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it has already been proven that you are from the university of toronto schools, also, i believe that UTS's IP addresses are actually registered to UofT and not UTS. Also, why have they all been from similar IP addresses and not from actual users. I also hope you don't plan on creating new accounts just to post here. Yofoxyman 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that those IP addresses are from the University of Toronto Schools then! I think you might have some trouble, becuase as far as I am aware, I have only voted once. By similar IP addresses, I think you mean they are all addresses from the GTA (Toronto), which is where Justin Besant's fan base mainly resides. Maybe Justin Besant is more popular than you thought. Chinamanjoe 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is it a coincidence that on all pages with mention to justin besant on wikipedia that Chinamanjoe is the only one who speaks in his favour? it's not.Chinamanjoe is justin besant, there's nothing more to the story, and hes behind everything. Yofoxyman 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally consider this to be a personal attack. I am certainly not Justin Besant! You have based that on absolutely nothing. Please take it back immediately. Chinamanjoe 00:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No chance, it has already been made pretty obvious that you are Justin Besant. This, last.fm, the fact that you saved the entire justin besant page on your user page so you would still have it to put up after it was deleted. Stop denying it, everyone here knows its true. You are your biggest and only fan. And I am not saying this as a personal attack, it is a clear fact. Yofoxyman 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is libel. Please retract your statements, they have no factual basis. I would go as far as to say that they are outright lies. Thank you. Chinamanjoe 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep he's somewhat popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.166.27 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, Notable. Not a hoax. -70.29.176.91 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Justin Besant is great... well, ok he's tolerable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.134.138 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Does anyone else find it strange how all these people voting in favour of Justin Besant are making their first posts on wikipedia and that none of them have accounts? Very fishy. Yofoxyman 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, meatpuppet supported. --InShaneee 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Justin Beasant's has reached ottawa and is growing in popularity - Ottawagirl298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.231.134 (talk • contribs)
  • keep, Justin's a notable musician — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.101.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment strange how so many people suddenly started posting from IPs which have never posted on wikipedia before. can someone do an ip trace or something here? Yofoxyman 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, created by a vandal [6] , and supported by sock/meat puppets. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayonara per above. —Khoikhoi 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no evidence of notability TimBentley (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable and popular in Toronto 142.150.32.60 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Startup account 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable 142.150.32.215 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Popular, notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.215 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, released multiple albums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.216 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, big fan, keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.32.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This IP and the past few are from UTS - see chinamajoe's post 142.150.32.215 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as has released three albums and has his own website. In any case, policy isn't an end in itself, but a means to an end. I haven't seen any comments on what deleting the article will actually accomplish.--Primetime 04:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Protecting the integrity of Wikipedia is a goal worth trying to accomplish. The complete lack of any evidence to support this article in places you'd expect to find it, plus the fact that only the creator of the page and a handful of people from apparently the same ISP seem to think that this is worth saving, are enough for me to think this needs to go. JCO312 21:54, 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 Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination of a valid page. Turnstep 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed[edit]

Insignificant nobody, nn-bio, no idea why it should have an article--IPO 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete obvious soapboxing--IPO 00:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as seen below, IPO has recently been making multiple bad faith AfD nominations of notable 9/11 critics. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His book "The War On Truth" currently has an Amazon.com sales rank of 18 388[7]. The book "Running The World" by David J. Rothkopf is ranked 100 in Amazon's USA politics category [8] and has an overall Amazon.com sales rank of 15 065[9]. While some of Ahmed's book titles look like conspiracy theory stuff, he may well be notable enough for an article, tho I'm not familiar with notability practices for authors. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:05z
  • Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author by WP standards. Шизомби 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith AFD nomination. --Terence Ong 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but substantially rewrite so as to minimise/extirpate egregious POV Badgerpatrol 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a bad faith AFD nomination. Nefeez Mosaddeq Ahmed appears to be significant and notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe speedy. Meets WP:BIO, but not as much as the others. Kotepho 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, verifiably notable author and an apparent bad-faith nom. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith nomination -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; bad faith nomination. David Sneek 08:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Time-waste nomination. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up possible POV language or "weasel words" in article. Kuzaar 15:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and notable author. Also, this is clearly a bad faith nom. IrishGuy 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayalais[edit]

About a "lost" story by Tolkien, hence unverifiable. Prodded by CBDunkerson, but prod tag removed by anon. I agree fully with CBDunkerson's reasons: "The article is simply false. No such character appears anywhere in Tolkien's works. Likewise, a Google search on 'Ayalais Tolkien' returns ZERO hits and the few hits on just 'Ayalais' show no relation to Tolkien." Eric119 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if the story is supposedly "lost", one wonders how the creator of the article was able to write about it? --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable hoax. Fan fiction? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preferably speedily), nn, WP:V, WP:NOR, and quite possibly WP:NFT. Morgan Wick 09:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for previously stated reasons. --CBDunkerson 12:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Novelty and speculative. --Knucmo2 14:56, 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 keep Kotepho 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Meacher[edit]

hopeless soapbxing of non-notable persons with minority fringe POVs--IPO 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as above--IPO 01:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very notable English politician. Look at his BBC News profile [10]. Bad faith nomination from IPO against 9/11 critics. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per TBC and BBC. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:30z
  • Speedy Keep, bad-faith nom Badgerpatrol 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable politician by WP standards. Шизомби 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I am harded pressed to remember I worse nomination for deletion. --Bduke 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith AFD, notable politician. --Terence Ong 03:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cortez Trio[edit]

Delete: WP:BAND, WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t01:25z

  • Delete per nom. Nothing relevant on allmusic. --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've heard of them. I've seen them live. I own albums. What more can you ask for? Chinamanjoe 02:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, obviously you've heard of them, you're the one who created the article :P --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Besant. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-23t02:44z
  • Delete. I am afraid one user having heard of them does not satisfy WP:BAND. SorryGuy 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, high school band, nothing on allmusic.com, no major record releases indy or otherwise, fails WP:NMG -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't really understand this hoax concept. Notability, I can understand, but hoax i cannot. Is every page I create going to be considered a hoax, just becuase some wacko highschool kid said so? Is the Steve Koven page a hoax? Is the The Maytones page a hoax? Is the Vernon Buckley page a hoax? How about all those other contriubtions I have made. Are those all hoaxes as well? I think you should reconsider everything Yofoxyman has said. Remember, he is the one that is currently banned. Chinamanjoe 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fairly popular in and around Toronto 142.150.33.183 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't matter whether it is a hoax or not, the band is simply not notable enough. Chairman S. Talk 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable band. --InShaneee 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Startup account 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons that the Justin Besant page should be deleted JCO312 21:51, 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 Speedy keep Kotepho 04:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas von Bülow[edit]

questionable notability, nobody pseudosceintist, left wing activist passing herself off as an expert--IPO 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete does not meet nessesary standards of notability, article is being used to shove a fringe POV at the expense of informative research--IPO 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as he was the German Federal Ministry of Defence and Minister for Research and Technology. I have a strong feeling that IPO's recent nominations were all in bad faith, as the articles he nominated were all about critics of the 9/11 incidents [11].--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - ditto to TBC. This person is noteworthy for sure! - Richardcavell 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author, German politician. Шизомби 02:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Difficult to see this as other than POV nomination Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. SorryGuy 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, person is notable, bad faith nom based solely on persons views and not on notablility.--Jersey Devil 04:01, 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 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ribeiro[edit]

I believe this was added by Mr. Ribeiro as an advertisement for his Senate campaign. Other than the fact that he seems to be currently running for U..S. Congress, I don't see anything in here to indicate notability, as it's a general guideline that being related to notable people doesn't confer notability. Joyous | Talk 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, doesn't count as advertisement as the candidate already lost --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. US Congress candidates that win are notable. US Congress candidates that lose are not (unless of course they were notable before being a candidate, but in this case that doesn't really apply).--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that Mr Ribeiro is a losing candidate for the Republican Party primary who is standing for the Christian Party. He appears to have received 2000 votes in the primary so would be an outside chance in the election. No other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination. Unencyclopedic, non-notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks something like a badly written college application, if kept 95% of the content should be deleted. --Ajdz 05:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing of note here Deizio 12:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So vain..... please let someone else write the biography, as per Wikipedia: Autobiography. -- PFHLai 12:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is highly non-notable, running a very losing cause in the 2006 election (the 1st district in Indiana is highly liberal, I think) and with no other good claims to notability. Grandmasterka 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. By the way, his user page has the same content. - Slo-mo 07:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If radically NPOVed it might work. Startup account 21:01, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okabe Nagamori[edit]

Non notable.Two google hits http://www.google.ca/search?hl=ru&q=%22Okabe+Nagamori%22+-wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment, please remember that the Google test usually doesn't apply to articles about historical people from non-English speaking countries--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ja:岡部長盛. Appears notable enough to have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing nn. Kotepho 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability standards through Japanese wiki. Dspserpico 06:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two google hits is great for someone who's been dead for 374 years. David Sneek 08:19, 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 keep Kotepho 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Bamford[edit]

I guess anyone who attacks the president automatically gets their own article?--IPO 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete obvious misuse of article space to promote minority fringe POV and paint it as fact--IPO 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Bad faith nomination from IPO against critics of 9/11 --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with TBC. The subject of the article is notable. User:IPO is running some kind of campaign against 9/11 conspiracy theorists. - Richardcavell 02:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith WP:DISRUPT nom. Clearly notable author by WP standards. Шизомби 02:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the president of where? Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad-faith nom, nominator gives no justification for deletion in nomination. Seems to be one of a series of such nominations by this editor- admins might possibly consider some kind of sanction for disruption if the user persists. Badgerpatrol 03:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratch that (not my vote, which stands)- today appears to be the nominator's first day as an editor. I have left a note on their talk page in an attempt to explain the process a bit better. Badgerpatrol 03:39, 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. DS 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Jenkins[edit]

No legitimate claim to notability, other than a gross-out website and a couple of self-published books. Joyous | Talk 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was placed in the AFD log page, moved here. Kotepho 02:30, 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 non-consensus keep ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Adler[edit]

Possible vanity article. An important and accomplished person to be sure, but notable enough to warrant his own article? I don't think so. GT 01:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Expedia, as he seems to be the CFO of that company --TBC??? ??? ??? 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's the future CFO, beginning next month. Just to be sure that everyone's clear on that. GT 08:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not worth keeping as a redirect. Is the the kids visit with them frequently a new low in triviality? Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; But major cleanup definitely necessary — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the CFO of a major corporation is notable. Definitely needs some cleanup. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, CFO of a massive corporation, but definitely needs wikification (hence my tag). --Rory096(block) 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitly needs work but it is notable. SorryGuy 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are many large corporations with CFOs, they go through them at a fast rate and they usually have little impact on society. Also, if comparable historic positions are counted, there are probably tens of thousands of similar people (think of all of the executives that old and now defunct companies would have had throughout history). -- Kjkolb 07:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sillysailor, the article creator and principal maintainer, told me, "I was assigned by Expedia, my employer, to gather publicity for the announement of this new CFO."[13] I believe this speaks to the non-notability of the subject but you are free to use this information to arrive at your own conclusion. GT 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say anything about notability, per se, just that the contribution was out of commercial interest. If Bill Gates hires someone (perhaps via WP:HIRE?) to add content onto an article about him, that doesn't make it non-notable, it just raises an POV flag. Notability is determined by the subject, not the author. Good information to know, though. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant, if Bill Gates was really notable someone outside the company would create and/or add to the article long before someone at his company had to for "publicity" reasons. Obviously that was the case (presumably) with Gates but not here. Indeed most CFO's don't have much if any impact outside the their company, let alone future CFO's, and it probably would take a financial motivation to get someone to spend this much time to write an article for one who has no other notable (or notorious) characteristics. GT 09:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. POV needs work and the article has a whole lot of other problems, but notability isn't one of them. Morgan Wick 09:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep . Wikified and cleaned up slightly also. Rockpocket 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm still waiting for the first defense of the subject's notability. Sloppy and/or POV writing was not why I nominated this page. GT 03:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "CFO of a major company" isn't notable enough? Morgan Wick 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By itself, no. What does a CFO do that is significant to anyone who is not either personally involved with or has a financial interest (or disinterest) in the company? I could see if Expedia was a giant mega-corporation whose operations have a great impact on the rest of society but that's hardly the case. Even putting aside the fact that he hasn't started his job yet, redlinks Mark Gunning and Gregory Stanger who previously held his position don't seem to have ever been involved with anything so significant that someone thought to write an article about them, which is why I find it relevant that this article was only ever written because an Expedia employee was told to do it for publicity reasons. GT 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or failing that merge to Expedia. Fortune-telling; not the most notable person with that name; stylistic problems; mostly that it doesn't say much other than Expedia has a CFO, who isn't this person, and the person he's taking over from, Mark Gunning, who could at least be reported on, doesn't have an article. Time will tell if either becomes notable. --Cedders 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I promised the article creator Sillysailor, who is currently blocked, that I would post his/her supporting justification for the article so here it is: "Micahel Adler is notable in the sense that he is in BusinessWeek because of this takeover. If it is good enough news for BusinessWeek, it should be good enough for Wikipedia, especially seeing as BusinessWeek is much more selective." (from here) GT 05:02, 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 Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limón International Airport[edit]

Non notable airport—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.65.219 (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep. Seems to be notable enough, as it one of the only four international airports in Costa Rica--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never know when you might need it Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every other airport in the world has a page, why shouldn't this one? — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Metamagician3000 03:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable airport. --Terence Ong 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as airports are obviously notable. Carioca 04:39, 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 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Englipedia[edit]

Non-notable wiki project - vanity page.


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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moleware[edit]

It's a non-notable website, therefore it violates WP:WEB. Mr. Lefty 02:21, 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 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox Blab[edit]

Non-notable community forum.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It doesn't even have its own website.--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Just because it is not relavent to your hometown it doesnt mean it isn't relavent. Just because someone in the world isn't a geek doesnt mean slashdot is irrelevant. There is more history of Knox Blab to come. We are just getting our information compiled. Please give us a few more days to get the relevant local politics involved. As you can see I added a few links from reputable newpapers in our area that mention Knox Blab or one of its former names. And yes it does have its own website, Knox Blab is ran by Derek Senter and Rob Levering who own funhouserock.com (their domain, their blab)" ShoeTick
A website must be known throughout a large region not just a single town, in order for it to be considered notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 03:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
East Tennessee is a region. Knoxville is often refered to but East Tennessee is about half the size of Ireland and is the actual area we are talking about. Knoxville is just the center and commonly refered to. - ShoeTick
Shameless self promotion by me. See the Grand Divisions of Tennessee. Teke 06:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KnoxBlab and its previous incarnations have been the source for many other blog reports from such notibles as Instapundit (also Knoxville based) and have been on the leading edge of behind-the-scenes information that main-stream media won't/don't report about such regional/national subjects as TVA (largest goverment owned utility in USA and based in Knoxville), public offical term-limits (currently on appeal in TN Supreme Court and may have national impact), regional enviromental issues (Great Smoky Mt. NP and several national scenis river in area)

Keep: This forum has participants from areas far removed from east Tennesse - Florida, South Carolina, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey, and Asia are the first that come to mind.

Keep: knoxblab.com is the URL for this forum.

"Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate. Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it."

"'A month' isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on 'this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!' Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it. Not all editors are Wikipedaholics."

  • Comment Enough of a Wikipedaholic to know that VfD has been gone for months. The AfD process is to promote concensus. The forum does not match the criteria per WP:WEB, plain and simple. It's nothing against the forum, it's that Wikipedia is not about external links nor a societal resource; it's to be an Encyclopedia. Teke 07:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm originally from Knoxville, and I vote to kill it per WP:WEB. Teke 06:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Optichan 13:18, 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. DS 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameboyz[edit]

Webcomic that doesn't meet WP:WEB. It has just one strip and was launched today. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Six Shooter[edit]

Not notable. See Google results — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 02:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable DJ who's only claim to fame is for starting a non-notable musical movement--TBC??? ??? ??? 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Cedders 20:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who are the Ghost Towns? Startup account 21:02, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matadors[edit]

More band vanity, and yet another example of why the prod experiment is a failure. Bachrach44 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No idea about the notability of the band but 27 mins from article creation, through prodding and deprodding to AfD hardly proves failure of the prod experiment. Dlyons493 Talk 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment This is far from the first piece of evidence I've seen that prod is a failure. I do some RC patrol, and whenever I use prod I find the author deletes it (without explanation of course), and I'm forced to take it here anyway. I'm probably going to stop using it fairly soon because I don't think I've had it work yet once. I realize there are some people who like, I just don't happen to be one of them. If you want to talk more about this, I'm game, but we should probably find a more apropriate venue. --Bachrach44 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since the tag can be removed without comment, prod depends on the author either not being around, being too timid to object to the article's deletion, not understanding the deletion process or accepting that the article should be deleted. -- Kjkolb 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis band is acutally a really big influence today in psychobilly (which is becoming a massive genre the world over) scene. If you dont believe me...google them. I can elaborate in this article as more info becomes available to me but right now (given what little info ive given) this article and The Matadors do deserve to be in here. Futhermore, when there is information on here about Lord Elgin the 11th earl of Kincardine, you don't see people like Bachrach44 saying that Lord Elgin is being vain do you? This entry IS legitimate, people WILL use this. Davis99913:47, 23 April 2006
  • Delete Non-notable band. If they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Fails WP:MUSIC as it is. doktorb | words 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI strongly object, they meet most of the WP:MUSIC criteria. You need to reseach these things BEFORE making these sweeping statements. If need be, I can go through it item by item for you with links to back it up. Let me know Davis999
  • comment By all means, please do - you don't even need this invitation. Proving that they meet WP:MUSIC would go much further to proving your case than making random unverifiable claims of notability. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly would like to know what "Horrorbilly" is - not a genre I have ever heard.. doktorb | words 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenifix[edit]

Non notable web site. --64.231.65.219 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it has barely enough information to avoid speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a webhost for private company brochures. - Richardcavell 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richardcavell. I agree that this could possibly be speedily deleted as a combination of {no content} (since it's basically nothing besides a link to the company's site) and spam. -- Kicking222 14:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly Speedy per Kicking222. Kuzaar 15:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. Joelito 02:28, 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steveism[edit]

AFD: not notable Rmcii 03:34, 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 obvious non-verifiable hoax by user with no other edits whatsoever.

Pandolf[edit]

nn or hoax Vincini Pandolfo has 21 google hits and Vincini Pandolfi has 43 hits Amcfreely 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - hoax. If you put the queries in quotes you get 0 hits. Same for "pandolfed". Mooning a native, O, how funny, I can not stop laughing. If this does not get deleted soon, it will kill me. LambiamTalk 08:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's unverifiable because it's made-up. That makes verification difficult. -- Kicking222 14:06, 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 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kent (Author and Consultant)[edit]

Delete, fails the google test (plenty of OTHER Peter Kent's, just not much on this one). Claims to fame are that he authored "Search Engine Optimization For Dummies" and "Pay Per Click Search Engine Marketing for Dummies". Real person, but not worthy of a page on WP. San Saba 03:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These are hired guns, whose authorship is secondary to the notability of the series (which has a page at The Complete Idiot's Guide to...). Eusebeus 14:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The most widely reviewed and praised title in computer-book history, Poor Richard's Web Site gets under 500 Ghits Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, self promotion. --MaNeMeBasat 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Icarus 07:16, 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 06:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music4krns[edit]

This might be controversial, but IMHO this fails WP:NOT. Most Google results are repeats ("omitted" in GSpeak). Also, it looks like it's just a big fat list of Korean pop stars. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This thing doesn't even have its own site. If every person on Xanga had their own Wikipage, 49 out of 50 hits of the "random article" button would bring up something Xanga-related. -- Kicking222 14:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for nn freespace website complemented by entirely redundant list. Deizio 18:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. --Cedders 20:25, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 90% of this article was just copy and paste of Metarexand Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgegog, so perhaps a redirect would be more suitable, but I cant' decide which. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relic Hunter Rangers[edit]

Complete fanwank and vandalism. There is little to no information regarding the new Power Rangers incarnation and, if so, none of these characters would be them. - The One and Only 04:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All made up and completely nonsenical info. 67.121.139.145 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (copy at [15]. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy body count[edit]

  • PLEASE NOTE The article has undergone substantial redrafting since the start of the AfD. JoshuaZ 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far from notable. WP:NOT a fan site. Any relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I want to see the outcome of it. It needs to be wikified a bit when it's done. I suppose it's a bit fanboyish, but worse things are accepted on wikipedia. - Richardcavell 04:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'tis listcruft to be sure. Next they'll be adding the names of the vampires. Then what they said as they died. Then how they affected the main characters by what they said. Chalk this up as a "Friendly casulaties" (sick) Shenme 05:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's writer gives several worthwhile uses for the body count, including literary criticism in the manner of Kenneth Burke. This is very insightful and unlike the drivel of many other Buffy articles. Why delete stuff just because some people can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing? This article enriches Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - agree with Shenme, and if you "can't understand anything beyond comic book level writing" you aren't ready for an encyclopedia --Ajdz 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ~~ ajdz, you're quoting out of context, which is kind of pointless since the quote you're butchering is about five or six lines above your twisted version of it~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs)
        • Only in a comic book... --Ajdz 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable listcruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a fan guide. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Voting often does not usually work on Wikipedia, and please do not blank my comments. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (rewritten: Dspserpico 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • I quite agree. About 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 11:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. ...Scott5114 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well written, but I don't think it belongs on wikipedia. In fact, I think alot of the Buffy stuff need to be merged. Why do minor Buffy characters get their own article when minor characters from other movies and tv shows are put in a list? I think it violates some notability standards. Dspserpico 06:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the bastard offspring of listcruft and fancruft after a drunken one-night-stand. -Mask 06:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- listcruft, fancruft, cruft all the way. And yes, 3/4 of the other Buffy dreck should also be deleted. The El Reyko 07:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Relevant material can be merged into Buffy the Vampire Slayer. David Sneek 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is actually an interesting and well-written article and not fancruft or listcruft. There's the core of a publishable article there but it's not I think for Wiki. Dlyons493 Talk 11:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - above average Buffy article, for sure. Why an encyclopedia should contain any articles on commercial products, however, is beyond me--is Wikipedia an encyclopedia, as it purports to be, or simply a catalogue of free advertisements for popular goods and services? In my view, all the content that smacks of fandom, commercialization, and marketing should be deleted immediately, but that would mean 9/10 of Wikipedia's content would vanish overnight, so, if other junk articles are to be allowed, this one should be, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) . [16]
Third keep from the same IP -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment the 4th keep [17]-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps Buffy fans had a similar motive as the U. S. military had in using body counts, hoping to prove, at least to themselves, that the valiant efforts of Buffy and her friends were, so to speak, making a difference in the age-old struggle of the forces of good against the forces of evil.
    • The Buffy body count also helps fans, critics, and other interested parties keep track of the episodes in which, in terms of vampire or demon activity, the action was cooling down or heating up; as such, the body count allows individuals to chart the Hellmouth's least and most active periods over a seven-year time frame. For example, vampires appear to be far more numerous (or active) than demons, and demons were twice as numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Likewise, vampires were almost three times more numerous (or active) in season two than they were in season one. Season four, compared to the other six seasons, is almost devoid of vampires, but the demons are more numerous (or active) than ever. In "Triangle," episode 11 of season five, Buffy bags her 100th vampire.
    • In addition, as Joss Whedon, who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has said that the vampires, demons, and other monsters in the series are metaphors of existential threats, problems, and difficulties that teens and young adults face. For example, Marcie Ross, an invisible girl, becomes invisible as a result of being ignored by teachers and her fellow students. Her invisibility represents being ignored by others, a metaphor used by Ralph Ellison in Invisible Man, a novel that recounts the effects of black men's being ignored by whites during the racially segregated period of the early twentieth century. By adapting Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pentad to the types of demons that attack Buffy and her friends, both as teens and young adults, fans, critics, and others can isolate, identify, and evaluate what category of existential crisis seemed to traumatize these characters during specific periods of their childhoods and later years. Such a tool allows scholars and fans alike the ability to analyze and assess both these threats themselves, the reactions and the responses of the characters who encounter them, and the effects of these threats upon their lives. By decoding the significance of a particular vampire or demon (or human) according to its existential, psychological, social, or spiritual nature and then weighing the number of times during a season (or throughout the series) such threats menace Buffy and her friends, critics and fans can better chart and understand the show's thematic as well as narrative arcs.

Bravo!

Delete A lovely article, but not, IMHO, for Wikipedia. The best place would be a Wookiepedia-type place. But for Buffy, natch. HawkerTyphoon 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article is well-written, but it's not a particularly encyclopedic page. And does the person above realize that, no matter how many times you post, it only counts as one vote? They've currently edited this AfD page seventeen times. -- Kicking222 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well-written, informative, innovative, and actually useful--yeah, better delete it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.133 (talk • contribs) .

Fifth keep from the same IP [18] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are multiple votes for keep from the same IP address 207.200.116.133 and is the source of most of the unsigned comments. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP in question also accounts for a very large amount of the article's history, too. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well written but does not belong on wikipedia. Too notable as listcruft to be an article.--Cini 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kuzaar 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absurdly non-useful. --InShaneee 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells like WP:NOR to me. This would be a good article for a Buffy website, though, it's nice prose. Warrens 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'-per Cini. The Republican 16:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Abstain for now. Note that I am going to userfy the article to me. At present this article should be clearly deleted but I'd like to possibly trim it and at some point make it into an acceptable article. JoshuaZ 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Anonymous IP 207.200.116.133 deleted Dspserpico's comment above from this page a few minutes ago. Warrens 16:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same IP address just AfD'd my user page. I didn't do a damn thing to antagonize this person beyond voting for deletion on something that I thought was well written. Somebody, please do something. Dspserpico 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, removing votes should be countered with removing articles. But then again, I am quite hardcore over those things. HawkerTyphoon 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles should be removed based on their merits and our relevant policies and guidelines. Kotepho 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, obviously. But I am entitled to voice my opinion on talk pages:) HawkerTyphoon 00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A fansite might be interested in hosting it, if one doesn't already. Шизомби 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that Wikipedia is happy to 'host' a 'buffyverse', I cannot see why this article should be removed. It certainly does not meet my definition of listcruft. Colonel Tom 00:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've redrafted the article to remove OR, improve formating and grammar and wikfy. Wikification has some minor problems (with episode titles) that I will handled when I get a chance, but right now it looks like a reasonable list. JoshuaZ 01:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as prime fancruft. I don't mind Buffyverse articles, but details like this is taking it too far. -- Hirudo 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm torn! Anybody who cares about this kind of thing would most certainly find the list useful, but those people are few and far between. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cannot have infinite detail, I vote delete. This list is far more appropriate on a wiki dedicated to Buffy, or a fansite. ~MDD4696 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ah well, looks like an hour of clean up can't do much to help a fundamentally crufty article. JoshuaZ 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good intentions, and if nothing else, it looks clean. Userfy? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it doesn't make much sense to userfy an article which pretty clearly has no chance of getting recreated. JoshuaZ 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Yeah what the heck userfy it to me please. JoshuaZ 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its now at the buffy wikia [19] -- Astrokey44|talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: In a weird twisted way, it is important information about someone whose profession is 'vampire slayer'. Plus Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 07:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe there is a Buffy the Vampire wiki that would benefit from this? However it is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Cedars 09:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There sure is - this article is now on the Buffyverse wiki although that site doesnt have much activity --Astrokey44 10:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was going to ignore this and move on, but it actually looks sourced and interested, so keep and expand it further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very much Delete. Uninformative, plagarised (cf. sourced), and entirely irrelevant. - Abscissa 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Er, why do you think this is plagarised? JoshuaZ 16:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once all the worthless anime information is purged from wikipedia, I'll vote delete on this totally non-notable, fancruft, worthless article. But since Wikipedia is rarely consistent I will try to be. For the sake of consistency and in the face of the mountain of anime articles I feel this deserves a chance too. --206.191.28.13 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft nonsense. incog 15:06, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Schwimmer[edit]

Non notable Supreme Court case. Rory096(block) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC) I take that back (should have looked before so rashly voting to delete). The case is indeed notable and in the news. I should also note that it returns 32.300 hits on Google. Vote to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable on uniqueness -- Tawker 05:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - USSC cases = notable... at least to the level I see wikipedia notability shifting... (I mean, supreme court case vs. action action album... if we can keep the latter we should have the former)... gren グレン 05:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Non-notable Supreme Court case" is an oxymoron. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no such thing as a non-notable supreme court case. Dspserpico 06:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if kept, the article needs to be rewritten in a neutral point of view. -- Kjkolb 07:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you indicate more specifically on the article's talk page what parts or aspects strike you as insufficiently neutral? LambiamTalk 12:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, as above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar. We should strive to get them all on here. GT 10:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important and publicized Supreme Court ruling. TH 10:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Supreme Court cases are notable. --Terence Ong 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm hard pressed to think of a SCOTUS case that is not notable. Kotepho 18:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. SCOTUS cases are virtually always highly notable, and this is not the least notable one out there. Grandmasterka 01:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Keep this case seems noteworthy as I believe many Supreme Court cases would be. Cedars 09:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would say that all U.S. Supreme Court cases are per se notable. This article does need cleanup though. --Eastlaw 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would have to agree with the above that Supreme Court cases are de facto notable. Anyway, don't say "non-notable", please! Stifle (talk) 16:47, 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 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto 93 Highland Ave.[edit]

Decidedly non-notable building from a user who has an article he wrote on himself also on AfD. Also of note, the picture in the article is not the building described, illustrating further unverifiability and/or hoaxeshness and/or vanity fluffing. I know this because, 1) I took that picture a couple of days ago, and 2) I've never been to Toronto. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - not sure how to vote but it may be a notable botanical garden... interesting case. gren グレン 05:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The "botanical garden" part is just a weak and unsourced claim that certain wild flowers had been introduced there by the author of the article. There is nothing notable here, not even unsourced claims for notability. TH 09:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt to assert notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 10:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent explanation by the nominator. -- Kicking222 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom has it covered Deizio 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing corrections I was putting in List of botanical gardens in Canada and had this originally listed in the booklet I wrote in 1991. I did not link it in the right place and put it in the Botanical Gardens section in Wiki. It should have been and will soon be linked on the University of Toronto Wiki pages where it should have gone in the first place. Links for the graphics were uplaoded in Wikimedia and now that I look, and I totally agree, when I made the jpeg link on Wikipedia, the photos were different and not mine. Perhaps someone can instruct me on linking from WikiMedia to Wikipedia??? If you go to my page on Media you will see the actual 93 Highland photos. Thanks for pointing this out to me an I do apologize. WayneRay 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Copy of this, so unless the author is relinguishing his rights by releasing under the GFDL, it can't go here anyways. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not just another house, but it's not particularly notable either. Peter Grey 07:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'OK well delete or keep, either way it's not my house and it's not your house, but it is still the 32 room mansion (house) set aside and used by each President of the University of Toronto (Ontario) in the posh Rosedale section of downtown and has a 3 acre garden, ponds and rock garden with great botanical specimens. And it was taken from the above link, because I wrote the above link. Make a deciision and keep or delete, I will be back from vacation in New Brunswick in a week after my book launch and will either see it there or gone, your choice I leavee it up to you. WayneRay 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's weak, but I like buildings. Deet 02:30, 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. Shanel § 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Moore (actor)[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity page bio authored by the article subject. Delete I@n ≡ talk 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.. and tell users to stop getting involved in stuff they dont know anything about Um guys... I shot my part over 2 days the other day... It hasnt been added to IMDb it takes a long time for most projects... If you give me your emails I can be happy to send you details of the film including set stills... Ryan Moore 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nothing against you Ryan, but Wikipedia doesn't cover everything. How about posting the stills to myspace if you haven't already? Choalbaton 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont have a myspace. I deleted it. If you need any info then I can email it to you. Meh fuck it I give up. People on here just wont learn. Ryan Moore 22:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete couldn't even find on IMDb... which is unheard of for new Western actors. If he is to be found there make this vote a neutral because I'd have to research more to decide. gren グレン 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notable content, author admits "small" role in unheard of film --Ajdz 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -*Also, Id appreciate if you guys had messaged me first before decieding to begin your little protest. Isnt it better to know the facts first? Ryan Moore 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I for one would appreciate it if you would refer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, specifically WP:BIO & Wikipedia:autobiography. PJM 19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -*I cant believe Im not getting even a withdrawl. This will be fought for a long time Ryan Moore 09:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another 14-year-old kid's vanity page. Yeu Ninje 10:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userfy, but his user page already contains basically the same information). Applicable policies: WP:V. See also WP:VAIN. — Haeleth Talk 11:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -*I will say it one more time. I can provide proof. I will get the forms sent to ytou whatever but start thinking before acting people! You all have no idea what is going on and acting like you do. Before you post another thing then request info off me, I can email it to you. But Im sick your total bullshit calling this vanity. I am appearing CREDITED in a CREDIBLE film. If you all had LISTENED you might have realised that. Now I will even mail whatever is neseccary to the offices of Wikipedia but in the meantime KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH A SITUATION. I look foward to being able to back my info up and proving you all wrong. Cya tommorow. Ryan Moore 11:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One last thing, to Haeleth: shove your policys. I am aware of them and they do not fit this situation. Ryan Moore 11:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- couldn't find anything verifiable. - Longhair 12:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He may or may not become a notable actor in the future, but at best he's only just shot his first part and this article is premature. Metamagician3000 13:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note to whoever closes this afd: See also disambig page: Ryan Moore -- I@n ≡ talk 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and also delete the article on the related movie. Doomsday (2006 film) is an nn indie film with no credible names attached to it, no web page, and it hasn't even been shot yet. So how, exactly, is it fit for an encyclopedia? -- Kicking222 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at all and has all the signs of a vanity page.--Cini 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity. --TM 16:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, WP:V is non-negotiable. Deizio 18:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, not verifiable. Ryan, once your movie gets released and recognized on IMDb, it may find a place here.Shijaz 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By the strict rules on notability, this person fails. doktorb | words 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above, WP:BIO. Don't call us, we'll call you. PJM 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per above. Sorry to pile on, could not resist. Don't call us, and on this basis, we're unlikely to call you. Badgerpatrol 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've appeared (credited) in more notable films than this and you don't see me setting up my own Wikipedia article. Ryan, your lack of civility is not helping your case. When you are a notable actor in a notable film, someone will create an article for you. Your taking such offence at this discussion is one of the reasons why it's not recommended that people create or edit articles about themselves. --Canley 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable bio. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO --Cedders 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a bit part in a low-budget film does not make one notable. If you become notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article, rest assured someone will make one for you. ekedolphin 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per WP:UP. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. (Would vote 'userfy', but there's not that much to move across.) --Calair 03:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above.--cj | talk 06:45, 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. Shanel § 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors on Islam by period and bias[edit]

Judging bias? Not exactly a game to get into... maybe this should be moved to "List of authors on Islam"... but, I think it's best to get rid of this. It does no good and it could be completely unwieldly since innumerable small pieces, etc. gren グレン

  • Delete - this would work better as a category, if anything. There's basically no limit to the authors which can be placed here, as there are simply too many authors who've written about Islam to list them all. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too unwieldy Dlyons493 Talk 12:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, judgement of "bias" is far too open to POV. Probably permanently incomplete and surely there are general lists and cats already doing this much better? Deizio 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete per nom. Шизомби 23:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as utter listcruft. Can't be NPOV either. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 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 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Sam's Sister City[edit]

Originally proded by Kinu with a summary of, "Blog hosted on Blogspot. Tenuous notability; external references do not show this or ability to meet WP:WEB. Created by user who references himself in article; might be vanity page." Alexa ranking of 388,684. I am recommending delete as there is no evidence that this blog has independent verifiability (or notability for that matter) in significant third party sources. --Hetar 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sign of notability, blogspot hosting especially questionable --Ajdz 06:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Deizio 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original {{prod}} and other deletion recommendations above. --Kinu t/c 05:27, 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. Shanel § 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contiki Tours[edit]

Reads like an advertisement and doesn't seem like a notable company anyways.CrypticBacon 06:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I guess I didn't realize how large and well-known this company actually is. Withdrawing nomination. --CrypticBacon 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisement --Ajdz 06:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dspserpico 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a clean up. Even though it is not clear from the article Contiki Tours are quite well know in Australia, and would seem to hold a large section of the overseas "youth" package tour market from Australia (can't find good verifiable source where this is stated though). As well as running/associated with two resorts in Greece and Bali under the banner of Contiki Resorts.--blue520 07:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Well-known company in Australasia. A search of an Australian New Zealand newspaper database gets 52 results so meets WP:CORP. Longstanding, verifiable and notable company. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable within New Zealand. Also has had a neologism based on it (tiki tour). --Midnighttonight 07:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an important company. I have tried to clean up the article a bit. --Bduke 07:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, important for New Zealand. --MaNeMeBasat 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable company in the Oceania region. Needs a cleanup of sorts but definitely of some importance.--Cini 11:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been cleaned up enough to stay (by Bduke), but would benefit from more work. A notable company which deserves a better article. Colonel Tom 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Definitely notable in Australasia and deserving of a decent article. I am going to nominate it for Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight as it would benefit from some work. PageantUpdater 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important company throughout South Pacific region. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough I think. --Limegreen 08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But needs work. There was a company in NZ for many years called Tiki Tours.The NZ saying "Tiki tour" more likely came from that. Maybe. Moriori 09:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was also unconvinced about tiki tour coming from Contiki, having heard of Tiki Tours ... and had checked my NZOD (which mentioned its source as an unspecified tour company), so was planning to have a look at Orsman when I get the chance. --Limegreen 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contiki tours are well known in Australia --Astrokey44 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company has operated in Canada for decades. I had no idea they were a Kiwi company 'til I saw this article. Fluit 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Labs[edit]

Gamecruft. I don't think we need an article for every area (or set of areas in this case) in Doom 3. There's already a list of levels in the main article, and I don't think it needs additional info. Hirudo 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --TM 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-German (ideology)[edit]

Delete. This article has serious problems with POV, notability and verifiability. --metzerly 06:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Dspserpico 06:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- It is definitely POV, but that can be fixed. I'm not quite sold on notability, but it is definitely verifiable (there's a good selection of links at the bottom). The El Reyko 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many of the links are broken, irrelevant, in English/non-German, etc. The link to the German government report is about extremist groups and says nothing about anti-Germans. This article is much ado about nothing. --metzerly 07:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Volker Radke link, "cutupgermany" and "antideutschprojekt" prove that there is such a thing as an anti-german ideology. But, as I say, I am not quite sold on the notability of the concept. The El Reyko 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article started its en:Wikilife on March 15, 2004, as a translation of the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Since then the two articles have evolved independently. The present German version also has its problems, which seem to be about NPOV issues. Verifiability does not appear to be an issue, based on the discussion and the external links. What is clear from the German text, but not from the English version, is that "Anti-German" is a self-chosen and self-applied label. The original creator (and translator?) of the article here, User:Leo Bauer, is a professed Anti-German. LambiamTalk 11:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup This is definitely POV, but it should have a place on WP, although it needs major Cleanup. Jonathan235 15:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Has POV issues but authors have made efforts to provide verifible sources and seems to be a subject of encyclopedic value. Needs a lot of work but is worth keeping.--Cini 15:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs work, but is notable subject. Tfine80 15:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Portsmouth Hospital[edit]

Not notable, I don't even know where this building once was. Portsmouth, England I presume? Dspserpico 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I know nothing of this but my instincts tell me that this is a bad article about something notable. Can anyone improve it? Is'nt this what we are about? --Bduke 08:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with you. There must be a lot to be said, but Googling turns up relatively little of interest so it's unlikely that much verifiable can be found easily. Unless that happens I'm voting Delete for now and hope to be able to change vote later. It can always be recreated in the future! Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see [20]. Is a hospital that was founded in 1849 notable? I honestly don't know. — Haeleth Talk 11:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its as notable as some junior high in downtown new york.... 88.107.243.35 14:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS the above post was made by me, I forgot to sign in, my bad.... (new computer, new ISP, hence new IP number for anyone sharp eyed enough to notice out there!) Jcuk 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable. This article can be expanded. Obina 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have wikified it. Choalbaton 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that there I've noticed a bias in Wikipedia towards the genuinely historic and studied or the very recent, and against things in fairly recent (mid-late C20) but much more likely to be fully documented in things like local history archives and newspaper libraries than on the web. --Cedders 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the natural consequence of declaring that every school is notable is that every hospital is as well (there are surely less of the latter than of the former), and every post office, fire station, brothel, and such. The schoolophiles have made a mockery of any pretense at notability requirements of organizations/institutions/edifices. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumbull Escapades[edit]

non-notable fanzine-- Sasquatch t|c 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got 20 google hits for it as a sidenote. Sasquatch t|c 06:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine has definite plans to seek distribution deals and advertising, as well as taking subscriptions for its upcoming issues, it would be a shame to stifle such DIY creativity. I am eagerly awaiting issue 3. It's notable, it's just not on the internet. thanks! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, but "has plans to..." doesn't quite cut it. I have plans to be notable someday but that doesn't quite make me notable. I encourage you to pursue your endeavour however, until your magazine reaches notability, it should not be included. This is the same with any emerging rock group or web comic. We do not write an article to publicise you (Wikipedia is not free advertising) but rather to note your achievements. In this case, I just don't think there's enough to note. Sasquatch t|c 06:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete vanity page. --metzerly 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --TM 16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi its just not on the internet man! minor threat didn't have a website and they were as real as it gets. this is really more a perspective problem on you guys' parts. go to any hardcore show and ask them about trumbull escapades fanzine. hardcore is the only real music in america and trumbull is the only real zine in hardcore. signed, a fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, nn fanzine. Deliberate lack of website would take a grand total of one hit away from the search result, in any case being referenced by other media is far more important and just isn't there. Deizio 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it just doesnt have a website, it's plenty notable. plenty of current hardcore bands and contemporary hardcore fanzines dont have a website and are on our level — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)


How can this be considered advertising? There isn't even any contact info. This fanzine might not be receiving the accolades of VQR or MRR but in certain circles is no less important. I rest my case: Sweet Deal didn't have a website. (Spaulding) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs)

I personally have all issues and all versions of every issue of Trumbull Escapades. I have brought them along on many road trips, train rides, subway rides, and on airplanes to read. I know most content by heart and could quote at least half of it. In fact I often find myself referring to this magazine when asked information. Not only is the fanzine one of the few remaining american hardcore fanzines, it is also one of the best it's ever had. Its' greatness lies in the combination of a strong knowledge of hardcore, sneakers, general internet and related subjects, and the editors' unique sense of humour. Why would one deny the existance and importance of a fanzine because it has no website? First off why would this fanzine even want to have a website? If the editors have anything to say they will adress it in the fanzine, not on a website. Secondly I can't think of any "real" fanzines that ever had a website (not counting former fanzines turned magazine). I am appalled that in todays' world one simply does not EXIST if one does not have a website. So no, Trumbull Escapades does not have a website, for reasons explained above. Does that mean they are not a viable and important pillar of a strong american music culture? Does it mean they should not be represented on wikipedia? The correct answer here is no. Sincerely, Kevin Charles Alen.

  • To all interested parties: the point here is this "topic" does not comply with the high standards set for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a web-directory. Nobody is saying it's not a great, informative fanzine with a dedicated following, or that not having a website is grounds for not being notable. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable as meeting the standards, and in the opinion of all the experienced editors who have thus far placed a comment here, this topic does not meet those standards. Further "this should be kept" comments not backed up by specific references to WP policies & guidelines and supported by verifiable evidence will not do your case any good. If you do a google search for The New Yorker, you will notice that only one of the results is for the publication's own web site - the other 27,099,999 are from other sources which reference and verify the existence and importance of the publication. That's what editors are looking for when applying the "google test", which is just one small consideration made when considering deletion. Deizio 20:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. Not having a web page is one thing; not being mentioned by anyone else on the Internet is another. I find it hard to believe that something with all of two issues out has any sort of following in the hardcore community. Morgan Wick 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you find that hard to believe then i find it hard to believe that experienced editors are looking at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumbull (talk • contribs)

Did you all actually do a google search? I did and I saw a handful of metions on myspace, a mention in some dude's blog, a thread on some msg board where someone was looking for one of the back issues, mentions on a trade list on howsyouredge.com, etc. Its true that it was only important to a small segment of the hardcore scene, but it is at least as important as Wikipedia's list of fictional worms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.253.109 (talk • contribs)

Comment Twenty hits as per this straight-forward Google search. --metzerly 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that... look up :-) well, no harm in some redundancy I guess. Sasquatch t|c 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any of you nerds know how to download a movie(probably MOV, possibly FLV) from Macromedia Flash?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.250.112 (talk • contribs) .

Delete- per nom, Deizo and Morgan Wick. DVD+ R/W 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrammatism[edit]

Wikipedia not a dictionary --64.231.65.219 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems you forgot to create a deletion discussion page for this article. I'm not sure how to fix that... Anyway, the article has been improved so much now by user Samir that I think it qualifies for Speedy Keep. David Sneek 08:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is now a bit more than a dictionary definition and could be expanded at least a little further. -- Kjkolb 08:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. LambiamTalk 08:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 12:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current version looks like a Keep. Colonel Tom 14:08, 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inverloch (comic)[edit]

Another webcomic. No evidence of significant and independent publication or commentary. Delete. --Hetar 06:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I know we've had a lot of webcomic come up for AfD lately, but this one is an odd choice. I don't like Alexa, but here it serves as a good illustration. Most of the AfDed webcomics have had Alexa scores well over 100,000 -- often unranked or in the millions. Inverloch, on the other hand, has 29,822, which is good for a webcomic. Furthermore, a print edition is coming out in May from Seven Seas Entertainment, so it's not like it's self-published. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 07:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 40,000+ Google hits, [21] #1 ranking on TopWebComics.com. [22] Feezo (Talk) 09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's going to be in book form! Clearly meets the standard. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Inverloch is the number one comic in all relevant categories on topwebcomics.com.--209.102.172.207 17:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I don't believe topwebcomics is a reliable source for notability, nor is Alexa, nor are web cartoonist choice award nominations, nor is a book which hasn't been released yet -- but all of the above combined point towards keeping this article. -- Dragonfiend 16:22, 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 delete. – Sasquatch t|c 07:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoints[edit]

I originally prodded this, but the tag was removed so I'm bringing it here. The article is spam. It advertises something I assume is some sort of web community. It's not explained at all what Zoints actually is, and to find out you have to join up, and I'm not going to do that. Anyway, it's not even close to satisfying WP:WEB The El Reyko 07:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not an advertisement, I'm the System Administrator for Zoints and LivingWithStyle But it does not warrant a WP Page at this time. Perhaps in the future. The system is still under beta testing. This page was created by one of the many members of LivingWithStyle because it's been a long time in the making (about 5 years) and they're a bit excited to be testing it out for us. Thanks. --DaiTengu 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --metzerly 07:19, 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, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mental (band)[edit]

Delete. No attempt at verifiability or notability. --metzerly 07:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

plenty of records available by this band www.lockinout.com www.revhq.com www.bridge9.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trumbull (talk • contribs) . 4 us tours, 2 euro tours

They recorded two EPs, and one LP. Here is a link to their Planet Mental CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009VI4WQ/sr=8-2/qid=1145912816/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to their Get An Oxygen Tank CD on amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AINMX/sr=8-1/qid=1145912905/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3184996-6795809?%5Fencoding=UTF8 Here is a link to all their records for sale from Rev distribution, including a comp they appeared on that had a photo of Dookie on the cover: http://revhq.com/store.revhq?Page=search&BandId=5286 Here is a photo diary of their first european tour: http://lockinout.com/media.html Here is a link to ebay for items with the terms "mental" and "lockin out" in the title of the item. (note: A lot of these items are not actually for stuff that has anything to do with mental, because a lot of people advertise other band's merchandise on ebay using these terms because they are popular search terms.): http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&satitle=mental+lockin+out&sacat=-1%26catref%3DC6&bs=Search&fsop=1%26fsoo%3D1&coaction=compare&copagenum=1&coentrypage=search&sargn=-1%26saslc%3D2&sadis=200&fpos=02135&ftrt=1&ftrv=1&saprclo=&saprchi= I would add a link to planetmental.com which was a page which advertised for their record release show last june, but the domain expired and godaddy now owns it. :(


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander James Burke[edit]

Unverified and unsourced. Little noteriety. Several published authors aren't featured on wikipedia let along contributors to magazines. Delete CHANLORD [T]/[C] 07:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tenuous claim to notability which is largely unverified, no evidence of claimed contributions which should be very easy to find in this day and age. Google search reveals just 29 unique results, 60 total, very few of which seem to reference this particular individual. He does appear to have contributed to the "comment" section of the Globe & Mail, but no evidence he is notable for excellence or distinction in his field. Deizio 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic article apparently created by subject's wife's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 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 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Programming[edit]

WP:NOR Original research, self-posted Please read WP:NOR to understand why this is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Thanks. --John Nagle 08:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an article about a college research project and there is no reason it should be removed. He thought I was the "Nick Ireland" in the article when it auctually reads "Nick Irelan" and talks about a computer science student (I am not a student of any kind). John dosen't even really read the articles he only skims through to find what could possibly be the slightest problem then asks that they be deleted in order to gain attention. I don't know him or have anything against him I just think he was mistaken about who I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirelan (talk • contribs)
    • A lot of articles about (seemingly) non-notable subjects get created by the people responsible for the subject, so it seems like an understandable mistake. "Nirelan" might well be an abbreviation of "Nick Ireland". (That's not what it is, of course.) If you had been the Nick Ireland in question, that still wouldn't be the problem with the article - the problem is with notability, as others have said. Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with the attention seeker; college research projects are not notable. David Sneek 09:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It They are definatly notable when they affect a billion dollar industry. Google began as a college resaerch project. Think about how different the world would be if it was simply dismissed as not being noteable because its was a college project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirelan (talk • contribs)
    • Nobody is dismissing anything. The problem is that Wikipedia is here to describe things that are notable, not things that might be notable one day. We don't know which of today's research projects will change the world like Google did: therefore we don't write about any of them until after they've changed the world. — Haeleth Talk 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Haeleth, delete with all due respect!
    • Google is notable because it is a major search engine and massive corporation, not because it was a college project! Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research unless references are found. Feezo (Talk) 09:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What refrences do you want? I linked to the blog. - Nirelan
Blogs are not considered a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Please see the link for more information on the subject. Feezo (Talk) 10:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn project referenced by weblogs. Deizio 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mertling-Blake[edit]

Non-notable person. Only has 32 hits on Google. Two are Wikipedia and a handful of others are signatures to posts on forums. rhmoore 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative delete: seems to be vanity. "Contributing" to an essentially unknown "non-TV series" (i.e. a spoof credits sequence that describes itself as created by bored students; the name Robert Mertling-Blake does not even appear on the linked page), and contributing one article to Newsforge as part of a long series of reader-contributed articles, does not obviously establish notability. — Haeleth Talk 11:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --TM 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Born in 1987 and yet to do anything significant. Choalbaton 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi Moviescapes[edit]

Delete, nn, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #92,613 in Books San Saba 09:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Eusebeus 14:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above Hirudo 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg hartsuff[edit]

I screwed up and didn't capitalize last name. Then I screwed up again by not just moving it. Doh! Ksm10 09:53, 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. Akiyama, please use {{db-author}} in future. -- RHaworth 11:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published and Online Alternate Histories[edit]

I am the creator of this article. I changed my mind and decided it would be better just to have an article on published alternate histories. This article is now redundant. Akiyama 09:59, 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 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christdot[edit]

Delete - The pun doesn't make it notable, and the fact that the article creator linkspammed the /. article shows that this is purely promotional. Nnp 10:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page could be kept if expanded, true, but because of the linkspam, it feels more like an intentionnal ad. -- Grafikm_fr 12:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Slashdot. The site is well established (since 2001) and is as much like Slashdot as Ars Technica or digg, the only difference is the type of news it gathers. Christdot is to Christians on the Internet as Slashdot is to nerds on the Internet.--Will2k 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
· I'd say the type of news is rather relevant. I'd be more against merging it into Slashdot more than keeping it. --Nnp 08:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no evidence this site meets the WP:WEB criteria. I'd be strongly against a Slashdot merge as these are 2 entirely different sites and other than the play on Slashdot's name, there is no relation between the 2. If it isn't deleted it should have a standalone page.--Isotope23 16:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope23. Alexa rank of 441,355, fails WP:WEB. ergot 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Karada as copyvio. -- JLaTondre 12:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacem-build up on the road[edit]

This, as an essay, is not appropriate for an article, certainly not in its current form File Éireann 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • More a press release than an essay; but in either case, WP:NOT applies. Wikipedia is not a free ads site. Delete -- Karada 10:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Reads like original work. Kevin 10:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [23]. Speedy deleting. -- Karada 10:41, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Doobi Inc. Publishing. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 09:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Stew[edit]

I have refactored some of the comments from this page to the talk page to reduce the length that people have to browse through. This is not a statement that those comments are somehow not as important as what's here. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing but shameless self-promotion of author's website. Delete. Burmaduck 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, smells of self-promotion. Anville 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has been up for about three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating it for deletion (Burmaduck). If you look in the page history, you'll notice that the user tried to deface it. As that hasn't worked, now he's trying to get the page deleted this way. Burmaduck is a user who was banned from PS for repeatedly spamming the board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.107.247 (talk • contribs)
Comment Page history shows no edits by Burmaduck before the AfD. Fan1967 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As others rightly state, I didn't attempt to deface the article. Burmaduck
Comment My only alterations to the PS article have been additions of AfD, RFM and reverting vandalism. Your link shows that after my addition of AfD, someone else began editing the article. Burmaduck 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated by another user the page has been displayed on Wikipedia for three months until it came to the attention of the user nominating for deletion. (Burmaduck). Burmaduck, if the alias serves as the same as his handle on the site, is a person renowned for spamming the Lonely Planet website which he has continued to do for the last five years due to a failed legal action for plagiarism and once banned from the Political Stew site for grotesque racist abuse of certain members now tries to spam Political Stew. If this is the same Burmaduck he personally threatened one of the site administrators of Political stew who subsequently filed a complaint with the police. The motivation behind Burmaduck's request for deletion is more likely to be out of spite and has probably little or nothing to do with any contravention of the WED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep.. The claims by Burmaduck are biased as he was banned from the forum and was involved in a near-legal fight with the current administration of the forum. I think this site is in line with paragraph 1 of the WP:WEB guidelines, as it is a collection of published material of whom the majority cites its sources in well known international broadcasting agencies such as Reuters and the BBC. If it is not, then WP:WEB is against the nature of Wikipedia, as it only offers the chance to a handful of websites to be included in the directory. dr. manos 4/24/06 01:18GMT+2.
  • Keep. Site is frequently the subject of discussion of a major entry in Wikipedia, Lonely Planet. The Lonely Planet website administrators/programmers would confirm this is reference is required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.71.151 (talk • contribs)
Comment It's not that frequently discussed. It's more like users on LP mention it in passing occassionally. Burmaduck 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question What links with Lonely Planet? I'm having trouble finding any. Fan1967 01:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete move along nothing to see here. -- Hirudo 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issue of self-promotion seems odd as author never advertised the link on the Political Stew forums - was found independently by a user - nor anywhere else. Site is a non-profit and Political Stew is an obscure combination of words to be considered promotion. Google search for Political Stew does not show wiki link in top results. Given historic links with Lonely Planet and frequent discussion of it on their forums including contributions from their site admins, suggestion is keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.208.99 (talk • contribs)

Delete This entry on wikipedia is just an attempt at self aggrandizing on a scale that is up there with Ross Perot's. "the biggest single act of masturbation in the history of the world".

Keep. (Comment from author of original entry). I'm happy to remove entry on the basis of contravention of the WEP, although I don't believe that it necessarily does. There are long-standing links to one of your major entries in Lonely Planet, as well as mentions from Boots 'n' All. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs)

Delete Lies and more lies. The above poster has on numerous occassions told us of his intentions to tie the site in with a national newspaper or corporate sponsors. He has every intention of turning this website in to a commercial undertaking and is shamelessly using this entry on wikipedia as a way to convince interested parties to invest money. This site is a non entity and clearly does not benefit a mention on this site.--Bashtard 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the forum has a fairly decent number of members, but I just don't seen any evidence at all that this forum meets the WP:WEB criteria. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can post some evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Also, the nominator needs to WP:CHILL.--Isotope23 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I feel the page does meet the WEB criteria, there is little point continuing with a page that will be continually defaced. Please delete. (Original author comment)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillipssolutions (talk • contribs) :Comment Bashtard why are you being so childish? Burmaduck 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A quick lookover of the WP:Web criteria and the site in question shows that Political Stew does indeed meet said criteria. Burmaduck's intense crusade seems hardly founded in concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia and appears to be little more than a petty personal grudge. His comments should be treated with more than just a grain of salt. However, caution should be taken lest he spam Wikipedia with gay porn links as he has done with both the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree and the Political Stew - this fact can be verified by moderators of both sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.45.215.130 (talk • contribs) .
    • Another claim that the site meets WP:WEB with no supporting argument of how it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is really a non-issue but someone apparantly with an axe to grind against the site felt like making it one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.105.25.23 (talk • contribs)
Comment If this is as simple as a non-issue, please explain how the article meets the WP:WEB criteria? Burmaduck 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are a bunch of cheap and workshy lawyers who will be prepared to take up the case of why Wikipedia should put this article up. If Wiki still do not see reason then we will contact the London Met police and take out a criminal prosecution. Bet you are scared now--David Phillips and partners 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all at Wikipedia but this page has unfortunately been hijacked for a legitimate protest at the actions of the owners and administrators of the Political stew site. Banning people without reason and failing to give a justifiable reason is just not on. We are not going to just go away so sadly all other forays on to external sites by PS will be subject to this kind of attention. Bashtard


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. SushiGeek 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By any means necessary[edit]

This is just a phrase from a speech, not an appropriate subject for an article. Perhaps it could be merged and redirected to the Malcom X article, but as it stands I'd say delete. (The link to Wiktionary is misleading, incidentally, as there's no entry there.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Malcom X. Redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search. JoshuaZ 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Merge and make a Disambig per Wick's second comment. JoshuaZ 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Redirect. per above. Keep & Disambig. DVD+ R/W 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Josh and DVD R W. Morgan Wick 23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article leaves much to be desired, but I think there may be potential for a legitimate article. "By any means necessary" is more of an idea than it is just a quote. It symbolized the difference between the resistance advocated by Malcolm X and the resistance of civil disobedience advocated by Martin Luther King. ScottW 23:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per ScottW. Gosh, I wonder why Where's the beef?, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead, and Resistance is futile haven't generated at least as much momentum for deletion. Or even Turn_on, tune in, drop out. Should I be puzzled? Monicasdude 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a sarcastic reference to the idea that anti-black racism is involved. Aside from my own record in that area, all this "momentum for deletion" consists of one delete vote apart from mine... Taking your question seriously, all the examples that you quote are complete sentences, this is a phrase that means little out of context. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two delete votes, two votes to remove the individual article, 3 keeps. I'm referring to overall patterns of behavior, not to any particular user's actions. And "Where's the Beef" and the Franco quote have significant out-of-context meaning? Monicasdude 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the Franco one, but even in the U.K. the "where's the beef" advertising slogan became known through comedy shows, etc. (My point, though, was that the analogy doesn't hold because they're all complete sentences.) Have the other three been taken to AfD? What was the response, and what were the arguments? I'd have probably argued against all three, but of the more thana million articles here, I'm able to look at a tiny fraction. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but send to Wikiquote and merge with Malcolm X if possible. Bjelleklang - talk 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per ScottW and Monicasdude above. Look in Category:Political slogans and see what our de facto notability threshhold is for such things, complete sentences or not. This one is extremely important; I've certainly seen "by any means necessary" - as a standalone phrase - used to symbolize and express support for the flip side of the "I have a dream" aspect of civil rights. This article should be expanded, not deleted. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you really saying that you support Monicasdude's accusations of racism? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I dunno, have you stopped beating your wife? In other words, if I answer your question in either of the obvious ways, I'm rhetorically trapped into agreeing with you that Monicasdude is alleging that you're racist, which you've just claimed here. I'll pass. I agree with Monicasdude's argument for inclusion, which I took to be that the topic of the article under discussion is at least as notable as the topics of the other articles mentioned. That's what I get out of his vote, anyway, but I'm sure I'm bringing my own assumptions to my reading... -GTBacchus(talk) 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      See how Beno100 was able to give a straightforward answer and you refuse to do so? What should I read into that? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Precisely what's written into it - I'm calling you out on a rhetorical trap you're oh-so-cleverly laying. GTB don't play. I will say this - I'm kind of racist. I think I'll be the rest of my life learning to overcome prejudices that I've internalized without noticing. (Growing up in the South can't have helped.) I'm certainly capable of contributing to systematic bias, through action and through omission, if I'm not attentive. What do you want to bet I'm not the only one? Monicasdude is calling this AfD an example of systematic bias - is he right? I have no idea. I can't see into Mel Etitis's soul or that of anyone voting "delete", and neither can Monicasdude. His post is rude, but I don't know that it's wrong. Each of us can ask ourselves if the shoe fits, and there you go. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I know where you're coming from now in all of your oh-so-friendly, butter won't melt in your mouth, badgering of me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the final outcome, Wick is correct that we need a disambig page. JoshuaZ 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On that note, the Boogie Down Productions album is actually called By All Means Necessary, which certainly refereces the Malcolm X quote, but isn't the same. Fixing the article now... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As per Monicasdude's comment above. Beno1000 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you really saying that you support Monicasdude's accusations of racism? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I am saying that I support his comment that some possibly less notable phrases have Wikipedia articles while this one does not, and could probably be seen as very notable. Beno1000 02:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the clarification, something others don't seem capable of doing. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNH Blue[edit]

A non remarkable shade of blue, that seems popular as it is (or close to) Pantone Matching System No. 288 and seems popular in logos/colour schemes and similar with yellow or white. I have not been able to find any verification that this name (UNH Blue or University of New Hampshire Blue) is actually used beyond (or even by) the University of New Hampshire, also on a side point other groups also seem to clam this as their shade of blue like Pace University. blue520 13:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see any reason to have this outside of an article on UNH. How much can you really say about a shade of blue? --Ajdz 04:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't deserve its own article. Chonak 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (UNH '79)[reply]
  • Merge - Should be merged into a color Blue article having the nearest shade. The color is used by UNH, but beyond that I do not know. --Assawyer 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (UNH '05)[reply]
  • Merged information into University of New Hampshire. UNH Creative Services confirms that the color in its logo is indeed Pantone 288 but the web page does not use the term UNH Blue. The color is indeed widely used. My impression from a Google search is that the term UNH Blue appears only in sports articles, more to refer to teams than to the specific color. Chonak 22:45, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eclipse[edit]

Vanity from editor who exists to promote Antonella Gambotto-Burke. Publisher seems to exist mainly for the same reason.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely notable and borders on vanity.--Cini 15:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Amazon hits, and cleaning up promotional content would leave practically nothing else --Cedders 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:20, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Instinct for the Kill[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly notable (54 sites on google) Again, bordering on vanity.--Cini 15:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pure Weight of the Heart[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Cini 15:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because it is not notable. I think it is notable enough. Only, this is just blurb material, totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. LambiamTalk 23:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic content created by subject's publicist, no prejudice against later creation of a proper article on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:05, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch of Blood[edit]

More Antonella Gambotto-Burke vanity

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, borders on vanity.--Cini 15:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd expect to find some of the reviews of these books on the web, but can't. --Cedders 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic article created by subject's publicist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:09, 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. SushiGeek 09:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest (Culdee Fell Mountain Railway)[edit]

This was prodded User:Gwernol who noted doesn't require its own article. Was curiously unprodded, so bringing it to AfD. One sentence about a fictional "character" which doesn't warrant its own article. Eusebeus 14:03, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeezee[edit]

all info is already in the Squeeze play (bridge) article. I do not think it's a likely search term either, but if people disagree with that then a redirect would be ok with me. Hirudo 14:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 14:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Additionally, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. San Saba 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 04:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Transwiki to wiktionary. I'm one of maintainers of bridge pages, but we "inherited" that article. Nothing encyclopedic to write about it. Duja 20:42, 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. SushiGeek 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature about footwear[edit]

Originally prodded and removed. Unencyclopedic list of books. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Eusebeus 14:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query How do you "wrongly deprod" something? Anyone can deprod anything for any reason. Kotepho 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodding without fixing any of the glaring errors on a page seems a mite counterproductive. delete as shoecruft Appropriate Username 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, shoecruft. Tokakeke 17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume there must be an article on footwear or shoes, why not merge it there? Jcuk 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- to shoes. DVD+ R/W 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete -- Hirudo 02:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete --MaNeMeBasat 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. listcruft. --Icarus 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If one of these books is the book on shoes, revered by all shoe experts worldwide, then merge that book. Please don't make shoe an indiscriminate collection of books that mention shoes. Weregerbil 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not merge. This list is unencyclopaedic and may constitute listcruft. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to shoe as a further reading list. This will be useful, especially considering that the article currently has no references at all -- it helps to point readers to other useful works. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely unencyclopedic listcruft. Beno1000 23:52, 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 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction_physics[edit]

This page appears to be (a) original research, (b) entirely unsupported by academic research or real-world practice, and (c) incoherent. It's my belief that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be considered for deletion. Rob 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The El Reyko 20:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's heavily edited and published in a peer-reviewed journal, and subsequently becomes notable, it may be recreated down the line. Morgan Wick 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. also [[24]] as the wikipedia qualifications do not apply there either. T.Rue 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Cedars 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re-evaluate - read comment in articles discussion. (Article Discussion was removed. A wikipedia fail that would otherwise have show the bias of the editors)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 editorialise. This is AfD, not Pages for Merging, and it was not appropriate to nominate it here: one could just as easily have merged the articles (took me five minutes), or have slapped "merge" templates on them (would take thirty seconds). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Munford[edit]

Prodded, which was removed. Bringing to AfD. This reads like a corporate site bio. Suggest a Merge to Sophos. Eusebeus 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, as the person himself is non-notable aside from his contributions to the company. -- Kicking222 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or failing that, Merge), wrongly deprodded by chronic de-prodder Kappa. Kuzaar 15:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to assume good faith. Kappa is a good Wikipedian who happens to disagree in good faith with many other editors (including, I admit, myself). That doesn't mean it's fair to describe him as a "chronic de-prodder", as if he's out to eliminate WP:PROD or is not acting in good faith. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per above. San Saba 17:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete When I first came across this article it was nothing more than a resumé, so tagged it under CSD/A7. Then the author talked to me about it, and I decided to try and salvage it. Now, however, I do still feel he's non-notable outside of his own company. One quick question: If your vote is to merge the article, why not propose a merger rather than deletion? This is AfD not Articles to be Merged. AmiDaniel (Talk) 19:33, 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. The keep argument is that the diner surpasses the notability guidelines at WP:CORP, which (I've checked) is absolutely correct. The delete argument is made by only two people, each with different reasoning. Cini (talk · contribs) points to the article being unverifiable which, it must be said, doesn't appear to be the case from what I can tell. Calton (talk · contribs) complains of a lack of Google hits, and he's quite right — but real, live publications that get the article past WP:CORP trumps the Google test any day. Calton's argument is strong, which is why I'm closing as "no consensus" instead of a straight out "keep". If you disagree, DRV is as always -----------------------> that way. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becky's Diner[edit]

prodded by User:Rory096 which was removed so bringing it to AfD. Yes, it's a diner folks. Nn - suggest Delete Eusebeus 14:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, wrongly deprodded by a chronic deprodding user. Kuzaar 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. The rationale was that is appeared to be notable as it states the diner was featured on FoodTV and in a food magazine. You may disagree that it makes it notable enough to keep, or have concerns about verifying the claim, but that doesn't make removing the prod tag "wrong." Thatcher131 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Why I call it wrong is that the contesting user decided to demand consensus on an article that doesn't even toe the line of notability. If you look at the discussion here you can see that the consensus points to a resounding "delete", and my issue is that the extra work of the editors that listed the article here and then voted could have been better spent improving Wikipedia in other ways; that's why I call it wrongly removed. Kuzaar 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under the rationale that, um, it's a diner. -- Kicking222 14:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep being featured on the Food Network can be considered as establishing at least marginal notability. Hirudo 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Issues with verifiability prevent me from keeping.--Cini 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable local business.Obina 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, it's just a diner that someone on a show ate in. Not notable. --Rory096(block) 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to neutral. While they have been mentioned in several places (including a small bit in the New York Times), they're apparently paying Food Network anyway, and they have just 518 Google hits. --Rory096(block) 20:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nn, or more correctly - REALLY NN -, San Saba 17:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, looks like an ad to me. Shijaz 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, shouldn't this kind of stuff be speedy deleted? -- Heptor talk 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy. Improper use of AfD. Nothin' to vote for. --MaNeMeBasat 05:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor is it free advertising space. --Icarus 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep, meets WP:CORP with multiple media mentions (Gourmet Magazine and Frommers, Food TV). The official website also lists mentions in Esquire and the book Eat Your Way Across the USA. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trying out those mind-reading courses you took? The money would have been better spent on anger-management classes. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please try to assume good faith, Monicasdude. I know it's tempting to jump straight for thinking the worst of people at times, but this is Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minorly famous. The Gourmet reference, I ought to point out, is from Jane and Michael Stern's "Roadfood" column, their look at backroads diners and other vernacular places.
Meanwhile, checking and comparing search results for "Becky's Diner" with other, actually famous restaurants:
Restaurant Google hits
overall		 Google hits
unique		 Yahoo!
"Chez Panisse" -book -cookbook 161,000 773 78,800
"The French Laundry" -book -cookbook 89,400 718 52,100
"Charlie Trotter's" -book -cookbook 92,400 694 32,300
"Becky's Diner" 528 203 346
Doesn't compare very well. Hmm, but those are too upscale, you say? Okay, let's go downscale, using the type of eating places the Sterns have raved about in their Roadfood books and columns:
Restaurant Google hits
overall		 Google hits
unique		 Yahoo!
"Mary Mac's Tea Room" 56,500 350 2,450
"Swan Oyster Depot" 50,100 397 13,300
"Arthur Bryant's" 38,600 514 25,600
"Doe's Eat Place" 15,500 422 1,790
"Sylvia's restaurant" 12,300 438 1,820
"Becky's Diner" 528 203 346
Still falling short, it appears. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think WP:CORP applies? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:33, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Glickman[edit]

Originally prodded by User:Zetawoof as autobiography. Prod removed, so bringing it here. Original prod could have more accurately noted non-notable autobiography. (Article creator is eponymous). Eusebeus 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Deprodded wrongly by a chronic prod remover. Kuzaar 14:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userpage, as this obviously is non-notable in and of itself. -- Kicking222 14:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Seems to have held some at least semi-notable positions at Illinois University, so may be worth an article. Needs some serious attention though. Hirudo 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, should never have made it this far. San Saba 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I prodded this as an autobiography. If this person actually needs an article (which I'm not sure of - the article is too full of pseudo-peacock terms to tell what's notable and what's not), let someone else write it from scratch. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to creator. I don't see anything here that meets the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're apparently voting to keep without "regard to merits of dispute". Eusebeus provided his own reasoning here... calling that bad faith is insulting. --W.marsh 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't. He just repeated the mantra "non-notable" without giving any explanation of the claim. Calling that "reasoning" is insulting to people who actually reason. Monicasdude 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okaay, so now he's acting in bad faith because he didn't perform up to your standards... I dislike "delete nn" nominations as much as anyone but to call them bad faith is simply incorrect. --W.marsh 15:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I noted elsewhere (your RFAr), the person not providing a meaningful rationale for their opinion on the article is you, not the nominator. You posted that comment to 34 articles in 21 minutes... --W.marsh 15:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't intend to repeat this on every AfD involving Eusebus and Monicasdude. but I noticed yesterday that Eusebus appeared to be systematically AfD'ing every article that Kappa deprodded, and in many cases citing Kappa by name (a reversal of the Appeal to authority logical fallacy). We would do well to consider the merit of each article without reference to who nominated it and who voted keep. Thatcher131 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- JamesTeterenko 23:01, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction in Organizational Purchasing[edit]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is nonsense; I also suspect it exists purely to promote the very odd website that it links to twice. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense and advertisement; Googling "Interaction in Organizational Purchasing" comes up with (literally) absolutely nothing. And, in fact, the site for which this nonsense Wikipage is advertising is also nonsense. -- Kicking222 14:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WTH, WP:BALLS, WP:V. and stuff. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 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 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Genocide[edit]

This article is based on a biased view of the Algerian war of independance. It is a confusion between the Setif massacre that took place in 1945 where between 15,000 to 45,000 (figures vary between sources)people were killed and the event of Algerian war of independance. In addition, France has formally accepted its responsabilities in the Setif massacre and presented its apologies to Algeria via its ambassador. The author distorts the words of president Abdelaziz Bouteflika who said that French colonisation was a genocide of Algerian identity, language and traditions, but never said that France perpetrated a genocide as in exterminating people. He was implying that the effect of colonisation was the destruction of the cultural identity of algerians. This also has to be replaced in the context, as president Bouteflika was replying in anger to a law that was voted in French parliement recognising the beneficial effect of colonisation. This law has been repelled since. The author also distorts his references as the Scotsman article referred to DO NOT claims that France killed 1.5 million Algerians so it is a false reference. I suggest this article should be deleted, as there are already some articles on the massacres perpetrated by the French rulers in Algeria, the article is just the point of view of the author and is full of inacuracies. Blastwizard 14:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NPOV and redundant. Tokakeke 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Choalbaton 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it because the genocide committed by a Western white nation and against a non-Western nation. Anybody may genocide Arabs or Africans and get no punishment. Even you cannot name tha massacres as genocide. The Algerian President and his people say it was a genocide. And the article clearly reflects the French opposition. I started the entry and I had put the info to Algeria and France pages. However the user Blastwizard deleted all of my contributions. I think this is another type of vandalism. He says that there is no court verdict about the Algerian genocide. Is there any verdict on Armenian 'genocide'. But there is an entry called 'Arzmenian Genocide' on Wiki pages. And we cannot change this article because it is under protection. Please and please delete it. Show once more how the world is as usual we know here.David Falcon 20:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Algerian president said it was a genocide of Algerian culture not people, obviously you don't get the subtlety of his language or more exactly you don't want to understand as it does not fit with your opinion. The exact words of president Bouteflika were Colonisation brought the genocide of our identity, of our history, of our language, of our traditions so it is your misinterpretation of this sentence that brought this article to existence, in addition the number of victims you wrote is unsubstantiated by any sources you gave. Would president Bouteflika go to receive medical treatment in a military hospital of a country that has comitted genocide on his people? Your contributions are in breach of neutrality of point of view. You are accusing me of editing the page of Algeria which is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for personal opinion, I had nothing to do with the article on armenian genocide I just pointed its existence which obviously upsets you. If you read carefully my post on the subject you will see that I pointed at that there was no indictment of the ottoman empire because it collapsed before international courts of justices ever existed (I suppose Nuremberg trial makes a precedence), but several parliements in the world have voted a law to consider it as a genocide. You may have an issue with the atrocities the French did in Algeria, and I said I didn't condone it, what I say is it does not qualify as a genocide they took place at a time when France could have been condemned it is not the case, and you are distorting the official opinion of Algerian authorities. It is not because western people killed masses of non-western people and in the case you are pointing that it qualifies as a genocide and I'm rather upset because your light approach to the use of the word genocide belittles some real genocides. Blastwizard 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork from Setif massacre, little usefull information without adequate sourcing. The BBC article says between 15 and 45 thousand people died, article claims 1,5 million. -- Heptor talk 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Setif massacre, unless there's something else involving Algerians that people with a particular point of view would consider a genocide. Morgan Wick 23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Distortions make a mockery of "genocide." For the same reason, do not redirect. --Ajdz 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all a genocide is not only committed against the people but also their culture, identity, language etc. Just look at the conventions and treaties. Secondly the Algerians do not only say that the French committed genocide only against their identity. More than 1,5 million people were massacred according to the Algerian official records. OK. This is Algerian perspective. So add the French perspective but maintain the 'Algerian Genocide' title. Third I am not a full-Turkish.
    • "French and international public opinion must know that France committed a real act of genocide in May 1945." Algerian Senior Offical - Mohamed El Korso, president of the May 1945 Foundation BBC
    • "Algeria had "never ceased waiting for an admission from France of all the acts committed during the colonial period and the war of liberation." Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika BBC David Falcon 10:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please add your comments at the end, not to hide the reasons why I nominated this article for deletion. You seem unable to read the articles you cite. You say the figure of 1.5 million victims is the official Algerian records, cite your references where did you find this ? Strangely enough when you use references to support this affirmation the references do not contain this information. Your affirmations seem to be very distorted by the prism of your opinion. As I said before I don't care whether you are Turkish, Chinese, English, Papu or whatever, what I care about is well referenced articles in Wikipedia not peoples' personal opinions. Now if you can provide a well documented research work by historians and scholars instead of reporting words from politicians I will reconsider my stance. And no genocide is a crime against people not against culture, president Bouteflika hijacked the word in the purposes of his political agenda. If you take the etymology of the word, geno is the greek root for race and cide comes from latin cidere killing it does not mean killing people's culture. And for your records I am not denying that colonisation has altered the identity of colonised country, but your articles are really far fetched in that matter Blastwizard 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork, misleading title. ergot 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You have have just decided against what the Algerian people had to go through in their independence war. You have just denied that they have been maasacred by the colonial French Army. Shame on you Genocide deniers! User: Samothrakis

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue[edit]

Contested PROD. This unsigned band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. They are unsigned, their music is self-released, and I don't see any evidence of a national tour. Joyous | Talk 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator, also all verifiable information seems to be provided by the band themselves. Kuzaar 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --soUmyaSch 14:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 14:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- They should be kept - This band have started a musical scene where they are from, they are an important part of the new music industry. A national tour means playing around the country, which they have done in many areas (Liverpool, Sheffield, London and soon to be Birmingham). They are being looked at by record labels and although they may release records by themself that is what music is about. Self creation and releasing. There are many unsigned bands on here which meet far less meet the 'criteria' set. Information about the band has been provided by fans of the band from all around the country. They are supporting signed bands and this has been mentioned in Newspapers and NME as tours. This all (Tours, influence, mentioned in national magazines) fits with the WP:MUSIC rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.238.119 (talk • contribs)
Comment: When they are signed onto major record labels and are widely accepted as notable, they will merit their own article on Wikipedia. Until then, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kuzaar 15:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 'widely accepted as notable' - I would call booked to play festivals and being payed for gigs, being asked by signed bands to support them and with over 15000 fans and 200,000 plays on Myspace as being widely accepted as notable. They are a KNOWN band in the Indie music industry and community, meaning they are known and regarded as famous. And before anyone asks, i am not a member of the band, just a clued up fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.238.119 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Affairs Gaming[edit]

The game only had 50 players at its peak and most of the Google results for the "Current Affairs Gaming" appear to be irrelevant, like "current affairs, gaming". -- Kjkolb 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can this nomination be relisted? If it is, I suggest adding it early in the day, which starts at about 6 PM in the Pacific Timezone. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why? Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Things listed early get more votes. -- Kjkolb 00:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 19 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as a wholly nn site/game. -- Kicking222 14:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 15:08, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian UFO Magazine[edit]

Non-notable publication, no evidence offered of existence, "the only UFO magazine in brazil" does not imply notability. Until this can be independantly verified by multiple sources, it neither deserves an article nor belongs here. Also, de-prodded by a chronic de-prodding editor. Kuzaar 14:41, 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. If someone wants to info for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merentha Mudlib[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:SOFT. 838 Ghits. Rory096(block) 22:25, 14 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Innovation, notability, other criteria not asserted in article. Colonel Tom 01:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I deleted this and then restored it; I hadn't realized it had been relisted. Chick Bowen 05:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed guideline. Should we really be deleting according to it yet? Vashti 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Given that you don't need any "consensus" reason to delete an article, after all we could just write "delete per nom". Specifying WP:SOFTWARE at least gives some reasons and suggestions. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into somewhere related to LP mudlibs. It seems noteworthy enough for me to have created the article (there are a few ways that it's unique, and has some advantages over other mudlibs in some areas), and I made the stub in hopes that someone who uses it might improve the article. But, I am not interested enough and also don't have the time to expand it in any significant way myself. Nobody's seems to have expanded it in the several months of its existance, so I think that's enough lack of interest that I'm fine with it being deleted. Also I forgot why I created this article and not one about Merentha itself... I think it was so that Category:LPMud_mudlibs would be more complete. This should probably be merged somewhere like that. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:01, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office "12" Ribbon[edit]

Already covered more extensively in main article listed in prod. Does not deserve its own article; wrongly deprodded by a contributor. Kuzaar 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no such thing as wrongly deprodding an article. Thatcher131 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like "There's no such thing as a stupid question," there are always exceptions. This looks like one of them. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "inappropriately" instead of wrongly, my mistake. Contesting the deletion of an article that is covered more extensively in another place, and which clearly does not merit its own article, I consider to be inappropriate and perhaps even lazy on the part of the editor, who could have spent a little more time to look into the subject instead of wantonly removing prod tags- which, if you check his recent hundred or so edits, all but a handful are exactly that. Kuzaar 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, says the guy who prod'd it. Warrens 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per norm. San Saba 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Main article covers "Ribbon" well! Shijaz 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really trivial. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 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. If someone wants the information for merging, please contact me or another admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Sentinels (Part 2)[edit]

prodded, which was removed. Single line describing an episode of the X-men. Eusebeus 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is wrong with it, short and sweet Fallen Angel talk 19:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Torskie[edit]

Having just cleaned up and Wikified this article, I'm still not convinced that this writer is famous enough to be worth mention on Wikipedia, especially after having searched on Google and Amazon and found none of his published works. Djbb2 15:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparent hoax. Unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN / hoax. Google=0 for both Nathan Alexander Severn, Nathan Severn or Alexander Torskie. (Thanks for the cleanup, though, Djbb2). Colonel Tom 01:18, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braganza's Beseigers[edit]

I don't think we need an individual page for each Warhammer figurine or unit Hirudo 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per norm, San Saba 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Was de-prodded on the grounds that it "appears to be real", with no regard for notability (which was the reason for the prod). --Icarus 06:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There are a number of others like this that would be worthy of an afd, in my opinion. --TheParanoidOne 05:34, 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. The author has now admitted this article is fiction. Which makes this a completely non notable article. CSD A7. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berstoffenday[edit]

  • Hoax. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Berstoffenday" yeah sure... and a baron in britain circa 100 BC... Author, please go learn your history and Strong delete of this "article" please. -- Grafikm_fr 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that he should be able to keep it there. Why should it be deleted when it isn't hurting anyone? If you can't prove that it is false, then keep it.-- Traevin 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This afd had been edited - these comments are not from those listed.Obina 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as hoax and block User:69.250.174.6 for changing people's votes in this AfD. Somebody will have to go back and fix these votes, since all of the "keep" votes shown above have been forged by User:69.250.174.6 and a simple revert is not enough to fix all of them. --Metropolitan90 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per previous comments. Article is unverifiable rubbish, and the comments in the article's talk page only confirm that it cannot be supported. I've already warned him about removing AfD notices - will add a note about forging votes for when he comes back from his current blocking, although one would think that obvious. Kuru talk 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen! Alright, I will admit that this is a work of fiction. I am the author of this, and I request that you please keep it up because it plays a part in a movie I am making and I really need it to still be up. If you could permit me that, I will be thankful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.174.6 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 April 2006
  • Strong delete per nom and, obviously, consistent with the explanation supra by the page's creator. Joe 17:51, 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, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University futures education[edit]

Listcruft, unless someone can give a reason why there is something special about futures education. I don't see the value in having a list of universities teaching a certain subject Hirudo 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per above, San Saba 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would help if there was an article on "Futures education" so we knew what it is all about, but there does not appear to be. If there was this list could be merged there. --Bduke 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non notable, just a survey Tony Bruguier 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sango123 (e) 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get Invisible![edit]

Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD. Unnotable book; this does not need its own article. Could be merged to R.L. Stine Eusebeus 15:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Goosebumps unless it can be expanded enough to get its own entry, which I doubt. -- Grafikm_fr 16:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several of the Goosebumps books have their own articles and I fail to see why each of them can't have their own as they were extremely popular in their time and to a lesser degree, still are today. Needs to be expanded as do many of the other Goosebumps books, but worth keeping.--Cini 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm just amazed it isn't a copyvio, which is more than can be said about The Haunted Mask, I think, though I haven't tested it yet. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable books from a notable book series. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup (tag added).--Isotope23 15:16, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LatestDiscountVouchers.co.uk[edit]

NN, fails to meet WP:WEB Coren 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy - this is a promo disguised as a review, not an encyclopedic article. If cleaned up, would still fail WP:WEB. Colonel Tom 01:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Tom. TH 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Blatant advert; makes no claim of notability. ergot 23:48, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Today[edit]

Non notable site. Alexa ranking of 381,061. Rory096(block) 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nominator. Noone will miss this article. -- Heptor talk 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:35, 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 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agj Barnes[edit]

Vanity - non notable. -- Szvest 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 15:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian rappers[edit]

unverified listcruft; 95% of these rappers are nn and don't have their own wikipedia articles. There should be a Category:Christian rappers instead. --M@rēino 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all lists of non-notable bands. I disagree with you though Nagle, lists of notable things like List of rappers should be kept.--Urthogie 18:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a random list which mainly just contains external links, if anything at all. Category:Christian rappers sounds like a good idea. -- Mithent 18:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Christian rappers would include 90 percent of rappers.--Urthogie 19:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that unlikely. Many prominent rappers are Muslims or associated with the Nation of Islam or The Nation of Gods and Earths (the latter being an offshoot of the Nation of Islam, but not necessarily considering itself an Islamic group). See Category:Five Percenters. (Presumably there are others who do not publicly associate themselves with any organized religion.) Delete List of Christian rappers and replace it with a category per nomination, since many of the listed rappers do not have articles of their own on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of rappers are christian. The 5 percenters are called 5 percenters for a reason.--Urthogie 07:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly disagree with suggestions that lists should be replaced by categories. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines both are valid and both can happily sit side by side. Jcuk 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also note that this particular name is hopelessly POV: it aims not to list rappers who belong to any Christian religion, but to rappers whose particular brand of Christianity meets the approval of the list-maker. Bucketsofg 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to a list. I put a lot of work into this article, but all the same, it may need to go. A list of underground Christian rappers and hip-hop groups may be a good idea, or would that count as listcruft? Any thoughts? |phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|
That's what it already is.--Urthogie 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
True, true. |phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|
  • Do not Delete. The history is a lot deeper here than what has been described and several of the bands on the list play a key role in the history of Christian Rap. It would benefit history to gather that in one place and would best be served by giving the major bands a good and fair description in this section. I don't have the time to work on this right now, but I'm trying to motivate a couple people to do some work in order to put a little bit of effort into this page so that it will be more than just links to web pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.84.181 (talk • contribs)
We already have an article on the history of Christian rap. We're debating if we need a list of non-notables.--Urthogie 11:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did not nominate this as part of some campaign to delete all lists. I just think that this list is irreparably overrun with non-notables, and that a category and a few added lines in Christian hip hop would replace what little unique and useful content this page may currently provide. --M@rēino 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now added all of the rappers in the list to the proposed cat.--M@rēino 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but I see youre putting groups in it. Please create a seperate category for christian hip hop groups, as is the convention. thanks, --Urthogie 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe I should change the title so that both groups and individuals can be in the same category? I'm not sure what the best approach is.--M@rēino 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been categorizing hip hop stuff for a long while now. What we do for musicians is we have a Category:Christian hip hop musicians (i've created for you), which has groups and rappers categories inside it. Christian DJ's and producers and instrumentalists would go directly in [[:Category:Christian hip hop musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthogie (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, per nom. This looks like it is trying to be a list of external links, which WP:NOT. ergot 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has been noted that lists and categories of the same thing may coexist. Well, what if we remade the article as "List of Christian hip hop artists by genre"? I know it sounds like listcruft, but it would essentially be the same thing, but it would kill two birds with one stone. Even if it is listcruft, its article is an essay, and I get the idea that if very specific lists would benefit the wiki, that it wouldn't be undesirable. I know I say this a lot, but, any thoughts? |phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|
  • Keep and fix! Just because an article needs work doesn't mean it should be deleted. Christian hip-hop is a legitimate genre of music so why not have a list of Christian rappers, including a few who may not have articles yet? We have List of alternative rock CCM artists, List of hard rock CCM artists, and List of punk CCM artists. This would be a nice complement to those lists. GT 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC. It's a POV list of external links, and stuff. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not fix it? Why can't a valid page exist at List of Christian rappers just because the current incarnation might not be? GT 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMHO, b/c Christian hip hop is the better place for informing readers about the artists and the new cats are the better place for people who just want links. But then again, I'm the nominator, so maybe I'm biased. --M@rēino 23:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay but until such a point that lists are eliminated across the board in favor of categories, why not have both? I'm not aware of any such consensus decision to eliminate lists. GT 02:28, 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 17:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Legacy[edit]

Unnecessary redundancy. All information easily found elsewhere on Wikipedia Chris Griswold 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - Provides no new context; only regurgitates old, redundant material. --Chris Griswold 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Disagree with nom. Such collection of information may be usefull. -- Heptor talk 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom; this is repetition of material better found/expressed elsewhere. Eusebeus 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. If someone wants to try cleaning this up, contact an admin. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual life under the Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

The article doesn't make any sense, it's inaccurate, has brough up discussions and is sibject to a war between editors! Hooman 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article definitely does make sense. None of the other reasons given: being inaccurate, having brought up discussions, and being subject to a war, is a valid reason for deletion. I think the title could be more neutral; the word "under" by itself suggests oppression. LambiamTalk 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Well-written nonsense! Not at all relevant, and I can't think of anybody who would want to refer this article in an encyclopedia. We're not here to write about sexual life of people in various countries!! Shijaz 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speak for yourself. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, and the only criterion that is relevant is whether this topic belongs in an encyclopedia. Provided it is interesting and properly sourced, an article on "Sexual life in the United Kingdom" (if such a thing exists) should be equally welcome. LambiamTalk 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Original research and POV fork. --ManiF 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what exactly? There used to be a brief section "Sexual relations in Iran" in the article Culture of Iran, stating: In Iran flirting and mixing between the opposing sexes is viewed even now as taboo. But with a rapidly changing society we are seeing changing views. But that was deleted on March 3, 2006 by User:Amir85 with edit summary Revert vandalism. LambiamTalk 07:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big unrealistic claim with no source. Amir85 11:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE for same reason as Shijaz --Khalid 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and mark for cleanup. There's material here I wouldn't like to see lost, but it certainly needs less POV and more wikification. --Cedders 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legitimate topic for an article. This one can be improved (as could all articles) but deletion based on the charges brought would be wrong. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. LambiamTalk 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per nominator--Ya Ali 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and mark for cleanup. If more information with better sources is added, the article will be very interesting for anyone who wishes to know how the Iranian Goverment interprets Quaran on this matter, and how it actually works in practice. -- Heptor talk 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Currently a haphazard mess of an article. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Why keeping an article which doesn't have a single credible source, full of personal thoughts and claims. Amir85 11:50, 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. Shanel § 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday (2006 film)[edit]

nn indie film article created by User:Ryan_Moore, whose vanity article, Ryan Moore (actor), is also up for deletion. There is no IMDb listing for the film, and the article lacks verifiability, credibility and stated importance or notability. In the event that the film becomes notable in future it can be recreated, but that seems pretty unlikely based on the information provided. TM 16:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... well, since I proposed in the previous AfD discussion that this article should also be deleted, I guess I should vote delete. Although, on second thought... no, just kidding. This is junk. -- Kicking222 17:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity article doktorb | words 17:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 18:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of significance. --BillC 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Key line from the article: "The film will shoot from Saturday, 23 April 2006 to Saturday, 30 April 2006." So, it hasn't filmed yet, and it will be shot in a week. Crystallballery and non-notability in one. Fan1967 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. MikeWazowski 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per all of the above. -- I@n ≡ talk 00:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A page about a non-notable future film, written by one of its non-notable bit part actors. If it becomes notable, someone will write an encyclopedia article on it. ekedolphin 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Calair 03:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the film starts winning prestigious awards, I will welcome a new article on the film. --Roisterer 04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--cj | talk 06:48, 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. Sango123 (e) 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Montreal[edit]

I vote for this page to be deleted because the information appears to be a hoax. If this article is indeed legitimate, please state your case here. Trapper 16:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence of the article itself states that this movement or ideal or whatever was created less than two weeks ago. It's complete nonsense, and it certainly doesn't deserve a Wikipage. Strong delete. -- Kicking222 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --BillC 18:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a hoax. --AlainV 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy To whoever made the article. I will also show them to the Fiction Wiki. The Republican 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No evidence that this is a hoax outside of personal opinion. --68.210.128.198 19:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is SO a hoax! -- Heptor talk 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no substantial information to show that as of Easter Friday 2006 that there is a New Montreal. I brought this up in discussion and do not feel there is such a thing as a New Montreal. -- Eric B ( T • C • W ) 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- crystal ball clause. Haikupoet 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a manifesto host --Ajdz 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I think it's something escaped from the Montreal Comedy Festival. Peter Grey 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ridiculous hoax. Sure there's a New Montreal - it runs from Viger street to the North, McGill St to the West and St. Denis to the East - but this ain't it. Eusebeus 08:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redonkulous. -- OsgoodeLawyer 13:23, 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 redirect to Mitsubishi i. Sango123 (e) 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi_i-Car[edit]

a similar article exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i anobo 16:54, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry chill(gum)[edit]

Non notable... chewing gum. Rory096(block) 17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as nn. --BillC 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only 767 Google matches, and only about 2/3 of those are related anyway. -- Mithent 18:29, 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. – Will (E@) T 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karlson lee[edit]

No relevant results on Google, unverified/made up information. Mr. Lefty 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this is complete nonsense, and I'm not sure why it wasn't just tagged for speedy deletion in the first place. -- Kicking222 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Sceptre. --Rory096(block) 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karlson lee[edit]

Possible hoax. --64.231.65.219 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, definitely. No relevant results on Google, obviously falsified information. Mr. Lefty 17:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as it is obviously a hoax (no Ghits, nonsense and so on). -- Grafikm_fr 17:10, 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 delete. Sango123 (e) 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LemmeFind[edit]

Non-notable website/search aggregator. Alexa rank of 499,781. Delete. zzuuzz (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable enough. (Come back later!) Shijaz
  • Delete, is generic meta-search. --Cedders 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Pepsidrinka 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain IT Team[edit]

This article had been deleted four times (log) as a CSD A7. I believe it still is -- there's nothing notable here at all -- but I am hesitant to "salt the earth" with a protected {{deletedpage}} without community discussion on this one. Delete. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 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 speedy keep as an assumed good-faith nomination but with no good deletion reason given. This is a long-existing page linked to by many other pages, and as others have pointed out, certainly no less minor than many other characters from the Simpsons. More appropriate (but probably futile) to raise an argument for merging character pages on the Simpsons talk page (or the Simpsons portal). Turnstep 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Hutz[edit]

Minor character in "The Simpsons." Brian G. Crawford 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep he was major for a time Will (E@) T 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has been a significant character in many episodes. Mike (T C) 17:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Out of all the simpsons characters in the simpsons characters category, I would say this is one of the more notable ones. This character was voiced by Phil Hartmann. Obviously, we haven't seen much any of this character since his unfortunate and untimely death. Roodog2k 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The character was retired from the show after Phil Hartman was murdered. That makes the character even more notable. Roodog2k 17:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the story about retiring the character could perhaps be emphasised a little more in the article, but this one is a keeper. --BillC 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for all of the reasons stated above. Even if Phil's wife had not, sadly, taken his life and her own, Lionel Hutz would still be notable enough for his own article. Think about how many times the Simpsons have done something that landed them in court... if not for Hartman's death, Hutz would be in every other episode! -- Kicking222 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for above reasons. -- Mithent 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hutz is notable enough to have his own article just like any of the Simpsons' characters.Shijaz 18:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character in The Simpsons to have his own article.--Cini 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is certainly notable within the Simpsonverse. ... discospinster 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hutz is sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lionel Hutz non-notable? Whaaaaaaaaaa? --Nobunaga24 21:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - really cant belive that someone actually wants to delete this article. Luka Jačov 23:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely NOT a minor character. Danny Lilithborne 23:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There is no such thing as a truly minor character on the Simpsons. There are a lot of characters less notable who have their own articles. Morgan Wick 23:37, 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 Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K.V.Sithamparapillai[edit]

looks non-notable, but has something to do with Amnesty International, so I'm not sure Will (E@) T 17:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Ankle Books[edit]

Non-notable publishing house which mainly exists to promote Antonella Gambotto-Burke

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic article created by publicist. Esoteric is fair comment; seems like it's more esoteric than my personal notability standards allow anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 11:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding (band)[edit]

Delete, nn, fails google test -not in top 100 listings for "Fielding" on Google San Saba 17:39, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etology[edit]

Nominated below by User:Jclerman. Elkman - (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See rationale for deletion in an extensive discussion in the talk page of the article ethology. Jclerman 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only references I can find to this are to etology.com (some Internet ad sales company) or to possible misspellings of Ethology. I think this is a neologism. Delete. --Elkman - (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, if by chance it's a real word, transwiki to Wiktionary. Mr. Lefty 18:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per the Talk:Ethology page Pete.Hurd 20:21, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flanges[edit]

The subject matter of this article appears to be non-notable and unverifiable. I have attempted to verify the use of flanges to denote an alternative pool/billiards game - I failed. The article has existed for over two years, but the introduction of new material has apparently only involved one editor. There is currently only one incoming link (which was placed by the article's original creator). Wikipedia is not for things made up in school (or Carleton College) one day. Politepunk 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Politepunk. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no trace of this on Google, except for mirrors of Wikipedia. --Zvika 20:05, 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 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puffinhost[edit]

{{prod}} removed. Though an editor has put time in this, I regret it is NN. Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Puffinhost has an Alexa rank of 700,000, and GamingPosts has no rank. That's nn enough for me. -- Kicking222 18:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:WEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetar (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Gamingposts has no rank now because it sucks thesedays, that was just the history though, i beleive it will be added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Dred (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Bonnarens[edit]

I don't know if this guy was being vain or just thought it was his user page... I moved what he wrote about himself to his user page, and now this page needs to be deleted. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Now we've just got a page with nothing on it. Mr. Lefty 18:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by {{empty}}. -- Kicking222 18:57, 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 speedy delete. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelirrojo[edit]

Vanity, non-notable band JoachimK 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous | Talk 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7, as the article does not even attempt to assert notability (heck, the article itself states that their album sold only 50 copies, that the band has not been active for a few months, and that "another album is doubtful"). -- Kicking222 19:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this gem: This band is quite famous at Maggie L. Walker Governor's School in Richmond, Va, but has not attained national popularity yet. PJM 19:13, 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. If he's on stamps in Nepal he's probably notable. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahananda Sapkota[edit]

Asserts notability, but Google results aren't promising. Doesn't appear to be notable, parts may be a hoax. Rory096(block) 21:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: the subject is very likely notable, but the article seems difficult to verify online, at least using the Latin alphabet. It would be useful if someone could make a search for his name in Nepali. I did find the news item below which indicates notability (it is only in Google's cache, but http://www.kantipuronline.com/ looks like a serious news site). u p p l a n d 06:57, 15 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable. Philately/Personality Series [25], but no other on line sources found on Google except cache (news about statue, etc). --MaNeMeBasat 13:41, 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 merge into Holby City. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Percy 'Abra' Durant[edit]

Television-cruft, minor character--Zxcvbnm 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or at best Merge back into Holby City (whatever that is). Madman 19:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Holby City, which is a long-running UK hospital drama series, or into a list of its minor characters if same exists. If the article is kept, move to Percy Durant. Stifle (talk) 00:20, 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 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 17:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melita de Leon[edit]

Starred in some redlink movies. Non notable actress. 11 Ghits, 3 that aren't Wikipedia. Rory096(block) 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Philippine actress, active in the 1950s – I wouldn't expect many Google hits, even if she was notable in the Philippines at the time (in which case she should be kept). Redlinked film titles may just be a result of systemic bias – how many Philippine films do we have articles on? Abstaining, as I can't determine whether she is notable or not. u p p l a n d 06:40, 15 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Zachary Sherman[edit]

Minor part of some notable movies, violates WP:AUTO and WP:N Rory096(block) 22:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom, but userfy --Nobunaga24 00:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to pass WP:BIO quite easily. He's been involved in multiple notable films. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, minor actor; reads like a CV. Eusebeus 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. But cleanup so it doesn't read like a CV so much. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable group and previously deleted article. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Areepattamannil Family[edit]

This article describes a family of four, and it has been written by one of the members of the same family. The article is not notable and does not need to be put in an encyclopedia. The author had earlier written an article Areepattamannil which was voted to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Areepattamannil. Now the article has resurfaced by the name Areepattamannil Family. Shijaz 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn, possibly Speedy if content is substantially the same as the deleted article. Someone may want to look at the individual family members' entries. Fan1967 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. DVD+ R/W 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, just use {{db-bio}} next time...
  • Speedy delete. Clear vanity. Bucketsofg 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:VANITY (which is enough of a criteria for speedy deletion, see CSD A7) and above. Morgan Wick 23:43, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straightshooter[edit]

NN band. Apparently Middle schoolers and founded last year. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable and page is unsourced and heavily riddled with POV.--Cini 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All members are in High School. Band has received much industry interest, and has played a number of world-famous venues in Hollywood, CA and on Sunset Strip. Give me time to complete the page and complete cited works. The page will help the band give information to new industry interest. --progdrummer17 20:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Get a record deal, and release an album, then come back. This is an encyclopedia, not myspace. I hope you get industry attention, but this is not the way to do it. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, give me fifteen minutes to copy the page for other use and then go ahead and delete it. Thanks for your time.

OK, go ahead and delete. Guarantee we'll be back a few years, at the latest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Progdrummer17 (talk • contribs) .

I hope you're right. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 21:03, 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.

Google Watch[edit]

The result was no consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, and before anyone asks, it has nothing to do with the number of votes. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scroogle[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These subjects are notable for inclusion in the Daniel Brandt article, but all these spin-off Brandtcruft articles are utterly frivolous. What's next, a Daniel Brandt Series Template? His own Category? wikipediatrix 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. While there may be excessive Daniel Brandt related pages, the Wikipedia Scroogle page hands out concise information about the one item related to Daniel Brant that most readers will want to see. I came to this page because I was wondering what in the world Scroogle was. The article was helpful and informative. A better idea may be to get rid of the Daniel Brandt page, since he is more minor in the scope of things than the Scroogle page itself. Jeri Massi
  • Keep. Scroogle gets 274,000 hits on Google. Margana 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's notable and is something one would expect to see in wikipedia. - DNewhall
  • Users perspective: It's quite handy since I am not interested in Daniel Brandt only scroogle and wouldn't have found the information otherwise.
  • I agree with the previous user, I wouldn't have known Daniel Brandt by name but the information on Scroogle and its sister pages are highly informative, and have promoted awareness to me and numerous others. Kitty 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable development in anti-Google activism. Jokestress 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This informaion is usefull in the small focused form it is in. It seems obsurd someone would want to delete it. I find it usefull.
  • Keep. People know of Scroogle, not Daniel Brandt. Scroogle should have its own entry
  • Delete. It's an unauthorized scrape of Google, and it might make Google mad at Wikipedia. JennyLoo 00:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per wikipediatrix. -- Kicking222 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect with Google Watch. One gnews hit and it is /. and the article isn't even about scroogle! Kotepho 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but only after you've created the new site. And make it searchable. Nothing vague like "Brandt's personal sites." lizabeth83 5:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment article is unsourced and pretty poorly written to boot. No evidence this site meets WP:WEB. I suspect it does, hence I'm not rendering any opinion at this time, but if it survives it will just get AfD'd again unless someone actually interested in this topic cleans the article up.

--Isotope23 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I went to the Scroogle page not knowing about Brandt or Google Watch, and I think that it is good for Scroogle to have its own page. Having said that, I agree that the article needs work - and I might spend some time on it myself. Latch 00:01, 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. Perhaps a redirect or merge will do just fine IMO. Mailer Diablo 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Information Research[edit]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Watch Jonathan 666 17:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. PIR is the organization behind Google Watch, Scroogle and other notable entities. Jokestress 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These subjects are notable for inclusion in the Daniel Brandt article, but all these spin-off Brandtcruft articles are utterly frivolous. What's next, a Daniel Brandt Series Template? His own Category? wikipediatrix 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd have to call delete on this one. Brandt's article has more than enough. At the very least, merge and redirect to Daniel Brandt. NSLE (T+C) at 00:41 UTC (2006-04-19)
  • Keep or Merge (second choice). Gamaliel 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly non-notable, unheard of outside of Wikipedia. 203.122.195.111 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of the above user's other contributions (including AfD debates) [27] have been removed because they are a "banned user" or "suspected sock puppet". heqs 19:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : The reputation of the person that posted an article for deletion has no bearing on the validity of the article, and to suggest that it does is a logical fallacy. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment : Removing voices you disagree with is a good way to win a wiki war. Calling people banned users and sock puppets is great too. See http://lir.wikipediareview.com/ and User:Zordrac/deletions#How_to_steam_roll_votes_and_influence_people . 203.122.195.111 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone's banned, their contributions may be deleted and reverted at any time. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 68.89.137.197 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, do not delete. heqs 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. 207.193.28.35 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A very inconsequential organization. 4.230.162.238 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strangeland 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the Brandt pages. He doesn't want them anyway. --Tbeatty 23:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JennyLoo 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is probably the smallest nonprofit corporation on the planet. GeeGoo 00:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Figworth 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Daniel Brandt so that everybody can easily find all available information on this public figure. David Sneek 20:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to then Redirect to Daniel Brandt.
  • Delete second choice Smerge to Google Watch. I can't find any media coverage. Serious WP:V problems. "One public interest group, Public Information Research Inc. of San Antonio, runs scroogle.org, an Internet service that disguises the Internet address of searchers who want to run Google and Yahoo searches anonymously." is as much as I have been able to find. There are a lot of other organizations with "Public information research" in their names =/. Kotepho 23:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per WP:V and WP:CORP (it fails the latter miserably, and not for profit, or for profit, it's still a company and the same guidelines should apply). And anyone that calls me a newbie is not only forgetting to be civil, but is just plain wrong. -- Wizardry Dragon 23:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brandt's krankery aside, this hardly warrants its own article. Eusebeus 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Brandt.--Isotope23 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Brandt, do not keep. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no need to merge, all the info is already there. jucifer 16:09, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mr. Lancer's book title exclamations[edit]

Fancruft at its worst. Completely non-notable subject of little interest to general audience. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 19:56, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cleckner[edit]

WP:NN and WP:AUTO. author also has made an non-factual claim regarding inline hockey both in this article and in other articles regarding inline hockey Jnazarenko 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that he actually did invent inline hockey
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 20:19, 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. Thanks to Mr Gowdy for taking deletion of his article calmly, and to y'all at AfD for being nice about it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Paul Gowdy[edit]

An aspiring actor. His imdb entry lists movies that are generally "in production." No evidence anywhere that Mr. Gowdy is notable enough for inclusion here. Joyous | Talk 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I added my article and several others in attempts to 'expand the wikipedia knowledge database' if I did so in error then I appoligize. What must one do in order to be 'notable enough for inclusion here' at wikipedia? I am willing to learn. Joey Gowdy | Talk 15:43, 23 April 2006 (CST)

Hi, Mr. Gowdy. You might look at this page to see the kinds of criteria that we look for regarding biographies. Joyous | Talk 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that is considered pretty important is films that have been released and been in theatres. Films "in production" or "planned" are treated with a healthy skepticism. Fan1967 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the article and IMDB, a lot of crystal-ballish credits, and many questionable (student films?). Subtract points for trying to claim The 1 Second Film as a legit credit. Fan1967 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. I wish Mr. Gowdy every success. But until he is more successful, he is not, imo, sufficiently notable. Bucketsofg 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thank you all for those websites. After reading them throughly I must comply with the wikipedia rules. Ergo, feel free to delete those pages for now. On another note, the only test I passed at the moment is the Googe test. So... Google me. No hard feelings, I look forward to being a part of this community. Joey Gowdy | Talk 17:47, 23 April 2006 (CST)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logophilia[edit]

WP:WINAD. PROD tag was removed by someone who seems to be waging a one-man war against the proposed deletion system. Brian G. Crawford 20:31, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do an eden[edit]

Some term (probably uncommon) from a video game. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 20:40, 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 21:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPI Campus Map[edit]

Delete. Does not meet notability for software. Search in Google brings up 8 unique results, none of which have to do with the program. Was tagged for speedy delete earlier by TenOfAllTrades. ... discospinster 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepYou people have failed to provide substantial evidence for deletion of this page. I am in full support of the existence of this page. Free encyclopedia = people can post what they desire. -Brad Scoville —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.226.172 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepGoogle is currently crawling our new site. The domain is only a few days old. I am all for this site and those who want this to be deleted provide no reason why it should be deleted. -Josh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.226.218 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepThis page represents the work of four students at a club at WPI, Worcester Polytechnic Institute for the Game Development Club. It is a small article for now, but as the map grows, so will the article. We have already had several public demonstrations of the map and therefore a public interest has been created. A interest leads to questions which drives people to seek answers, and WikiPedia is where they look.-Matt Murdy WPI ECE 2009 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pb59 (talk • contribs) .
  • KeepBeing the lead developer of the WPI Map, I can confirm the credibility of the information being presented in this Wiki. The site wpimap.com was recently launched and is gaining popularity quickly.-Alex Schwartz WPI IMGD 2009 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.226.101 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete What "will" happen is unknowable. Fails notability now. Fan1967 21:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ManiF 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the site looks very good and its creators can justifiably take pride in their accomplishments, wikipedia is not for things such as this as it fails WP:WEB. Bucketsofg 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WPI is a well known institution. As a result, there are many visitors to our real campus and WPI hosts a pdf of the the campus called "WPI Campus Map" and this is what is being brought up in the google search when you search for their article name. They are a group of students working hard to start something new. Although they may have their own website, if you follow the links on the site, they link to other sites, both about halo as well as WPI's own site. I attend WPI and know for a fact that the information on their site was also on WPI's "well known and independent" site. As a member of the GDC, I know that we will be updating our site (which is a subdomain of WPI's own site) to reflect and validate the information on their site.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.33.117 (talk • contribs) .


  • Keep Complies with Wikipedia Regulations as cited previously - GMB—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeshlub (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep I Alex support Brad, Matt, Josh and Alex and all of their hard work with the WPI Campus Map and firmly believe that the article shoud stay up. I am also a student here at WPI.

-Alex Steinwachs— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.226.170 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep I Matt Beaty support Brad, Matt, Josh and Alex and all of their hard work with the WPI Campus Map and firmly believe that the article shoud stay up. I am also a student here at WPI.

-Matt Beaty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.215.226.233 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment This is not WPIpedia. Fan1967 22:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't your site either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pb59 (talk • contribs) .
Comment No, it isn't. But it doesn't appear that this is of interest to anybody outside WPI. Fan1967 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. This article is also written as self-promotion. WP:VAIN --Valermos 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The keep votes appear to be from the four developper (plus one possible IP sockpuppet). Shameless advertisement. Tony Bruguier 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anything but advertisement, we are linked to by another website which gets thousands of unique visitors per day. We do not need Wikipedia to advertise for us as we are getting plenty of hits without it. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia; it has become more of an online repository for information and hence has become a place which people turn to for answers. People who are hear about a Halo Map of WPI are not just going to think of going to WPIMap.com for information, but rather are going to look it up on the "internet knowledgebase", Wikipedia. "This article is also written as self-promotion." to answer that, I quote Wikipedia "Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject" Also, at WPI, most of the IP addresses are similar due to the fact that we all recieve static outside IP addresses. The above "shameless" accusation against "the four developers" each only voted once. The other votes are from students around us and therefore they will have similar addresses. As for some of the votes appearing the same, I talked to the person (Matt Beaty) about what he wrote and he said that he didn't feel like writing something different, but still supported the article. I am not selfish and do not appreciate being called dishonest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pb59 (talk • contribs) .
  • Quoting Wikipedia, the following paragraph of WP:VAIN, "The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them." --Valermos 23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VANITY and WP:SPAM. Some points: Brad does not understand the purpose of the project; people can't just "post what they desire", read WP:NOT throughly. An article written in the first person is a sure tipoff to us that it shouldn't exist. This project already has its own web site, why should they pimp themselves on Wikipedia? Merge some content to Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Morgan Wick 00:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty cool idea, actually, but it fails all the various WP: criteria listed above. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Colonel Tom 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no context given (though I'm operating under the assumption that WPI==Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts), nn, WP:NOT a promotional venue, unlikely to ever achieve any reasonable stance of notability. Get back to us when you've written the next CounterStrike, by which I mean you know it a year after it's come out that it's smashed sales records, not the moment it goes golden master off your hard drive. Haikupoet 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Got nothing against WPI, but we certainly don't need a map of it on Wikipedia -- Hirudo 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: we don't need a page for every map that someone creates for Halo or Half-Life. Please ignore the sockpuppets. --Hetar 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Hetar said. Eusebeus 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as showcase of an original project, as per WP:NOT. Robin Johnson 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ("map that may become popular"), etc. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:51, 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 keep. No Guru 15:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Hope[edit]

NN fanfiction, just 97 hits. Rory096(block) 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. --Domthedude001 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Novel is listed on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Powell's, and is part of a breaking story about a fanfic author who has flaunted copyright and trademark concerns and offered a fanfic novel for sale. May have only a few hits now, but they're major links. The story of this book and author could have repercussions for the entire fanfic genre (which I am not a part of, btw). MikeWazowski 20:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Then the article can be recreated when it's notable; but it clearly isn't now. Tons of books are listed for sale on Amazon and B&N, I doubt we have articles on half of them. --Rory096(block) 21:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) books published by vanity presses are generally not notable; 2) no hits in Lexis/Nexis or google news, so not a very important story outside the fanfic community; 3) Lucasfilm has yet to make a public statement...but many expect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; 4) the book is being withdrawn from sale, so the author has given up rather than forcing a fight. If this turns out to be the start of a massive crackdown on fanfic, it may deserve an article later. Thatcher131 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong WP:V/WP:NOR concerns. I cannot find news coverage either. Kotepho 00:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with the SciFi.com mention. Kotepho 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was #35,860 on Amazon yesterday. Today it's moved up to #6,650, which still isn't notable. I would expect something generating "considerable controversy" in the fanfic community to get more than 97-8 hits. Modern fanfic is very web-centric. Morgan Wick 00:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfiction is non-canon and non-notable under Star Wars guidelines, and the article has failed to make a notability case otherwise. --maru (talk) contribs 04:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also mentioned in another niche column with wide readership, this one owned by NBCUniversal. - User:rasd
  • Keep. --Haham hanuka 08:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google search on "Another Hope" +Jareo now up to 550 hits. Also, mainstream media coverage here. TheRealFennShysa 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't just about a vanity published book, moreso about the attempt to circumvent copyright law and publishing fanfiction... in any event, its the kind of odd story that makes Wikipedia so valuable to me. Although, i have to recomend a re-write as most of the article text seems to have been lifted directly off of blogs commenting on the story. Ignus 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirecting seems like it would satisfy the "delete" side while still leaving the information intact for the "keep" side if ever he becomes notable enough for an article, non? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohad Shem-Tov[edit]

  • Delete It's pretty clear from the article and its talk page that it is a non-notable member of fringe party. The discussion in the talkpage should have ended in deletion some time ago, but sadly ended in accuracy disputes. C mon 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm guessing that the nominator is correct here. But if someone who knows more about Israeli politics can comment, it might help. Bucketsofg 21:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if just notable the article gives almost no information beyond what is already in the Ale Yarok article. I would have tagged it for cleanup, but now that is AfDeed I say go ahead and delete it. Not likely someone will invest time in number three when we do not even cover number one anyway. gidonb 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ale Yarok. I tagged this as disputed after reverting vandalism. It looks like that has been not been resolved. The party article covers him & a redirect will discourage recreation. -- JLaTondre 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ale Yarok may be a fringe party but it is consistently the largest of its kind, and Shem-Tov is a notable member of it - if you follow its development. He was interviewed on TV several times if it's any indication. I believe that he still has future.--Amir E. Aharoni 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a thought: Ale Yarok is the only Israeli party whose platform firmly supports Free Software, a camp to which Wikipedia belongs too. Please take it into consideration. Stallman, Torvalds and Lessig weren't notable once too. I say - give this article a chance at least until the next election, which is not too far, judging by the ridiculous instability of the current Knesset. These would be my last words on the issue. (Disclaimer - i happened to meet Shem-Tov in person once - we study in the same university, but he's not my close friend, and i didn't vote for his party.)--Amir E. Aharoni 11:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though it hasn't won any seats, Ale Yarok should and does have an article, but that doesn't mean its member should. --Ajdz 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above --Haham hanuka 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep IF and ONLY IF at the moment of vote counting numbers 1,2 and 3 in the list are present as non-stub articles in wikipedia(currently number one is missing), else Delete. --Procrastinating@talk2me 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of, uhhh ... what? You know we don't actually count votes, right? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it a joke or something? Self promotion of a non-notable figure. Noon 10:56, 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 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeest[edit]

Doesn't even come anywere close to WP:MUSIC. Vague claim of notability is unverifiable. Coren 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Coren,

yes I appreciate that it seems that this article does not come close to satisfying some of the criteria in WP:MUSIC. However, as this band will never be able to officially release a single, ( the 'moral' censor boards in the Indian subcontinent are quite particular about banning songs which contain explicit lyrics, which is a particular motif of zeest songs) the band is already precluded from quite a few of the criteria mentoined in WP:MUSIC

However, this article does meet one criterion; it has been featured in the 'Mid day' a very popular newspaper in mumbai [[28]] 

and on a news website [[29]]

I will also try and get a few more users from the Indian subcontinent to add thier views heres (we seem to be disproportionally represented on wiki)...anyway thanks for reading. Saurabhb 14:39, 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Meyer[edit]

Delete - Nn "Hollywood player," only credits are segment producer for Entertainment Tonight and the upcoming (next year) movie Horrorween. The page is now filled with patent nonsense, but even the original version had items like "is compared by some to Colonel Tom Parker." Methinks tis a vanity page Nobunaga24 21:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. As a side issue, the person who created this article appears to be spamming Wiki with multiple articles advertising 'Horrorween'. IrishGuy 21:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and address the spam issue brought up above posthaste. --InShaneee 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DON'T DELETE POV corrected and previous article version restored. Current article version contains no patent nonsense, nor vanity. Notable as writer, producer, director and star of one of the most publicized upcoming Independent films Horrorween, staring the Dead Body Guy. Over 100 stars & celebrities are involved with the project, so the many people adding Horrorween to these peoples articles is not spam! Further, more than one of the above mention Deletes, come from people who have continued to edit the page, after they recommended Delete???--Whoizzy
Comment All of your edits have been towards this person and this movie... a movie that isn't even filmed yet. Yes, adding content about a film (which had yet to materialize) to various articles is, in fact, linkspam. Also, regardless of removing the POV problems, this person just plain isn't notable. His IMDB credits are a grand total of two. As for the editing, you seem to insist on making all external links in bold and so those need to be edited. IrishGuy 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGER DON'T DELETE Before you unprofessionally jump to uniformed conclusions, please take your time and research the existing press for this movie and the Dead Body Guy its star. It is predicted by the press to be one of the biggest films of 2007. It has a cult following, as also does the Dead Body Guy it's star, in the hundreds of thousands of fans already! I am one of those fans !!! Whoizzy
comment Before making wild claims like It is predicted by the press to be one of the biggest films of 2007 back up the claim. Show ANY respectable media which has said this. IrishGuy 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making wild claims, as you don't seem to know anything about the movie and the worldwide press that it is getting each and every day! You call yourself an Editor??? I guess anyone can call themselves an Editor on Wikipedia? Whoizzy

You are the one making wild claims. You have not provided one shred of evidence to back your claims that this person and this film are even remotely notable. If it is all over the media, it shouldn't be too difficult to do so.IrishGuy 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you just want to slander, libel and trash Horrorween, look at your previous article IrishGuy, it didn't even meet any Wikipedia criteria at all!!!!!

IrishGuy, here is your previous article...

User:Irishguy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings.

This is my wildly unexciting article.

Enjoy!

...and you compain about other people's legitimate articles IrishGuy!!!Whoizzy

comment that isn't a previous article. That is an editor's welcome page. There is a difference.IrishGuy 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find some evidence of notability. Period. Short of that, this article will need to go. The article you are linking to isn't mine. That is why it is a redlink. I have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. IrishGuy 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go on the www.DeadBodyGuy.com site and the www.Horrorween.com site and look at the press, then also search in Lexis/Nexis, Newsblaze.com, Yahoo, Google, etc., etc. You will see all the articles and blogs, and if you are a real Editor, which I doubt, you can see the notariety of this movie and it's cast & crew! STOP FLAMING AND GET A LIFE!!!Whoizzy

I have looked at those sites. Horroween.com only has two lines quoted, both of which give no verifiable source. I googled. Only two hits for the Horroween film, the rest were for other things (videogames, etc) with the same title. There is no palpable sense of anxiousness for this film. There is no sign at all of notability. If you believe there is then provide it. Otherwise let it go.IrishGuy 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AN EVEN STRONGER DON'T DELETE Look again, you missed alot. You are lying also, because on the Horrorween.com site, there is a link to an article written by the 2006 Pulitzer Prize winning newswire service!!! Have you or Wikipedia ever won a Pulitzer Prize??? I invite you to call Katie Couric and Matt Lauer at the Today Show, and asked them how they announced Horrorween to millions of people. Oh, I guess Katie Couric is not a credible news person. Tell that to CBS!!! IrishGuy, you're just flaming!!!Whoizzy

Look at www.DeadBodyGuy.com also, and check out all the news articles about Horrorween on that site also!!! 5 million people visiting www.DeadBodyGuy.com can't be wrong!!! Stop flaming!!!Whoizzy

comment You don't get to vote numerous times. Stop doing that. The one line quotes weren't from a profile of the film. They were from a profile of dead-body-guy. He mentioned that he would be in a film that no one had heard of. Don't be disingenuous. The article link is from signonsandiego.com and it, too, is about dead-body-guy with the merest mention of horroween. This article isn't about dead-body-guy. DBG is emminently notable. This film is not. IrishGuy 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR FINAL VOTE, NOTE THAT USER IRISHGUY HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY REMOVING PROVEN FACTS FROM RELATED ARTICLES SO AS TO FLAME THIS PERSON!Whoizzy
comment enough with the personal attacks. I haven't removed anything from this article. All I did was unbold the external links. Anyone can look through the article history to see the single edit I did and my reasons for doing so. IrishGuy 16:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment how many times must we do this? I removed exactly one line because it was unverifiable. It it is verifiable, you should have no problem illustrating it. Just provide a respectable source. IrishGuy 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European_Empire[edit]

Original research, POV, most of the article is irrelevant to the topic that it is supposed to be about Gsd2000 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, Original research San Saba 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't add anything new. Sijo Ripa 00:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. It adds an important element of a new debate on European enlargement and power Ouip 03:11, 24th April 2006 (GMT)
  • Delete - appropriate location for the debate "on European enlargement and power" is EU Expansion, has the appearance of a POV fork --Ajdz 05:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Or maybe weak keep and delete in a month or two. The article is not necessarily a POV fork, but rather a similar entry to American Empire (term). However, the article as it stands provides no clue as to the validity and notability of the term. The quotes by Robert Cooper, while interesting, do not seem to concern the topic at hand. The Minister of War (Peace) 07:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article per se should exist, but well-referenced and non-OR/non-POV. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Not an established term, as far as I can tell. Robin Johnson 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Bhoeble 09:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. - Rudykog 19:17, 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 Transwiki to WP:TFD. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User United Kingdom resident[edit]

This userbox was created to provide a temporary solution to a problem that has since been solved. That has basically made this userbox extraneous. Mal 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Templates for deletion, where it belongs Morgan Wick 00:15, 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 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Smith[edit]

Delete, nn-vanity, not listed on IMDB "The Boondocks" page [30]not listed on IMDB at all [31] San Saba 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Icarus 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 12:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriately deprodded by Kappa. Kuzaar 12:29, 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 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASAHP[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism from fictional work. John Nagle 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not directly from the Movie. There are several sources giving the definition. I showed one on the edited entry. Have you, yourself ever used ASAP? Its got other refrences and other varitions, theres no reason it should be deleted. --DJOMaul 22:56, 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 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical computer science[edit]

I'm putting this up for deletion because it is a horrible unsourced essay which I think is completely unverifiable as it is solely the author's work. It is mentioned and used and link-to-from nowhere else, an apt demonstration of its irrelevance and neologisticness. --maru (talk) contribs 22:37, 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.


A message from the original author concerning this deletion: no sweat: my bad Spinoza1111 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges[edit]

No sweat. I did not have time as I'd planned to follow up on the unmet needs. I'd hoped that a wikipedian would put the boot in and add content and references but none appeared.

I agree that the article didn't disambiguate comp sci and software engineering. However, critical technology questions the boundaries between subdisciplines because those boundaries are mental and social construction. It puzzled me, as it puzzled Dijkstra, how there can be a pure computer science if as Dijkstra wrote, programming is applied mathematics. Of course, computer science is more than programming, as computer scientists who can't program like to say, in the same register that software engineering is programming for people who can't program. Software engineering turns out to be nearly null because computer science is applied mathematics and hence impure, and leaves nothing for software engineering except thrashing the help (Taylorist scientific management, applied to people who can code).

I will retry in future when I have time to resubmit an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Sorry for any wasted time, but it was my unfulfilled intention to improve and make-wiki the existing article.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden City[edit]

Non notable [32], possible vanity Tony Bruguier 23:02, 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 meh. This could be merged, or it could be left as-is. AfD is not the place for merges. If anybody wants to merge it, they can do it themselves without AfD's assistance. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Romero[edit]

tagged nn-bio but contested, so bringing to AfD. One-liner on singer with a just-about-notable band. I say merge and redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redir per JzG M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, this doesn't need to be on AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is, SCM is a notable band and she appears to have multiple projects. Aaronbrick 23:26, 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 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long lane farm[edit]

Delete nothing notable enough about this farm for it to be included in WP San Saba 23:13, 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. Shanel § 00:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Shadell[edit]

Fan made character. Non-notable in any way. Google brings up nothing [33] Delete. Thunderbrand 23:12, 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-club}}. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwind gale[edit]

Delete, World of Warcraft guild from the European Deathwing server. Individual guilds do not need their own pages on WP, vanity-nn San Saba 23:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus on some and delete the rest.
This discussion amounted to over 150K. Much of it (too much) was spent debating the merits of an AfD nominating so many related yet distinct articles in a single nomination. The prospect of 85 59 separate AfDs containing the same arguments from the same set of editors is even more frightening than the debacle that this AfD nearly became. I find no merit in the arguments against the form of this AfD other than the observation that historically these types of nominations become a train wreck with no consensus emerging after day upon day of discussion.

Fortunately, some progress has come from this AfD. Reading through this (yes, every word of it) consensus was clear (yes, clear) on several issues:

  1. The level of detail, in-universe style and sources of all of the articles fails to meet WP:WAF and WP:RS.
  2. The information is single sourced with possible copyvio issues from MaHQ.net.
  3. All of the information has already been transwikied to http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
  4. While the Gundam series itself clearly meets the notability requirements of WP:FICT, the majority of the articles listed in this AfD do not.

Now, if this were a vote, then the result would be "no consensus". However, consensus here does not mean consensus that WP:ILIKEIT, but consensus that the material here meets established guidelines and policies that have been developed through consensus. In this regard there were strong arguments in favor of deleting everything, however, I find that there is no consensus whether the following articles meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT, and are thus kept by default:

Note that among those arguing to keep the articles, there was consensus to merge the above articles in some form. Deciding how to merge these article is left to the WP:CE project, of which 4 of its 11 members participated, albeit peripherally, in this discussion. There was no consensus to delete yet consensus among those arguing to keep to merge, delete and redirect the following into a single article:

There was also consensus that all 14 of the above articles need to be significantly edited to address the issues in points #1 and #2 above.

That leaves the following to be deleted with no prejudice against creating a single (or very limited set of) composite article(s) that discuss all of these elements as a group while addressing concerns #1 and #2 above:

The deleted articles above should be redirected either to a composite article or to some other article, in part to discourage recreation and in part to assist in locating the correct article for searches. This redirection is to be done at a later time following the completion of this closure.

You can do the math on the box below to see how long I spent reading, investigating and weighing this decision, so think about it before you come and yell at me. —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no stake or prejudice in Gundam—frankly, before this AfD I knew little about it.

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series[edit]

ATTENTION: CLOSING IN PROCESS
I am in the process of closing this AfD. I am reading the entire thing (yes, every comment) and evaluating all 85 referenced articles. I expect this will take a couple of hours to do right. —Doug Bell talk 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To other admins: please talk to me before considering closing this AfD.
To people here to comment: you may continue to comment. I will find and read all comments up until when I complete this closing.
CLOSING COMPLETED: —Doug Bell talk 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not only nominating this article, I am nominating every page all 84 pages in Template:Cosmic Era mobile weapons. They are all listed and lightly mentioned on Cosmic Era Mobile Units, therefore a merge is not required. All of the information has already been transwikied ([34]). The information appears to be stolen from MaHQ.net. Deletion is the only option. Before you defend the existence of these articles, please observe how these articles defy WP:NOT, an official policy.

  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
    There are no sources on most of the articles. Therefore the articles break this rule. Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam, it will violate this.
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
    The policy states "works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". None of the articles have this.

There we have two policies that the article clearly violates. If that's not enough, here's a violation of the WP:FICT guidelines:

  • Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." The main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character.
    Seeing as most of the articles contain mostly trivial information, they are minor, and therefore violate the guideline.

Now, on various articles for deletions, these points have been raised to keep:

  • it would be nice to keep these articles
    That's not a reason for keeping them.
  • there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first.
    That's irrelevant. This one has to go, it doesn't matter what order it's done in.
  • they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of.
    Yes they are, I mentioned the policies they're violating.
  • If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles
    That seems like a very good idea. Just because that hasn't been done yet doesn't mean this can't be done first. Furthermore, a main character in Star Wars is a lot more important than every single quartenary robot.
  • 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless.
    There are various rules and policies that state the articles are useless.
  • Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions.
    Those are primary sources. Articles require secondary sources. If there aren't any, the articles should not exist (in most cases)

Thank you. Please, base this on importance, not your liking of the series. Adhere to the rules, not your opinion. TheEmulatorGuy 00:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Many people in this discussion are stating that they think some of these articles should go but some should not, or complaining that individual AfDs should be created for each separate article. What they are neglecting to state is which articles they think should go and which should stay and stating their reasons. It is perfectly within process to nominate a group of related articles in a single nomination, and the above referenced template lists the included articles. That means that if your position is that not all of the articles should share the same fate, then this is the time and place to make your case for the fate of individual articles. —Doug Bell talk 12:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per very thorough nom. --- RockMFR 00:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refer to a relevant WikiProject for how to best merge, transwiki, or otherwise organize this information. Yes, we have a situation where numerous articles of questionable value exist - but trying to deal with that situation with one gigantic AfD almost guarantees throwing some babies out with the bathwater. Major elements of notable fiction do generally receive articles on Wikipedia, and that is in no way incompatible with Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It has already been merged and transwikied. There are no babies in the bathwater. Using that comment is simply an excuse to keep the articles, and until you actually find a "baby", your claim is incorrect. Look through every article in the template and I guarantee none of them are of importance. These are not major elements of notable fiction, as I have stated, and it does violate policy. Please read my nomination next time. Your keep vote is simply invalid. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to take your word for it that a group of 85 articles contain no information that are important to a clearly notable anime. There is probably no group of almost 100 articles I'd vote a blanket "delete" on, especially when a dozen or more of them have already undergone the AfD process - and survived. It seems disrespectful to all those discussions to try to supercede them by having the entire category deleted. --Hyperbole 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any robot in Gundam is non-notable. In a very popular series, Metal Gear, the Metal Gears are the star of the show. They are the most important, and each one serves a very important aspect of it. However, they are all in Metal Gear (weapon). This is good example to compare to, because Metal Gear articles are actually representative of a good set of editors, not a group of fans. I realize it seems disrespectful to previous discussions, but I have already argued against all of the points mentioned in those discussions. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is literally no comparison between Metal Gear and Gundam. Gundam is a genre-defining show in literally the same sense that Star Trek defines the "guys in a spaceship fly around solving other people's problems" subgenre of television sci-fi. Iceberg3k 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You misunderstood the comparison. I was trying to say that in Metal Gear, the MOST IMPORTANT antagonist-related thing is in a list, while in Gundam, every single robot and his robot-dog has a full article. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yet, you nom ALL of them. L-Zwei 06:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • What are you trying to say? That some of them have importance towards the real world? I'd love for you to give me some proof. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Prove had been shown. You just ignore them to the convinience of your own argument. If someone have published a book to show others how to 3D model these units, if someone have published magazines on how to model real world models on these units, it is enough of a real world impact. It does not impact you, but the real world of the modeling industry and publishers and 3D modelers. No one went to improve the articles yet because you have listed too many and coined all of them to be the same. No, your ignorance is never an argument of you having good enough IQ to disrespect others. MythSearchertalk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Is this a nomination for everything in the tamplate or only CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series? I don't see current AfD templates on the others... BCoates 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I am nominating everything in the template. It has to be realized that we cannot keep these articles just because one might be useful. That's simply a terrible excuse. Actually putting the deletion template on all articles would be a ridiculously lengthy task and a waste of time. The steps for AfD mention that to delete a group, a good idea is just to nominate one. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete only CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series. Makes no assertion of notability within the context of Gundam; Doesn't even name a specific work they're mentioned in. Some of these might be worth turning into useful articles but I have no reason to believe this one is. Keep the rest until they've been given a proper AfD notice that the people who have the page on watchlist will see. Most people don't read AfD. BCoates 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete all per Wafulz below. BCoates 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'd normally state my reasons here, but the nom summed it all up very nicely. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I agree, delete. Fledgeling 01:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and nominate individually or at least in smaller groups. These kind of blanket nominations are bound to end up deleting many worthwhile articles, resulting in another WP:DRV fiasco like Esoteric Programming Languages. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I realize your concern, but you have to realize that there are no worthwhile articles in the templates. They are all non-notable, and there are similar examples supporting this, far more relevant than the one you mentioned. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continually asserting that there are no worthwhile articles is not an argument. An argument would list each subject and give an explanation of why that individual subject does not warrant an article. Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete only CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series until such time that all articles on template are properly AfD'd. wtfunkymonkey 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - articles have all been updated to refelct the AfD, articles have been transwikied, nomination does well to counter any arguments. I will say, however, that I am disappointed in User:TheEmulatorGuy's conduct throughout a majority of this discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 11:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: That's a very extreme thing to ask. No one has shown notability for any of the pages, and to nominate each one would be utterly ridiculous and time wasting. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment [edit conflict] Wikipedia has procedures put in place for a reason, you cannot expect them to be ignored on the basis of your own personal laziness. You nominated the articles, you must follow proper procedure. Every article is granted the same rights and protection by wikipedia policy, regardless of what the content may be. wtfunkymonkey 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Personal laziness? I would have to edit two hundred similarly-related pages just to nominate them. That doesn't even count the constant replying and defending I have to do with doubtful editors. However, the reason why I am nominating them as one is because they are all cruft - I have looked at all of them, and even if I didn't, fictional objects similar to this don't pass guidelines. The only argument towards keeping it is your laziness - you are the one who guesses there might be important articles in the template instead of looking for yourself. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longest AfD nom I've ever seen. I have nothing to add but delete. --Natalie 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I have marked each individual article for deletion, so the argument of only one being marked is now officially out the window. In the process, I also got to look at them all, and I've surmised that all of them are basically an extension/copy/mirror of http://www.mahq.net/, which is not allowed. No sources = unverifiable, and as it stands, the articles are really caving in to undue weight. Take it to some other wiki/website please. --Wafulz 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though I'm not an anime fan, there probably are quite a few people out there that like this show. Atlantis Hawk 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Are... are you kidding me? Did you even read the nomination text? THIS VIOLATES POLICIES. You're unbelievable. I don't know what else to say. Its the equivalent of saying "well, a lot of people didn't like the guy he killed, so he shouldn't go to jail". --TheEmulatorGuy 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Swow 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or break into smaller listings. Mass AFD's almost always fail, and you didn't even do it right since only 1 article was actually nominated. If you want to do a mass AFD, at least learn how to do it right. Right now, anyone who visits any of the other articles have no way to vote since they don't know you want to delete them. TJ Spyke 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Did you even see Wafulz’s post? Every article under that template has a deletion tag that redirects them to here. Know whats going on before you accuse someone. Fledgeling 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear, very thorough nomination. There is nothing more to say than the points made above. Sr13 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very entertaining afd. TheEmulatorGuy, you clearly have a strong editorial (not fan-based) opinion on this. I have a question - you say above the AfD guidelines mention that a whole template can be proposed for deletion by nominating one representative article, yet numerous posters here strongly feel that all of the articles needed to be listed. What is the actual procedure here? I know that it has been rendered moot in this case, but there seems to be a policy conflict, no?--Dmz5 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I'm unsure. WP:AfD states "To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to "bundle" all of them together into a single nomination". I obviously wasn't going to create multiple AfD pages, so I adhered to this, but putting a notice on every single page seemed a daunting task. I went ahead with one page, and fortunately Wafulz mended my mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 2006-11-30 05:50:07
      • Additional comment i don't BELIEVE somebody took all the time to write and properly format all those articles. Man--Dmz5 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Until you can come up with a reliable source not dedicated to Gundam. What do you actually mean? different series should be separated sources, or everything gundam related is a no? Does something like the sales of a gunpla count towards a source not dedicated to gundam, or someone writing a book stating the impact of specific gundam series to name anything here counted as dedicated to gundam? And what about Super Robot series? Just asking, because this is not clear enough. I limit the sentence to Gundam Seed and Seed-Destiny anime and official guide books for the moment.

    P.S. The WP:OR quoted here have been taken to a liberty of extending it to an out-of-reach limitation. Different authors writing different articles for the same series should not be counted as original research, like different authors writing different physics book should be counted as separated sources, both primary and secondary. MythSearchertalk 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The anime equivalent of sites like GameSpot and IGN are what would be considered reliable, however, fan-sites like http://www.mahq.net are not. I admit I used the wrong words, but the idea is there - they need reliable sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per very good nomination. Mass AfDs are not often appropriate, but they are here, as all nominated articles do suffer from the same problems, and individual discussions would be process for process' sake. Just for completeness' sake, although not really a reason to delete, these articles also violate WP:WAF. Sandstein 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about stuff like MS Encyclopedia 2006, author is independent but is published by official publisher? MythSearchertalk 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unencyclopedic fancruft. Terence Ong 05:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Second time people have tried to delete all this, and just as foolish as the first time.--DNAlpha 05:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Reply: Incorrect. I provided policies and a guideline the pages violate, as well as arguments to all of the "keep" points raised previously. Completely different to the previous nominations. Because of that, you have no argument for keeping the pages. Another invalid vote. Care to iterate on why they should stay, or are you going to dwell on ill-founded decisions? I should mention that this user's only edits are on the pages I have nominated to delete, spreading 23 edits over almost a year and a half. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: You fail to understand the scope of Gundam. How are Metal Gears anymore notable then Mobile Suits? Both are the stars of their shows. Your policy violations aren't actually as clear as you make them out to be. I could make a more full arguement aganst them if I felt it was needed.--DNAlpha 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — DNAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Redirect all. Can't delete them if they have been merged to another article. Ben Standeven 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) preceeding edit from IP 70.255.38.147[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, nothing more to be said. QuiteUnusual 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is flawed. The assertion is that these articles are unverifiable, and that the only way for readers to check them is to perform the primary research of actually watching the series directly. However, for an article to be unverifiable it has to be shown both that the article cites no sources and that the nominator looked for sources and didn't find any. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) The nominator has shown the first, not the second. Something is unverifiable only if no sources exist, not simply if the article cites no sources. (The tag for that is {{unreferenced}}, not {{afd1}}.) Uncle G 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a good nom. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Could you iterate on that? I clearly pointed out the policy violations and rebutted against any argument made. Judging from that, it's a very good nomination as a few have said. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is horrible. There is no explanation made anywhere why any particular article of the set isn't worthy of an article. Perhaps they aren't, but in order to perform a blanket nomination, every single article's reason for deletion must be stated! You cannot simply call them all "non-notable" without an explanation. I hope the closing admin notices this blatant violation of policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These articles are all pretty much the same. All the complaints in the nomination/comments apply to all of them, in particular that there's no reputable secondary sources that provide the level of detail that would justify so very many articles instead of one or a few covering the whole topic. Are each of these lines of robots even central to the actual series? There's no hint of this in the articles, I don't even see episode/series/movie titles listed. It's just a dump of technical minutiae written as if they were real. BCoates 13:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then wishfully there will be someone with enough knowledge and time to modify them to better articles, one by one. I never have both and I have no interest in working extensively on CE related stuff and thus I only care about this deletion process and how much it really follows WP. From what I see now, the WP is explaint in a pretty twisted way to justify the deletion of all the articles. I am more for the idea of deleting most of them, but the arguement is not made in a good way. It only looks like any wiki deletionist's work instead of someone who cares about making articles better. MythSearchertalk 14:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per Dark Shikari and MythSearcher's detailed response below. Btw: The robots ARE the stars of the show in the myriad Gundam series. They've spawned an industry in Japan making amazingly detailed models and have a huge fanbase of their own. Kyaa the Catlord 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to alternative wiki for safekeeping until the articles can be sifted through properly to see what can be salvageable. Cruft or not, a lot of work seems to have gone into these; the infomation should be kept somewhere. Exception is if it can be proven that they are copyvios, in which case delete.--SeizureDog 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Please read the rest of my nomination. They are already on the Gundam wiki, and all of the information is directly taken from http://www.mahq.net
  • Keep All - (Edit conflict)I think these articles are fairly well written and if i wanted information on this stuff, I would more than likley come to Wikipedia. In that case, for me personally, I believe the article should stay per WP:IAR.Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Incorrect. They're terribly written because they all maintain an in-universe style and fail to ever come out of it. The only people wanting to know that "CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion Unit 1 has a height of 16.9 meters and is used by the Earth Alliance" is a Gundam fan. That is not what the encyclopedia is for.
  • Keep all Per Dark Shikari Bigmog 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — Bigmog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep all Per all keep noms so far. There's no reason to get heated up over this. Black-Velvet 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Yes there is a reason to get heated up over it. It clearly violates policies and guidelines, and nominations keep failing because of the stubbornness of Gundam fansboys and their need for fancruft. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Who the hell made you boss? Not to mention , the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor. If that is not an indicator of real-life reference and usefulness, I don't know what is. I second everything ever mentioned under the other Keep votes. Zeromig 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) — ZeroMig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"the information listed herein has already proven useful to my work as a reference/research editor" Huh? What kind of work do you do exactly? --SeizureDog 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe ZeroMig works for a comics and anime magazine, I hesitate to say more because of personal details policies. Kyaa the Catlord 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Lets keep the tone a bit nicer! Nothing to get heated up about - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What.the.fuck? My tone was completely fine, it was a simple question asking for clarification to a confusing statement. Now I'm pissed though because it's late and hate it when people pull that "tone" crap on me. As if there are really tones online anyways, it's all how you read it. Gao. --SeizureDog 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok! It was not meant as an attack on anybody in particulars behavior. The comment was just meant to remind everbody involved that it is not that big a deal! Yes, it all how we read it. The comment was more directed at :Who the hell made you boss?". I apolagize if you took it offensivley! Thanks for your work on AFD discussions. If you have any futher issues with my comment, you are welcome to discuss it with me on my talk page. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the thorough nomination that little can be added to. OMG. Duja► 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- _dk 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone explain to me why individual Pokemons are acceptable as articles but these are not. _dk 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Please, that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you believe that there shouldn't be Pokemon articles, make your own AfD. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a keep vote. I'm honestly asking a question. _dk 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I may vote merge for some closely-relate article or some minor articles, but all of them into single article? Nah...L-Zwei 16:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: For starters, the necessary information has already been merged. Secondly, these are minor articles, as they are about quarternary objects in a fictional world. Thirdly, the information has been stolen. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as above. This nom is nonsense. Trollderella 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The nomination is not nonsense, your decisions are nonsense. I provide violations of policies, you scrap up incorrect arguments. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the excellent and thorough nomination, which points out numerous policies that these articles violate. A vote to keep is a vote to reject WP:NOR and WP:NOT: good luck with that.
    Given that the information all exists elsewhere, a mass deletion will not destroy anything in any case. — Haeleth Talk 16:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to alternative Wiki per SeizureDog. However, this nomination is in bad form, and as much as I don't like the "tone" thing much, TheEmulatorGuy is actually being a dick, which is bad for someone so keen about policies. Oh, and if we are looking into the backgrounds, all the deleters have created their accounts about a month ago top, and all around the same dates. From what I see here, this is a "Keepers vs Deletionists" thing. I personally hate to throw good material to the garbage, and I feel like there should be a procedure of creating alternative wikis for cases like this. Additionally, it seems like a good part of this articles coul be made encyclopedic easily by adding a few lines of "the introduction of these suits had this and that impact on the series, as ----- commented in an interview." I never watched Gundam, and I'm no fan of the genre, but I know a major anime series when I see one, and coverage should abund if someone takes the pain to look into it.--SidiLemine 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It is already in an alternative wiki. Please read the nomination. Don't bring the decision onto my actions, make the decision based on the CLEAR POLICIES IT VIOLATES. It's not good material, it's stolen in-universe material about fancruft. It's already in an alternative wiki, as I said, PLEASE READ THE NOMINATION NEXT TIME. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionnal comment: Haeleth, when you say "Given that the information all exists elsewhere", o you mean that there is a source to it, and as such it's not OR?--SidiLemine 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: There's a thing called a "reliable source" and an "unreliable sources". These pages are stolen information from an unreliable sources.
  • Keep all as per Dark Shikari. Kagurae 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to alternative wiki as per SeizureDog. Kerochan no Miko 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: It's already in an alternative wiki. Read the nomination. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. Montco 18:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: why delete all infomation we ave articles on us pop culture scifi we have pages on doctor who a uk scifi series just because this is a nich thing we should remove it from the wikipedia unless we are removing all article on fiction. also mahq has made it known that they give permission to repclate here info if you source them.128.118.124.3 17:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - There is but one catch to this deletion process: People voting here do not know what they are voting for. There is no direct link to all the pages that are nominated. Yes, there is a function called What links here however, it is almost certained that most people would not know its exsistence and still vote on the subject. And thus making the nomination not reputable just because there is no way to tell if people even know what there are voting about other than a bunch of supposedly OR pages. If users who voted above saw this comment, please edit your vote to reflect you have at least looked through all the pages and know what they are about, to show that the vote is reputable. The list contain 2 pages.
Secondly - The WP:OR does not extend to fictional characters that appears in an anime(Seed and probably Seed-Destiny), in manga(Seed Astray, Astray-X, Destiny Astray), in settings(Seed MSV, Seed-D MSV), Official guide books(Seed data file characters 1~4, Mechanical file 1~4), and a Gundam Mobile Suit guide book for most Gundam series instead of Seed and Seed-D dedicated(MS encyclopedia 2003 and 2006). Some even appeared in the Super Robot Series(Super Robot Wars) that is not dedicated to Gundam but almost every single major mecha anime. Yes, it is very likely that these pages will recieve a lot of fancruff and OR in it if left unattented, however, this is not a reason of deleting any article just because they may contain OR.
More reasoning could counter arguments made by the nominator:
  1. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - No, this is not publishing an original thought, the page is not created by the author of said characters(mecha), and there are more than one source backing them up (I know not all the pages include their sources, and I have no will in doing). No, they do not have to be not dedicated to Gundam, They just have to be not dedicated to the series, i.e. not a comic retelling of the anime, not a novel written by the same author, etc. If someone published a book talking about these characters, in a different way than the story plot itself, it is justified to be a secondary source. Which actually means that the articles not just justified the WP:NOT test, but can also be written to justify the style of an out-of-universe view.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Yes, but per WP:FICT, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. and The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters. Here, in the list of AfD, I see quite a lot of important mecha that major characters used. Therefore, at least some of the articles here should not be deleted under this rule. In fact, a citation needed is what you need in these articles.
    And yes, I agreed with the fact that There is no reason for keeping them, most of them, at least. However, some of them should be kept, but the nominator indiscriminately list everything here, and thus it is too generic to vote for a yes.
    And another yes, it does not matter which one goes first, but it should always be done in the correct way, with correctly informed voters, with correctly listed reasons.
    Also, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters, Fictional characters which are cultural icons transcending their appearance in a particular work of fiction, or who cannot be neatly tied to a particular work of fiction or fictional universe deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. This is not an official policy, but a consensus. If they appeared in Super Robot Wars and SD Gundam G Generation, than it cannot be tied to a particular work (It is not Mobile Suit Gundam Seed's Cosmic Era anymore) and thus deserve articles of their own, regardless of other circumstances. The fun thing is, there are a few listed mechas actually showed up in series that are not related to gundam at all, like freedom in Magical Nurse Komugi and Comic Party and various units appeared more than once in the magazines Hobby Japan and Dengeki Hobby as iconic model kits. If the nominator is going to do anything similar (I mean this kind of mass deletion) to the UC timeline of Gundam, be informed here that most units in that timeline is also showed in Keroro Kunsou, Genshiken, Plamo tsuguru(TV show teaching how to build plastic models).
    I am all into deleting most of the pages listed, however, due to above reasons, this nomination did not completely followed the rules and is just too generic and took too much liberty in explaining the wiki policy, I am going to vote a:
    Keep per above reasons. However, after the voting period, if the articles are to be kept, I will be bold and merge(redirect) the ones I see that are not suitable to have its own page when I have time. MythSearchertalk 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: This is quite bluntly incorrect. If you actually read the nomination, you'd realize I linked to a template AND list of all of the articles. You seem to misunderstand the policies as a whole, and seem to be judging it from the one-liners I wrote instead of the whole policy. I'm not enjoying the lack of literacy and comprehension in this nomination. There are about two people making a FALSE decision, and then we have a bunch of sheep saying "keep per above", even though the argument is wrong. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not separate my section as a whole, also, different opinion does not mean it is a FALSE decision. Some see your argument is lacking its credibility and thus voted against it. Even someone like me who is all for deleting most of the articles thinks that what you are saying here is simply your own point of view instead of what is said in the policy. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above statements. Sharkface217 20:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A toast to a true Wikihero. Mythsearcher, you summed up what I wanted to say without the facts and references to back it up. Thanks a lot. I still maintain the idea of systematically creating alternate wikis for that kind of situations, but for what concerns Wikipedia, I follow you 200%.--SidiLemine 21:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Do you people even read nominations anymore? Turn off the anime and read. This information is already on an alternate wiki. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in light of transwikied process. Suggest ELs be used to prevent recreation (at least enough to point the reader to that "level" of information). -- Ned Scott 03:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's clear that some should go, some should merge, etc (some being... most..), but we'll likely need further discussion to help organize the cruft-cutting. One thing is clear, things should not stay as they are. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has this initiative not failed once already? Too much potentially valuable information for a blanket delete. You might consider individual nominatinations for a less heated VfD. FWIW, I am not an anime fan. SuMadre 05:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The initiative previously failed because of a lack of information. I have provided everything required, making the decision much more clearer. I am trying to argue against this "potentially valuable" information argument. You're only assuming the information might be valuable because of ignorance, but I have looked through all of the articles, and none of it is valuable. For you to decide whether it is valuable or not, you will have to look at the articles. Otherwise, voting "keep" is just as foolish. You can't base a vote on ignorance - whether it's "keep" or "delete".
      • Follow-up: To do as you are asking is to delete dozens of articles which probably have not been read individually by us editors. I will read each one on a case-by-case basis, but I don't have the hours required to sift through each article in a blanket VfD. Are we to simply take your word that each and every article has no potentially valuable information AND is in violation of WikiPolicy? To vote based on such would be irresponsible & the height of ignorance. Once again, and without malice, I suggest that you consider individual noms. SuMadre 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: I will be doing individual nominations if this results in a no-consensus. I am determined to get these horrible articles off of Wikipedia. It was clearly a mistake to bundle them, but nominating each one separately is going to be an extreme task. If this results in "keep" (as opposed to "no-consensus"), I'll have to give the administrator a refresher regarding the decisions on AfD. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Follow-up: I think you will have much better luck in that regard (individual noms). You clearly have a firm resolve to rid the world of these literary abominations, so I see your hard work coming to fruition if you change your tack. (Please sign your comments with four tildes in the future so I'll know for sure who I'm talking to - Thanks.) Best of luck. SuMadre 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply: Sorry about that. I normally sign, I must've forgotten. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to comment on how irritating I find it that so many of the people who have chimed in to this debate did not bother reading previous postings or even the original nomination. Yes it is long, but how can you expect to participate in a discussion if you are only aware of the previous three things that have been uttered? Not to select any particular editors for chiding, but I am especially surprised at how many people demanded the articles be transwikied even as TheEmulatorGuy was responding to each such comment individually saying "please read the nomination."--Dmz5 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:CE.--Ojaulent 12:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — Ojaulent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That there exists a project is not a reason to keep them. Do they follow policies, especially WP:V? That is the main question, and one I haven't seen any of the keepers address yet (although I may have missed someone in this lengthy AfD). Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fram is right on this one. The fact that there is a project devoted to a subject does not mean we should start writing articles on everything that falls under that subject. We have a Wikiproject on libraries and librarians. Does it follow that we should then write and keep an article on every library and librarian in the known universe? Please, for the love of all things good in this world, recognize that the answer to this quesiton is no. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the Delete admin stated the following (roughly): The only ones who wants to know said gundam is X meters high is a gundam fan! THIS is an ultimatly wrong statement, and if this was to be the rule, than wikipedia all encylopedias worldwide would be EXTREMELY narrow. To say that unless proven to be useful to everyone, it should not be part of an encyclopedia. Encylopedias, and wikipedia for that matter, does not contain info that is useful to everyone, however, shouldn`t the fact that it is useful to SOMEONE be a decisive factor?
No, the nominator (not a "delete admin", just a regular editor: anyone can nominate articles for deletion) gave numerous reasons for deletion, one of them being that these articles violate one of our core policies, WP:V. Since these articles seem to be not only not verified but actually unverifiable (from secondary sources), they are a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, and should be deleted. It doesn't matter if anyone likes or dislikes the subjects (we have many articles on subjects I utterly dislike), we should only look if these articles are conform to the policies of Wikipedia. They are not, and thus should be deleted. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per good nom (although he should have given them all an AfD notice from the start, but that has been fixed) and per mt reply to the previous unsigned post. Fram 19:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No matter your qualms with the procedural value of this nomination, there have been no arguments made that successfully defend against the charges leveled by the nominator. The current poll of votes shows 16-19 "keep" votes, but digging beyond the numbers game reveals a clearer picture of what's going on here. Eight keep votes reflect reservations about the way the articles were nominated, and say nothing about the content of the articles. Four "keep" votes are simple WP:ILIKEIT statements. Another "keep" vote is a regurgitation of the "worse articles exist, therefore this should be kept" fallacy. That means that 68.42 percent of the keep voters are ignoring the actual policy arguments, and chasing their tails in some rhetorical netherworld instead. It is my sincerest hope that the closing administrator realizes this. How on Earth is information like the following a worthy inclusion to the encyclopedia?
  • "Their main feature, however, is the "Armure Lumiere" mono-phase lightwave shield system. This system consists of 7 emitters, one on each arm and 5 on the backpack." CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series
  • "In addition, an amphibious variant of the Forbidden was created, the GAT-X255 Forbidden Blue. It utilizes a Natural-use OS rather than OS intended for Biological CPUs, and has weapons optimized for underwater use, including torpedo pods and a photon laser energy cannon in close combat mode." GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam
  • "The Chaos is initially tested at Armory One by former Proto-Chaos pilot Courtney Hieronimus. However, before ZAFT can bring it into active service, Sting Oakley of the Earth Alliance's 81st Independent Mobile Battalion steals the mobile suit and escapes with it to the battleship Girty Lue, where it is given the new model number RGX-01." ZGMF-X24S_Chaos_Gundam
  • "For example, the Kimera piloted by Kisato Yamabuki is equipped with a large scoop-style shovel, while that of Lowe Guele mounts mobile suit-style arms, one with a conventional hand and the other with a heavy drill bit. Kimeras could also be fitted with caterpillar tracks for construction work on Earth." MAW-01 Mistral

Please, by all means, explain to me how that information is notable? Our guiding policy here should be WP:FICT, which gives us this gem of useful information:

"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."

These articles are written entirely in an "in-universe" style of prose, thus invalidating our first premise. They are unsourced, invalidating our second premise. They make no reference to their cultural value outside of the series, thus invalidating our third premise. In the end, they are a summary of Gundam-specific treknobabble, regurgitating plot specifics. What have we learned, then? Not only do they fail to meet any of the positive criteria set forth, they specifically violate the only negative criteria. Seriously. What's going on in here?

It has already been argued that the Gundam Wing series is a cultural staple and thus important to the encyclopedia as an article reflecting the significance of anime culture. Fine. That's why we've got an article called Mobile Suit Gundam. It covers the psychological and historical value of the franchise without vomiting up huge amounts of made-up statistics and histories for its myriad of plot-specific devices and characters. So stop saying we need an article about a futuristic backhoe to explain how the world is a better place because of the Gundam anime.

This debate needs to focus less on how much of a dick the nominator is (whether he is or not), and get to the crux of the issue: do these articles meet current Wikipedia policy for inclusion? I don't care how tight you twist your knickers up and wish it to be so, they simply do not. Consequentially 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, and I completely agree. -- Ned Scott 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to be a "dick" because of the general stubbornness of people voting to keep. I have seen one person give any sort of source to any of the articles, but the mentions are in a trivial matter and don't warrant an article for each robot. In any case, the matter has become out of hand, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll nominate some of the individual articles when this discussion is closed (if need be). --TheEmulatorGuy 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we're just saying that if you were a dick or not doesn't matter. User:Consequentially is supporting your position. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Personally, I don't think you're being a dick, you're just frustrated with the inane and misguided rationales for keeping these articles. Those kind of opinions aren't really relevant here, I think. We're here to talk about the article, not the people. If this debate is closed with anything other than "delete," then I suggest you go to the articles one by one and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, after all. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screw that. If the discussion is closed with "keep," which it should be given the nature of the AfD, the opener should leave well enough alone. Going back against the consensus that evolves is the very definition of bad faith. If the nominator has NO intention of abiding by the result of the AfD if it goes against his desired result, he should NEVER have made the nomination in the first place. Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it results in keep, it will only be because of the blanket nomination. Because of that, nominating individual articles would not be bad faith and it would not be going against consensus. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, if you're truly concern about quality of article, not just having bad faith. You would wait for some period to see if we manage to improve these articles after this AfD nom or not. L-Zwei 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles has existed for a year, they've had a WikiProject dedicated them, and they've been nominated for AfD over three times, and yet there's been absolutely NO improvement. I'm not going to waste my time waiting for nothing to happen. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irony, you appear to have self-confidence at moment. I'm not part of WP:CE (and in fact, hate it for narrow scope that limited to CE instead of whole fanchise) but the project seem to inactive. Many idea for improvement pop-up in this nom discussion, don't get overconfidence, but I think this AfD just drive people to improve their content, something previous AfDs fail (due to moronic element of previous AfDs). So I think it may worth to wait (AfD a soon-to-be-merge artcle is pointless anyway). L-Zwei 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on who know their exsistence and who voted. There are unfortunately too many Cosmic Era fans who just walk by and do random edits. There is no method in stopping these. I can foresee these pages be recreated again and again after every deletion if there are no redirects that led them to a list(At least that's what happen to a lot of similar page in the Chinese and Japanese wiki). Actually, this is already a sign of what level of impact those things are influencing our real world. MythSearchertalk 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they are recreated after deletion, the proper response is to delete them again, and salt the earth from whence they rose. The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory. The standards in WP:FICT go beyond "real world impact," also, a fact which continues to be ignored in this debate. Despite the "hundreds of editors" who've worked on these articles, not a one of them has bothered to put any non-fictional context into the article. You tell me how big its fake guns are, how fast its fake engines can go, and how long its fake legs are, but there is absolutely nothing about the artist who designed these units, or how they play into general themes of the anime, or how they've influenced the realm of anime-robot-drawing. The reason for this is simple in some cases -- the subject of the article 'just hasn't done any of those things. Consequentially 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is you POV, not wiki's. People say this people say that. Your argument based on a lot of elements that could be called original research, without a source, and violate the NPOV rule. Where on earth does wiki policy states that wiki should be only hard science, math theory? (though I really like those, too) I agree they should have some level of real-world context, they should have information on who designed them and by the influence of what (of course, sourced information). Again, I must tell you that these articles just did not have anyone with the knowledge and sources to edit them, you cannot just coin that to they can never be improved. And face it, popular culture is a real world impact, and I have already included sources that show how some of these articles can be improved to show real world impact. MythSearchertalk 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first half of your response, my friend, is a straw man, and I'd appreciate if you represented my positions accurately. I never argued that Wikipedia should include works only on math and hard science. I'll repeat myself.

The fact that a lot of people edit an article is not an indicator of real-world impact, but rather an indicator of fan base. This was one of the major criticisms raised against Wikipedia in its humble beginnings: it was biased towards popular culture and current events articles because no one was interested in writing an article on hard science or math theory.

Show me where I argued the point you refuted. Now, after you realize that you can't, lets move on. Wikipedia policy does not require "some level of real world context;" it requires the entire article be written in an out-of-universe context. This is from WP:WAF.

Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself.

For further explanation, lets look at what they suggest for information that meets an out-of-universe perspective.
  • the author or creator;
  • the design;
  • the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
  • real-world factors that have influenced the work;
  • for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;
  • its popularity among the general public;
  • its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
  • its reception by critics;
  • a critical analysis of the subject;
  • the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
  • a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.
Your sources do not address these concerns, nor do the articles that are currently being nominated for deletion. They are written entirely from plot summary and technical detail. Even if you want to argue that the treatments are "summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition," you have no basis to claim it is "treated briefly, and clearly defined as fiction." Consequentially 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have introduced this new term to me is ironically true that it can be used on yourself. You have strayed the discussion on saying how people critized wiki, without source, and expect me to say nothing about it? Back to the discussion. Face it, what I have listed are enough to write a good article on how some of these fictional characters made a real world impact, they have at least impacted someone to write a book on how to 3D model them, they have impacted people on writing published articles on teaching how to model using them as a reference. Even published POV critics can be included in wiki's article, therefore, a third party company publishing magazines and books referencing these fictional units, not talking about the plot, but just using them as a good tutoring material that a lot of people are familiar with, is a good source of indicating real world impact. If only I can scan a fan poll listed in magazine on which of these are more popular, there will be even more real world context, I do not have the magaizne, and I have no interest in finding one, therefore I never said anything about using it as a source. However, for a show having that kind of popularity in Japan, compared to any other anime, they always put up polls just to do a marketing research on which unit they can make a model kit and gain profit on.
No. A straw man fallacy is when you take someone's argument, and reconstruct it in a weaker, more-easily disposed form. I said, historically, there has been a bias towards popular culture instead of hard-science, and that caused criticism. The bias existed because people wrote about their interests, and not necessarily on what people deem academically "important" for an encyclopedia. That there are a lot of people interested in a topic does not make it important. Somehow, you transformed that into me saying, "we should only have articles on hard science and math," which is not only disingenuous, but flat out wrong. Stop it. Even if you're only misusing the term straw man and instead arguing that I'm shifting the debate, it's still a non-responsive argument. I'm probing deeper into why these articles violate WP:FICT and WP:WAF, and you're regurgitating the same word-vomit that you have been all thread: "it's notable and important because people make models of them." What you have yet to address is the fact that, despite the hundreds of edits and dozens of eyes that have passed over these articles, no one has taken the time to meet the criteria for writing on fiction. No matter what might be, we're here to deal with what is. And unless you can prove to me that each of these cartoon fabrications has single-handedly reshaped the way people think about drawing 3D stuff, you can't slap a blanket on them and say, "They all belong."
Hell, the fact that they wrote a guide on how to model a Gundam isn't a very strong argument in the first place, because not a single friggin' article talks about how these robots significantly affected the world of 3D modeling. "So what?" you say, "People wrote about it in a third-party publication, so it's automatically noteable enough to merit an article." That's bunk. If we grant your premise that the Gundamspooge has rocked the world of 3D modeling -- which I assure you, it hasn't -- that's information that needs to go in the article on 3D modeling. Stop dodging the question and answer me: which of the eleven characteristics of out-of-universe writing do these articles demonstrate? Consequentially 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question where on earth do you see a policy saying it has to shake the whole world of 3D modeling before it can be said that it got some impact? Given, if a third party published a book of using it to teach 3D modeling, it means that it got enough credits and popularity that someone actually paid the copyright in order to use the designs for their books. No, it can never be so shocking that it moves the whole 3D modeling community, and thus it is not suitable to be mentioned in the 3D modeling article. However, a book written is a verifiable source of its popularity among the general public and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. A third party publishing a book about these units is a very good demostration on how these units influenced the work of later creators and their projects. These articles currently contains none of these is a sign of they needed to be improved, if any of the fans cared to do so. Not a sign of deleting them. I have provided the sources, and the argument, and already said that if no one is changing them, I will merge them into a list. I never said anything about they should be kept as they are, and this is why I said the term you have introduced to me is ironically suitable for yourself, while I never said it is not suitable on what I said earlier about your unsourced argument on how people think wiki is biased towards popular culture. MythSearchertalk 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not notability. From UncleG's essay on notability:

The concepts of fame and importance have implicit in them the notion of a target population — a subject is famous amongst a group of people, a subject is important to a particular set of people. Notability has no such implicit notion. Notability is independent of specific groups of people. To understand this, consider that the primary notability criterion makes no mention of readership. A subject is not notable under the primary criterion if it is widely read about. It is notable by dint of people writing about it. It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion.

I'm not saying that Gundam stuff doesn't have a large target audience, I'm saying that outside of that target audience, the importance of these vehicles drops off significantly. Your sources are written from within the anime community, from sources that center on the Gundam universe. These aren't articles from main-stream press or industry trade journals. Beyond that, the criticism that Wikipedia is biased towards popular culture is hardly unsourced. From Criticism of Wikipedia:

In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."

While those specific examples aren't valid anymore, the bias still exists, and is a topic of great import to a lot of editors.Consequentially 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have said, having books published satisfy the idea of It is the source writers, not the target readership population, that is relevant to the primary notability criterion., while you keep ignoring. Yes, they are not of a mainstream press, in America, but do I have to tell you that wiki is an international page, and the publishers are at least mainstream in Japan, if not Asia. The Magazines I have quoted are not Gundam or Anime based. Half of Hobby Japan talks about real world machine models, like cars, aeroplanes, ships and such. And your hatred in Anime does not take away the credibility of a magazine focusing on Anime is not a mainstream publisher and is biased on Gundam. Dengeki Hobby is more figure related than Gundam related. Yes, in your view anything that you have no interest in is not mainstream, because you simply do not need to pay any attention on it, and thus I have the idea of no matter how many sources I can include, you are just going to be able to say they are not notable, not mainstream. From the original Arguement of the nominator of having sources not dedicated to Gundam, you have moved the level higher onto an argument of needing to have sources not dedicated to Anime, and probably you will yet try to raise the bar to any sources dedicated to any sort of fan base, including models, anime, comics, novels, games, and any other thing you cannot name of but have a certain group of fans, and maybe just in case some star war fans are interested in Gundam, too, should not carry enough notablity as they are not mainstream, because you simply hate the fact that they are a source countering your argument. Oh, and I can add it up for you, a newspaper becoming immediately not mainstream if they have said anything about any of these Gundam mechas, why? because they are fan based, they are anime based, and center on the Gundam universe. Face it: Dengeki Hobby Magazine is a mainstream modeling and figure magazine that is even translated to 2 chinese version(Hong Kong and Taiwan), Hobby Japan only have Gundam as one of its nine sections, with at least 3 sections not related to Anime. And if you wanted to say that the section itself is not maintream publishers, anyone could have the same argument on anything, because you can even ignore any sources from CNN or BBC if you say that particular news is written by who is biased towards that topic. And No, wiki never states its sources have to be mainstream, if it got published, by a third party company, it is good enough as a source. It doen't matter if it is anime oriented or not, it is available on the market, people can read it and learn about what is written in it, it is good enough to be listed as a source stating how anything impacted anyone on writing that article of that particular thing. As a matter of facts, the Tokien Companion is a perfect source for books of J.R.R. Tokien. And thus a third party publisher writing anything on a topic should be a perfectly valid source.MythSearchertalk 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, we're continuing our parade of bad arguments, and the next stop on your tour is a ignoratio elenchi. I'll play along and grant that these articles demonstrate a significant interest in the Gundamgoo that we're talking about. I'll do you one better, and say that it shows a notable real-world impact, and is thus meritous of inclusion. I don't agree with either of those statements, but we're pretending here, mmkay? Now, tell me what that has to do with the fact that the articles don't meet any of the burdens presented by WP:FICTION and WP:WAF? I'll give them to you again, since you must've missed them the first time. An article on a fictional topic should cover the following:

". . . the author or creator; the design; the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative; real-world factors that have influenced the work; for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character; its popularity among the general public; its sales figures (for commercial offerings); its reception by critics; a critical analysis of the subject; the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional."

The thrust of my argument has, since the beginning, been that the articles you defend do not meet the criterion established by Wikipedia consensus in reference to writing about fictional topics. Along the way, I've had to defend against the notion that model kits inherently equal notability, but you'll notice I end each response with a return to the original question. Tell me, dear sir, how these articles meet the expectations placed upon them by the guidelines of our encyclopedia? Consequentially 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have answered it many times. I never said anything about keeping all of them, and I never said all of them are important, I am just saying the ones that recieve out of universe treatment, like having a model made and appearing in another anime not made by the authors and company of the original anime, and appearing in a published magazine, serveral times, satisfy having influenced the work of later creators and their projects. Since these are not real human acting, the people who design them(including original design and finishing and redesigns) should be listed and replace the point of the actor who portrayed the role. The real world factors that have influenced the work can be found in an interview(listed in the Official website) of the director and two other interviews of the mechanical designer(listed in Data files) who said the designs are influenced by some of the previous Gundam productions not designed by him. Reception by critics can be sourced from the model magazines which over and over stated these designs reference too much from the previous Gundam series and some even referenced non-Gundam series. More could be found in Game Express Magazine published in Hong Kong that Critically analyze by Jeto(similar pronounciation) the series of main mechas(in separate issues) about how the main characters use auto lock on instead of real piloting skills in massive genocide and how the other mechas are being just paper boards without even moving and aiming.(The last one I never state because even though I totally agree with him, I know that that critic does not recieve much credit for his articles of constantly bashing on new series and is being criticised for that) How some of these articles can meet the expectation of our encyclopedia is simple. It cannot cover every single point, but at least some of the articles can have enough coverage on how much it was influenced by previous productions and how much influence they have on the real world modeling, 3D modeling, and anime production of later creators. And sources are posted over and over again. And no, I keep saying the articles at their current state does not meet any of the guidelines and must be improved, and I am assuming good faith on people who are interested in them with the sources I have provided will do a good enough job. MythSearchertalk 02:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If any of that information appeared in the articles in question, I'm sure things would've gone a lot differently than they have so far. But until those statements, sourced and correctly applied, appear in the articles, then they stand to be deleted. Which articles specifically will benefit from those additions? Not trying to attack you, just wanting to know which we'll be deleting. Consequentially 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am constructing a list of what to do down there, I think if it is passed, we we have some sort of consensus dispite this trainwreck. However, I will use the word merge(and redirect) instead of delete. If they are redirected, it is highly likely that people that can find their information will not create a new page by copyvio from mahq or something like that. MythSearchertalk 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, having real world context is essential, but an article not having them maybe just needed to improve, especially sources indicate they can be. You can always assume bad faith, but the deletion guide suggested a merge for these kind of articles instead of a delete. I know 1.3 states WP:NOT as a may be needed for deletion, however, again, I must say that this is only a straw man's explanation on the WP:NOT policy. The WP:NOT#IINFO have nothing stating about these kind of articles and obviously a lot of list articles here falls into Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article This is why the nomiation is doomed to fail. It should not have started anyway. The nominator should just be bold and started merging them in the beginning(and no, a transwiki is just different from having a list on wiki unless we can redirect people to there without using an external link). Now it is listed, no one can do so because it is like blanking the pages. MythSearchertalk 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can show real-world impact for the articles on an AfD, then that is an extremely clear indicator is has no real-world impact. He's not coining the term "never be improved", he's showing it through evidence - evidence being that no one has shown any importance of any of the articles whatsoever. The sources you have given are NOT proof of a real-world impact. I have already explained it, please read it. You're giving me clear proof IQ is not an indicator of common sense, comprehension or intelligence itself - and no, that is not a personal vendetta or attack. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep ignoring the sources, everything that indicate they have an impact is dedicted to Gundam and should not be used, should not be listed and should not carry any notability since they are against your argument. Face it, the series is made by Sunrise, the models are made by Bandai, which are two different companies, that is enough prove of every single model made is an impact on the real world. The magazines are published by different companies, the books are published by different companies, anime made by other companies with no relationship to Sunrise that may infringe copyright problems are also shown as a proof and your common sense is ignoring anything that is against your argument, you have shown clear prove of ignorancy and yet you try to use personal attacks, POV and bad faith just to try to hook to your own nomination without even trying to link all of these together. Like I have said, I am not against deleting most of the articles, I am only against deleting them all blindly. MythSearchertalk 06:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Ignoring this sources? I clearly explained why the sources do not give leniancy to separate articles. This is because the "model kits" for each robot are part of a SERIES of model kits - it's not just this one little robot, it's all of the robots - they're not uniquely important - that is why a keep vote is complete nonsense in reference to those sources. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AllBut condense the information... However, I think the whole premise of this motion is outrageous! Many of the points that the main person opposed to these articles (EmulatorGuy) has raised are vague, personal opinions which seem to have been raised on the basis of a personal vendetta. I like the way this material is called "useless" - useless to whom? It seems only to be useless to the people nominating the article and there are evidently plenty of people who find it quite useFUL. If we apply his model to the whole of Wikipedia: there will be no articles remaining for anyone to discuss or do anything with. It is obvious that many people want these articles to remain. This is supposed to be an open, public contributed resource of information, regardless of what spurious guidelines you care to spout out, (which seem more inane to me than most inclusions in these articles). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs). — 195.18.135.215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Reply: You don't seem to understand what I am basing this on. "Useless" is not my opinion, it is a gathered opinion based on the various policies and guidelines these articles violate. I have already given them many times, as have a few other users. Upon your claim of "resource of information, regardless of spurious guidelines", I invite you to give me any policy showing this. I suggest you read WP:NOT, because it is a POLICY showing what Wikipedia is NOT - it just happens to include the Gundam articles that a few people wish to keep for their own personal reasons. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of votes[edit]

Yes, polling is evil, but this afd is getting to the point that we need to see how the issue is split.
deleted list to save space and confusion

Please do not misrepresent my vote. I am Keep. Also, the nominator does not count. You seem to have completely mixed up your "votes." — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Polling is evil. I'm removing my name from the list below. BCoates 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a listing of "votes" from what I read:

Revised listing, italics indicate disputed votes, normal are those we both agree on:
Delete (15 to 18)

  • RockMFR
  • Ultra-Lose
  • Fledgeling
  • wtfunkymonkey
  • natalie
  • wafulz
  • sr13
  • dmz5
  • sandstein
  • terence ong
  • quiteunusual
  • duja
  • haeleth
  • montco
  • seizuredog
  • sidilemine
  • kerochan no miko
  • Ben Standeven

Keep (15 to 17)

In addition, a number of non-voters have expressed the opinion that this AfD is against Wikipedia policy. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply: Indeed, more have voted to keep. However, if consensus is to "keep", Wikipedia does seem to support polling, since nearly all of the "keep" votes are ill-founded and ignore all of the issues brought up. But of course, there'll be a generic "no-consensus" just because there are more fanboys than people with common sense. I've yet to see one valid argument towards keeping the articles. No one has shown that ANY of the articles don't violate policies. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had some human error in my counting, but you made you biased your list in the opposite direction. Ben's redirect should be considered a delete (since you have to delete to redirect) and SidiLemine and Kerochan no Miko only said keep unless it was transwiki-ed. So that's at least 18 to 16 17. wtfunkymonkey's vote probably shouldn't be considered, as it's both a delete and keep statement, so I say the voting stands at 18 to 15 16, delete being the majority. --SeizureDog 01:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everybody of an official wikipedia policy, WP:IAR. That is the foudnign of my argument, I feel like these articles at least have some value and should not be deleted, per WP:IAR. I think that IAR, is for situations like this, when somebody, so badly wants something deleted, that they try to cover all of there bases. I think that AFD's should be for the people participating to do the resaerch and make a decision, not attempt to innoculate the voters by squasing every keep argument! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That all depends on what you think "improve" means. Because the encyclopedia is intended for normal people, not Gundam fans (no offense), the rule would not apply. Only a fan of the Gundam series would ever find that information helpful. Regardless, that policy itself seems to have problems. It seems to imply that I can upload an image that violates copyright laws just because it would make Wikipedia better. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Stupid locked datebase lost my first post!)This is not something that everybody knows about. If it were an article on Food, it would be something most people know about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. This is why I feel that WP:IAR applies here. IT is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. (I dont even know what it is, I am not an advocate for whatever this is. but reading it, it seemed intersting enough to not be deleted. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's information on quaternary robots of an in-universe fictional Japanese-created television show. Now explain why it should have coverage? I could apply the same defense to my foot. In your own words: This is not something that everybody knows about. If I had a child or a good friend interested in this, I would come to Wikipedia to research, learn what I could. It is not something that is bad faith, like blatant uploading of copyright images, it is an area that most people dont know about and should get some coverage. In my opinion. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least we agree! It is not a bad faith edit! I am all for that. The foot analogy was pretty good. If your foot had a fan club, and there was something unique about your foot. (perhaps you have 123 toes) or your toes look like a star wars character or something, I would probably support keeping the article. If there was a TV show about your foot, I would be all for it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are part of something popular does not mean they are notable themselves. An even more popular series like Star Wars doesn't have a page on every droid. They are listed here, and what's more ridiculous is THE LIST is being accused of non-notability. Really, if that article is deleted and these aren't, that's hypocrisy at its best. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody in this AfD has yet to prove that every single article linked to is non-notable or otherwise not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Until such proof is given, this entire AfD is meaningless: a blanket nomination is not an excuse to nominate articles for deletion without explaining why they should be deleted. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated the policies and their violations, and the only way for that to be proven is for you to actually look at the articles. I should mention that no one has given a reliable source, nor have they disproven the accusations for ANY of the articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of defending every argument here. It just isn't worth it, no one wants to accept it and keeps ignoring logic. From here on I'll just stop and let the nomination get a "no consensus", which was clearly going to happen from the start. It's beyond me why anyone thinks these articles are notable, have reliable sources etc. etc. etc. I shouldn't bother, regardless of any of my arguments, Wikipedia administrators will base it on amount of votes (like they always do) and not the integrity of votes. I give up, you can have your articles if the administrator says so. If the nomination results in delete, that's fine, but it's just not worth pointlessly arguing with ignorance. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your problem, you are being ignorant with my comment.
What is missing here? A list of what articles that are going to be deleted on this page.
It is important to tag a AfD on every page you want to include, but it is also important to let people know what is going to be deleted on the nomination page.
Yes, linking to the template works, to a certain point. However, it is not effective enough, especially the title of this page is Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
Another note: You have totally twisted Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
per WP:NOT#OR,
  1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion.
    Yes, there are sources, I have cited them in this page, I know they need to be in those pages instead, but I really have no interest in defending Cosmic Era related stuff.
  2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!
    No, those are not invented by writers of wiki. And in fact, there are magazines published in Japan as secondary sources reporting their exsistence. Your lack of knowledge on those is not a good excuse to ignore it is there.
  3. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  4. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  5. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  6. News reports. Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current Events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
    Then per WP:NOT#IINFO:
  7. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
    These pages are not FAQs.
  8. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  9. Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  10. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  11. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  12. Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
    Obviously not related to the discussion here.
  13. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
    Like I have said above, some of the listed page for deletion actually impacted Other anime and manga by appearing in them, Some of these anime and manga are not produced by Bandai or Sunrise or any branch of them.
    Stop defining the policies to serve your own purposes, and cursing with ofending language like saying the Gundam wiki is an absolute cruft hellhole is not going to help either. MythSearchertalk 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: You make so many claims to sources, but where are they? :) --TheEmulatorGuy 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 published by Media Works, not Bandai, and thus it is a secondary source.
Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
GUNDAM A (ガンダムエース) 2007年 01月号 and previous issues, published by 角川書店, not story based magazine.
Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
More real world impact includes GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT, Magical Nurse Komugi series by Tatsunoko, not Sunrise, [35] series by Leaf, having a Freedom Gundam and Strike Gundam appearing in it. In the Game Super Robot Wars alpha 3, most of the Mecha piloted by main characters and rolled out as mass production units are present.
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. I do know a lot of them do not deserve their own page. Like I've said, I would have follow the WP:FICT and delete/redirect most of the pages without going through this AfD process if I'd knew these pages exsisted. The chinese wiki entries like these are so much simplier, we just merge and redirect everything without even putting up something like this. If fans can find enough data in the list of mecha, they will not create new page for every single one of them. MythSearchertalk 06:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting the guts of WP:FICT. The fact that some of these things appeared in another anime about big robots does not mean that they significantly impacted said anime. These big robots haven't significantly affected anything. The television show, perhaps, has made a dent in the Great Big Timeline of Stuff, but I'm willing to bet, when it all comes down to the line, no one is going to say, "Thank God for the ZGMF-600 GuAIZ. Were it not for this twenty-meter-tall, eighty-ton mass of metals and guns, my life would be completely void of meaning." WP:FICT makes the argument for real-world reference and analysis because Wikipedia is not a Gundam fan site, and the sum cultural value of the Gundam series is not going to be that Pilot X stole it from Evil Nemesis Q, who was going to use it against Innocent Population T, but instead managed to defeat Otherworldly Monster N, and is the reason for the ring of space debris floating around Planet U. The fact that someone else has devoted time and webspace to listing these facts does not make them worthy of encyclopedic apotheosis. Consequentially 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly nothing in this AfD (which hits a swathe of over 85 articles, which when the related AfD for the non-mecha vehicles of this same series is added, tops 100 articles all told) is of life-shaking importance, there are several articles in here which are at least as notable as, say, X-wing or USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Iceberg3k 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read the X-Wing article until now. Having done so, I'd say it's pretty crappy, and a poor example of writing on a fictional topic. Only three or four of the paragraphs relate to real-world content, with the other 4/5 of the page devoted to Star Wars treknobabble. That article needs cleaned up, purged of irrelevant and trivial knowledge, and polished, but I digress. Since I'm not familiar with the intimate details of Gundam stuff, I'll trust you that some of the units mentioned are of value to the series. Could you give some examples of the ones you think should be kept, and provide a rationale for them? I don't mean that as a mean-spirited challenge: I'm not attacking you and demanding you come forth like some kind of deletionist McCarthy. Just help us sort the wheat from the chaff, so we can make something productive out of this. Consequentially 02:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already conceded that the "grunt" units should be compressed into summary articles by nationality (ZAFT/PLANT, Earth Alliance and Orb are the relevant nationalities). The "star" units - the Gundams (such as the GAT-X105 Strike Gundam and ZGMF-X09A Justice Gundam) - should absolutely be kept and revised to an out of universe perspective, as they're piloted by major characters, have a lot of screen time (for the five GAT-X series units from the first show, over 10 hours individual screen time each). Iceberg3k 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in complete agreement with you there, and I think that's an acceptable compromise between the two extremes being presented in this debate. As I know only vaguely of the Gundam world, I'm not in a position to make those changes, but since you seem to be on the ball there, I think it's a solution that you should pursue aggressively. Consequentially 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind everyone that AFD is not a vote, it's a debate please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. It doesn't matter how many people voted and what they voted for--it's the quality of the arguments that matter. May I also remind everyone that adding tally boxes to AFD is listed in the "what not to do section. --Kunzite 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While MAHQ copyvio issue are solid on several articles, several other aren't. Many article existed long before MAHQ upgrade their profile into Burke's type. These articles only borrow general info like spec, which state at MAHQ that it's free-use. Some articles was translated from Japaneese article. In short, if you made seperate nom on each article, the copyvio issue will be solid. But for all of them? Nah... L-Zwei 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those spec fall into the category of factual data and thus any use of them will not hinder any copyright problems. It is just like listing out how many times a soccer player had scored in one particular season. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot believe how uncivil the original nominator of this AfD has been on this page. He's also threatened that if this does not pass that he will be giving the "administrator a refresher on AfD". I'm shocked and appalled by his behavior and I certainly hope I'm not the only one. Kyaa the Catlord 11:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never seen any Gundam, but I have a strong feeling that most, if not all, of these articles are about things that only appeared briefly in an episode or two. Any character/etc. that does not have at least ~30 minutes worth of focused airtime is too minor to have an article about. Can it be established that any of these weapons have had enough focus within the series that they need to be kept? It just gets worse outside of the nominated articles. I mean, Missile truck? Come on, it doesn't even have a name. --SeizureDog 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that some of these articles deserve AfD-ing, but the majority of them do not. This was a bad nom period. If TheEmulatorGuy wants to have them deleted he should have done so on an individual basis. It is terribly unfair to judge the primary mech which are included in the template on the same level as your mentioned Missile truck. Kyaa the Catlord 11:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replay Those this format of nominating work for you? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Era vehicles Even grouping them together is a major hassle: doing them one by one would be even worse. Plus, I think it's best to keep them together and not scattered about. --SeizureDog 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Its better, but I wouldn't suggest making mass deletion noms out of principle. For example, the Skygrasper in this new Nom is one of the more featured air/spacecraft of the show and some of the main characters involved in the story fly them. A lot of those articles I agree should go, or at the very least be merged together. I wonder if there was originally a large article that was split.... Kyaa the Catlord 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get people to review them seperately, but I think most of the keepers are just giving a blind support. I'm welling to accept some of the articles being important enough to stay, but people have to point out which they are.--SeizureDog 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I've become aware that there is a wikiproject dedicated specifically to these articles, I'm more in favor of informing them of the problems and letting them fix them period. Kyaa the Catlord 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see in the series, its worst. The mass-production models appear in the series as paper boards and have probably less than 5 actions each. They fly out and get destroyed by the main characters without even having the need of dodging or aiming(aiming is done by an automatic fire control system, much less powerful than the F-22 onboard FCS). The same sequence keep on and on just to show how powerful the main characters are(failure attempt to most people with normal level of judgement, i.e. that are not blind). That is why I am really into merging those into one big list. As per WP:FICT. No voting is needed according the WP:FICT for minor characters to be merged into a list, if there isn't already a AfD tag on the page, I would have done so when I knew pages like this exsisted. I only followed a vandal's path of vandalism and figured these mecha have their own page and someone tagged AfD on it so that nothing can be done to blank them, yet. MythSearchertalk 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm in favor of merging for most of the "grunt" suits, may I suggest merging them by national affiliation? A general "Mecha of Gundam SEED" article that possesses large enough descriptions of each mobile suit to remain useful would actually be well beyond the size of this AfD discussion. Iceberg3k 17:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, one big list is too long, it should be shortened by nation or series(like the list of RGM-79 GM) if the list became too long. That is what we did on the Characters of Negima page. MythSearchertalk 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG KEEP per above. - Plau 12:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep, per above. Mass AfDs are NOT kosher. There may well be articles in the template that should be deleted, they like all other articles should be considered for deletion on a case by case basis, not en masse. The AfD opener's concerns should rationally be addressed by improving, not deleting, the articles. Is there cruft in the Gundam WikiProject? Definitely. Should large groupings of articles be deleted in one fell swoop? Hell no. Iceberg3k 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are fancruff, and thus they should be improved, not blindly deleted. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there ought to be a WikiPolicy to explicitly ban mass deletions, myself. Each article submitted for deletion deserves a complete, thorough and individual investigation, and mass deletions strike me more and more with each one as a deliberate abuse of the rules. If the deletionists think that's a pain in the ass, that's too damned bad, you can't just say something is useless and needs to be deleted just because you don't like it. A lot of mass AfDs are attempted, most of them fail. For very good reason.Iceberg3k 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And the bullying of fictional articles continues. To the person who commented most of these probably only get brief screentime- most of the mecha profiled appear in just about every episode. I'm reminded of the example someone cited in the Moebius delete- how come entries for Star Trek ships are kept but not these? Then again, I'm sure someone will shove 'WP:ICANBULLYYOU' in my face...--HellCat86 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. It is possible some articles must be joined, some even must be revived either into collections or article (Such as TS-MA2 Mobius article), and some other must be kept. I against mass deletions per nom above. Other had been discussed above. I am using WP:IAR, based on rationale: if you put infos into one page, it would be an "explosion". Gundam articles (included Cosmic Era related articles) has deep background story which is useful. Draconins 14:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia should not be going into anywhere near this much detail about this sort of thing. Recury 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOT needs much more significant clarification than it currently possesses. In particular, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information can be abused to provide a blanket rationale for virtually any deletion. Iceberg3k 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per wictionary, Indiscriminate means, "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless ". I do not think these articles are thorughless. (This is just kind of reinfocring what Iceberk3k said. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there's a disturbing and increasing tendency for people to equate "I am not part of this fandom" with "this subject is not important." Iceberg3k 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was kind of the point in my original argument for keep (its up there somewhere). I think an encylopedia should hold more stuff I dont know about than stuff I do know about already! Somebody knows alot about this stuff(I sure dont). However, they want to share the information and I am ok with keeping it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem I have is, coming in as someone who hasn't seen the show but has read the article Gundam, I have no idea why the information on these pages is important. It strikes me as being as unencylopedic as reporting the exact dimensions of every prop used in star trek, or a data dump of the internal numbers used in a video game ("headcrab has 37 hitpoints, and does 20 hitpoints of damage. 9mm bullet does 40 hitpoints of damage, except on hard difficulty, where it does 20..."). It's not like we're considering deleting all or even most of the articles dedicated to a single franchise; as far as I can tell these don't even touch on the plot, characters, fanbase, criticism, impact on the real world, etc., just the props. BCoates 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Some of the articles should be merged. That's not the point. The Gundams used by the major characters are important enough to warrant individual articles, because like the X-wing, they are really important, unique props which are used by main characters of the show through a significant part of the story arc, and are practically characters in their own right. Grunt suits, no question, should be merged together by nationality for convenience's sake, there are useless articles in the AfD. But there are also important articles in it, and that's why the overall AfD should fail. Iceberg3k 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Gundam is an important anime and although some informations come from MAHQ, the articles also include more informations and thus can't be seen as simply a copy. Diabound00 17:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep allthe article does hve element from mahq with there primission given on the site faq. there info may have been lifted from here. but if we remove this article hat's next are we removeing all cult scifi like doctor who or are we removing anything not north american i say wee keep it and let the fans fix it - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) — 128.118.124.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also note that this is the second keep all registered by this IP.

The fans had a chance to fix it. They had a whole year in fact, but all of the articles are still highly confusing, in-universe, full of trivia, and have no sources. Nothing is going to change. --TheEmulatorGuy 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not for you to decide. WP:CE exists for a reason. Iceberg3k 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the birth of WP:CE, which followed many of the formats found in WP:DIGI. That project never really got off the ground, which is too bad. This AfD might be what is needed to start the project back up again in order to do this large scale cleanup. My point is, WP:CE.. really isn't a project right now. Currently, WP:CE does not exist for a reason, and isn't a functional WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Alliance

  • G-Weapons (Duel, Buster, Strike [including Strike Rouge], Blitz, Aegis)
    • "Dagger" units (Strike Dagger, 105 Dagger, Dagger L, Windam, and the more extraneous information in the Duel, Buster, and Blitz articles)
    • Stargazer G-Weapon derivatives (Blu Duel, Verde Buster, and Strike Noir)
  • Mobile Armors (Moebius/Moebius Zero, Exass, Euclid, Pergrande, Zamza-Zah, Gells-Ghe)
  • Second-generation EA Gundams (Calamity, Forbidden, Raider, and derivatives)
  • Miscellaneous (Destroy and Hyperion)

ZAFT

  • GINN, CGUE, and GuAIZ series
    • GINN derivatives (BABI, DINN, ZuOOT, BuCUE, LaGOWE, GOOhN, ZnO, ASH)
    • CGUE and GuAIZ derivatives (DEEP Arms and Experimental Firearms Type)
  • First-generation ZAFT Gundams (Dreadnought, Justice, Freedom, Regenerate, Testament, and Providence)
  • Second-generation ZAFT Gundams (Chaos, Abyss, Gaia, Saviour, Impulse, Destiny, Legend, and related units)
  • ZAKU, GOUF, and DOM series [even though the DOM Trooper technically belongs to Terminal]

ORB Union/Clyne Faction/Terminal

  • Astray series suits (Red Frame, Blue Frame, Gold Frame, production-model Astray, and related units)
  • Second-generation ORB Union mobile suits (Murasame and Akatsuki)
  • Terminal-produced Gundams (Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice)

Other

  • Anything and everything that doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories (Astray Out Frame, Stargazer, et cetera [can't be bothered to go into specifics])

It's a rough outline of how each article should be merged, but at least it's a start regarding how to consolidate this mess of articles into a more streamlined construct. WP:CE just might find something to set its sights on after all this time.--Kira Matthews 03:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To all inclusionist (Keepers)[edit]

Anyone who actually wanted to keep the pages, at least show some motivation in using the above listed source(by me) in the articles (make a template, it would be much easier) to reduce the number of people coming here saying the articles should be deleted because they are unsourced. 機動戦士ガンダム MS大全集2006―MOBILE SUIT Illustrated 2006 and This is Our Gundam, Seed-Destiny version should serve as a secondary and primary source(respectively). I am no fan of the Cosmic Era, only someone who dwelt in the Gundam Community long enough that I know what sources contains information for them so I can win arguments against Cosmic Era fans without any sources backing them up and still try to say bad things about other series. I have no motivation in contributing in Cosmic Era series related pages unless they contain major error like fans saying there are Newtypes in Cosmic Era when I know no sources can back them up. Thus you guys have to do the job yourselves if you are to protect any page you like. I hate people who sit there and say that what services need to be provided but keep sitting there without any actual work. Be warned, if I ever got the motivation to go through those pages, I am going to be bold and redirect most of them to a list instead of adding sources to them. MythSearchertalk 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I've got some work to do. I'll attempt to correct some sources to be more accurate, dig through my pile of magazines and books as well ASAP.--216.186.174.146 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 216.186.174.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepJ'onn J'onzz 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any reasoning behind this? This isn't a poll, so if you don't provide a reason, your vote is pointless. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nomination. Honestly speaking, there’s always discussion of how these articles should be improved. The problem is that no one cares enough to do anything at all, and I don’t believe that’ll change anytime soon. Even though a large chunk of my edits on Wikipedia involve these very articles, I have no attachment to them. They’re just too bloated at this point. And as pointed out earlier, they’ve been transwikied, so I don’t believe we’ll lose any information. These articles simply don’t belong on Wikipedia. DarkWarrior 00:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per suggestion to DarkWarrior. Also, can images trans-wikied, citing the appropriate sources of course? --Blackhawk charlie2003 04:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to COMMENT regarding fate of individual articles, I hereby list a brief summary of what I think should be kept and what should not. My argument for keeping these are either they have appeared in more than three or more media by at least 2 different companies I have list here:
  • Anime(GS, GSD, GS Stargazer) by Sunrise
  • Novel and Manga(GSA, GSAB, GSDA, GSAR, GSXA, GSDA) by Kadokawa
  • Manga(GS, GSD) by Kodansha
  • Anime(Gundam Evolve) by Bandai
  • Model by Bandai, note: GS and GSD series model kits are dedicated to the series itself and is not notable here, I only refer to the MG series kits and EX model series kits where Bandai made kits not only for Gundam but also Patlabor, Dunbine, L-Gaim, Ace Combat and Yukikaze.
  • Game(Alliance VS ZAFT, Alliance VS ZAFT II, Never-Ending Tomorrow) by Bandai
  • Game(SD Gundam G Generation series, Super Robot Wars series) by Banpresto
  • Anime(Magical Nurse Komugi) by Tatsunoko
  • Book(MS Encyclopedia 2003, 2006) by Media works
  • Book(GUNDAM CG WORKS―MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR MOBILE SUIT) by ビーエヌエヌ新社
Keeps:
CAT1-X1/3 Hyperion: GSXA Kadokawa, Evolve Bandai, Game Bandai, Model Bandai, Book Media works.
5 G(Strike, Duel, Aegis, Buster, Blitz): Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Book Media works, Book ビーエヌエヌ新社.
ZGMF-X10A Freedom and ZGMF-X09A Justice: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto, Anime Tatsunoko
YMF-X000A Dreadnought: Anime Bandai, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Game Banpresto, Manga Kodogawa, Manga Kondasha, Book Media works.
Merges that should not be merged into the big list due to notability in the overall importantness of them in the series and some level of separatedness of them and other Generic Paper board targets:
TMF/A-802 BuCUE and TMF/A-803 LaGOWE, Merge these two, due to their design impacting the design of Gaia in GSD anime and also their oddness of the Gundam series of non-humanoid MS appearance: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondansha, Manga Kodokawa, Game Banpresto.
ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice and ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom be merged to Justice and Freedom, they are not very notable other than being the mecha main protongists pilot, esp when they are just kinda like upgrades of those two: Anime Sunrise, Model Bandai, Game Bandai, Manga Kondasha, Manga Kodogawa, Book Media works, Game Banpresto.
Astray Red, blue, gold frame, separated from main list due to all the manga story are based on the Astray series(and thus all of them carry the name Astray in them): Anime Bandai, manga Kodogawa, manga Kondasha, model Bandai, Game Banpresto.
Arguable items
The GS and GSD both have a team of three piloting three different Gundam units that the main protongist fight against, these units mainly appeared only in the series and games by Bandai, they are not even a main element in the plot(none of them stayed in the series for more than half of the series). They recieve a little more treatment by having models in the GS and GSD series but not much in the Bandai regular series like the MG models. (Almost all important ones have MG models). I do not view them as having any appearance in the model because it is only one of the GS and GSD series models which are named as dedicated to those two series. Even if they exsist outside the main lists, they should be merged to the three in the team instead of having their own page.
MythSearchertalk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also, IMO, four articles from GSD that should be kept: ZGMF-X56S Impulse, ZGMF-X42S Destiny, ZGMF-X666S Legend and ZAFT Armored Keeper of Unity (though this article namespace ought to be changed to "ZAKU (Gundam Seed)"). These ones are the main character suits from GSD that aren't sequel units to the ones in GS.
Iceberg3k 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knida oppose keeping these, since they don't even have their own model kits out of the series(like MG and MIA). MythSearchertalk 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I think the articles should be merged, so what should I vote? AzureIcicle 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion not votes. To suggest merging, say Merge followed by where to merge. —Doug Bell talk 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TRAINWRECK. Articles need individual consideration, not mass forced resolutions. The ideal solution is probably a coordinated merge for most of them. --tjstrf talk 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good example to work from. Those articles are [mostly major] characters in World of Warcraft, not [mostly minor] weapons in Gundam. They're different situations. You haven't explained why these articles need individual consideration - it would help if you gave PROPER real-world impact (not obscure model kits) to ONE of the articles in order to separate them from others. As an administrator has commented at the start of the page, blanket nominations are not improper at all, unless you have GOOD reason - so far you've just stated your opinion with no reasoning. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emulator, all you have done in this whole discussion is continued reassertion of your initial premise. It's already been firmly established that you believe there is no viable content to be had from these articles, which is debated by other posters (including posters who are not fans of the Gundam Seed universe), so further reiteration of this argument is pretty well pointless. If by this point, where viable post-AfD plans have been mentioned and posted, which satisfy the requirements of policy, you are still sticking to your original premise and demanding that the entire article complex be thrown away, in spite of all apparent evidence that contradicts your original argument (which was based on a pretty twisted interpretation of policy to begin with), you simply have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation from this point on (really, you have contributed nothing meaningful since the initial nomination). The consensus appears to be keep some, merge most, and that is probably what the discussion should be closed on. Iceberg3k 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Ahahahaha, oh dear, ahahaha. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I linked to that debate was for the opening. I don't care what the subject of the AfD was, merely the following lines:

"The result was USELESS TRAINWRECK FROM WHICH NO CONSENSUS CAN EMERGE. This isn't going anywhere, as far too many articles were bundled together into a single AFD.
If someone wants to open a much smaller (not more than four articles at a time, please) AFD on one or some of these articles so that the individual merits of specific articles can be discussed, feel free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you've constructed an AfD that is fundamentally impossible to evaluate because it presently requires every editor read 84 articles in order to give a valid opinion. I'm not reading all those pages, you doubtless didn't read all those pages, there's no way we can expect the rest of the voters to read all those pages either. Because of this, any conclusion made as a result of this AfD will be invalid. --tjstrf talk 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine, have it your way. If you require 7 months to get rid of the articles (that's how long it's going to take) instead of 2 weeks just for "individual merit" reasons, that's fine, I give up. I've claimed to give up many times, but only because the constant ignorance infuriates me to keep coming back. I'll let you ignore the fact ANY separate article for a weapon in Gundam is against policy, because obviously we need fucking "individual merit". Before this bastard of a debate closes, just tell me one thing - A FUCKING VALID ARGUMENT TOWARDS THE POLICIES GUNDAM WEAPON ARTICLES VIOLATE. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Congratulations, you've won. Who knows why you wanted to win. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I hate mass AfD noms, essentially. They generate these utterly massive deletion discussions that ALWAYS close no consensus, which means the nominator just wasted hours of numerous peoples's time. And if it takes 7 months for you to merge these pages, you must type really slowly. Also WP:CIV, swearing doesn't help anything. --tjstrf talk 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Discussion This afd is just a mess, we shouldn't make a decision here one way or the other on this. Next time, I suggest the nominator be more specific rather than trying to delete 84 articles at once. Just H 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may be that this needs to be broken into smaller chunks. However, the other side of this issue is that having the same people make the same arguments in 84 different discussions is also not useful. It would be helpful if the people arguing for a finer-grained deletion discussion could delineate some middle ground between 1 and 84 AfDs so that we can move forward instead of stagnating. Without wanting to prejudice the discussion, I will say that it seems to me that at minimum there is a consensus here that some of the articles should go, so maybe some consensus can at least be reached on which ones those are. For at least that reason, I think it is premature at this time to close this discussion. —Doug Bell talk 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am unable to see them, there's just too much clutter on this page, but you may be right that some consensus has been reached in some areas. With that, I would just say go with it where there seems to by holding a "tentative consensus" there to see if it works and try to winnow down the lesser articles quickly by merge or deletion proposals. Just H 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could pick 84 Wikipedia articles at random, and some of them would be good-quality, while others would be tripe. I'll bet the situation's the same with these ones. The nest is well and truly stirred, now let's all take a deep breath, and find a place to discuss which articles are good and which ones need work. AfD is NOT the place for that discussion. I did quite like the citing of TRAINWRECK precedent, though. Made it worth the read. Quack 688 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply comment I guess it is because it happened that all the 84 randomly selected articles are not of good quality? lol I must admit the work going into these articles are towards a not very good direction. Most of them are just going for 1) plot summary of what happened to that unit(or the series of them) and 2) the settings spec of them. While little can be found on what they have impacted, even with the handful of sources I can just pull up that should be included into the articles long ago. (I have not read any of these articles before, even if I made like a little edit on them, it is most likely that I am tracing a vandal's path of vandalization and only revert those without actually looking at the articles.) Most of them could be improved, at least the lot of Seed mecha can be said to have impacted the Seed-Destiny mechas and have appearance in Super Robot wars. However, little was included in these, and I have no interest and time in improving these because I have an even longer list of Universal Century Mechas to work on, before some deletionist list the few hundred mechas AfD, I have to do what I can to either merge them or improve them to a point where it is good enough to meet any policy creep keeping criteria. MythSearchertalk 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comments from an outsider, without the least interest in the subject, but fascinated by the length of the discussion.
The very fact of requiring so much discussion is evidence that the subject is worthy of presentation in WP, There would not be so much heat over a truly non-notable group of characters.
And there is so much heat that an outsider must wonder whether ther is some subtext about this particular series. Anime AfDs come up frequently here, and do not get anywhere near this attention. Why this one? DGG 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so. The only reason why this has generated so much heat is because of the sheer size - this would set a massive precedent if all of the articles were deleted. So all of the editors are jumping into this melee, inclusionists and deletionists alike, to put their two cents in. "Intense discussion =/= worth of inclusion." GNAA had to go through 18 nominations and dozens of talk page archives, but it was eventually deleted because it did not adhere to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Those two policeis overruled all discussion about the "notability" of the topic. Hbdragon88 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In this case, the original poster should not have used the afd process in this manner. This is a clear case where these articles need work, in some cases they need to be tagged for cleanup, in others they need merging, in yet a few more they need to be deleted. This is a bad case in which to try a mass proposal. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Kyaa. The only situation in which a mass nom will work is if you run two-three test case pages, then nom the rest and cite the previous debate. Also, the GNAA should never be cited as a precedent for anything, ever. --tjstrf talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been aware that mass noms have not worked since watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles go down in flames. Hbdragon88
Not that the Warcraft AfD was the first attempt at such a thing, of course. It was just the most memorable one, what with AMiB's flair for drama and that trainwreck line. --tjstrf talk 08:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way it would work is probably listing items out like in the other mass AfD for the CE vehicles. Never treat every article listed as generic, because they are not the same, especially to fans, they are never the same and thus treating them the same is only going to make things worst. I have learnt that lesson long ago. MythSearchertalk 09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, User:martin_00792 Important anime, I can argue that most of the articals could infact be CHARACTERS THAT INFLUANCE PLOT, and they are present in more that one medium.

Whee! Section Break![edit]

  • Comment - I'd just like to say that this AfD is a complete catastrophe, and that each article should , really, be AfD'd seperately. If this goes through it will end up in DRV because of the Inclusionists here. As a Deletionist, I'm not really ... happy ... with the way this is laid out, since it's a bit of work to look through all the articles and Gundam makes me see red anyway. That being said, some of these articles are possible copyvios. Some are just summaries. Some could, theoretically, be expanded. Mass AfD's rarely succeed since most people will not axe huge clumps of information without being sure every single one deserves the axe. This one will go down as no consensus, so a good and careful look at most of the articles in this series is needed by those voting to keep on how to expand them, or in a few days I'll go through AfDing the crap ones and voting they get salted. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of all that is non-flamewar-causing, let us do some editing and merging before any new AfDs go out. This AfD is a train wreck because the initial poster was so goddamned determined to get the whole mass AfD deleted without any sort of compromise that he was willing to ignore policy to try to get it done (recall that he threatened to immediately re-nominate the whole thing if the result came up "no consensus" and to "teach the administrators a lesson" if the result came up "keep"); emotions need time to settle before further delete action should be taken, IMO. And I don't think ANYBODY will benefit from a precedent that shows that a huge group of articles can be summarily, collectively deleted by somebody with an obvious axe to grind. Iceberg3k 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Also, he didn't "threaten" to simply repost the AfD; he said that if it came up no-consensus for being overly broad he'd make individual delete nominations, which is exactly what should be done. BCoates 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out somebody's bad behavior isn't a "personal attack." Please learn the difference between criticism and fallacy of attack ad hominem. Bad faith has been demonstrated, I don't need to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. Iceberg3k 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question do actual merging of the articles go against the Do not blank the page rule on the AfD tag? MythSearchertalk 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Notable anime. --Oakshade 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent hours going through the debate and looking at the articles, I can only say that the nomination is correct in every respect. Delete Emeraude 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP As one has already stated, Gundam is a very notable anime. Besides, from what I've seen, those who want it deleted...you're not doing so well...only one article is gone...so, I think I've made my point. GrievousAlpha95 4:09 PM, December 4, 2006.

  • Shut down this ridiculous monstrosity (keep) for the time being. I'm not a fan of Gundam, however it appears that there are plenty of users who know where to merge and redirect these articles, so I think they should be given the chance to do so. Nominating 84 articles at once is not going to solve any problems these articles may have; merging, redirecting and such will, and will prevent the articles from being recreated with policy-violating content again. If nothing is done to correct the obvious problems that these articles have, then the nominator will certainly have the opportunity to kill them with fire in the future, and I think he'd be more successful with this discussion backing him. Catbag 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG ARGUE AROUND IN CIRCLES -- Hahaha, not really but, really, this is getting pretty far out of hand and I see NO chance of consensus being reached here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds of the previous Warcraft failure, the fact there so many articles points towards relevance, and the age old Pokemon test. BrendantheJedi 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commemnt But it should also be noted that I think a lot the articles need to put in cleanup and/or merged. Variations of the same damn thing don't deserve two articles. This goes for some Universal Century MS as well.BrendantheJedi 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say KEEP as all these mobile suits have a part in the sotry although some are lightly listed like the hyperion and why dont we seperate some on the same page (except for the Duel gunam with assault shroud our should that be split... anywho we need to keep this even STRIKE FREEDOM is listed for deleton i mean come on im using this page for specs on the gundams--Spartan117009 03:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep everything. Put the major suites in their own articles and put the minor suits into repsective production lists. In this manor you should be able to create something akin to the character templates for Fullmetal Alchemist. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restate, reword suggestions, hoping for a consensus[edit]

More and more people pop in and say keep, I hate to say this, but if we can say we have the least consensus here, it is merge, not keep, most of the articles. If you only want spec data for something, go to [www.mahq.net MAHQ.net], or the trans wiki link posted somewhere in the middle of this trainwreck. Or if we merged the pages, the spec will still be there. Here is what I propose, and is probably closest to people who actively participated in this discussion want. (I do not count the people who just come out and drop down a sentence without actually wanting to contribute and wished a blind keep).

Keeps[edit]
Reasons - Influenced at least 2, if not 3 later design in the sequel of the series, the only Perfect grade model of the series, used as the front page of a 3D modeling teaching book about all Gundam, not Seed only. Said to be one of the more realistic military based design of the mechanical designer Kunio Okawara by Dengeki Hobby. Been a featured topic of a model convention in Japan by Hobby Japan.
Reasons for merge of others - they are of a subdivision of Strike, either mass-production or special unit. They have not recieve any special treatment from the company Bandai, and thus are generic enough to be merged, if not deleted.
  • ZGMF-X10A Freedom Gundam, and have ZGMF-X20A Strike Freedom merged to it. If possible, merge the Justice page and the ZGMF-X1?? series under this page. more details will be stated in the section Suggested merges below. For now, I treat those as they could be separated.
Reasons - Influenced said merge mecha in the sequel, recieved treatment of having a Master Grade model of its own and the same series only have Strike Gundam having the same treatment. Featured in the Game Super Robot Wars along with a lot of well known mecha in Japan, and have a cameo appearance in the anime Nurse Witch Komugi, produced by Tatsunoko productions, which have no relationship with Bandai and is actually sort of a rivaling company.
Reasons for merge of others - Strike Freedom is more of an upgrade of Freedom, although it is going to have its own Master Grade model soon(December, 2006), more have to be shown in a keep since it does not influence anything, yet. I see no reason for keeping it for now, if it can recieve more attention by publishers and the company, it could be split back out at any time.
For Strike Freedom and Infinite Justice: Not quite usual upgrade. Not even a variant. That why we place F-15 and F-15E, F18 and F18E/F, separately. They are quite distinct, they have quite a story (Though original Freedom has more). Though they take much previous design, it is quite different, except some source say so. I never see any source which say they are upgrades. This may be only speculation, however, Freedom, Justice, Strike Freedom, Infinite Justice, receive different code (X10A,X9A,X20A,X19A respectively). I may agree if asked to merge Infinite Justice, but not the Strike Freedom based on notability. Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keeps[edit]
Reasons - First appeared in MSV, influenced the author of the manga to include them into the manga(which is not a retell of the anime), no out of the series model kits have been made for it, but it is featured in Gundam Evolve, a series not dedicated to Gundam Seed or related series, the only other appearance of a Seed series mecha is Strike. I would like to say merging them but having only 2 in a list without any relationship in the design plot is kinda wierd. Hoping for a better suggestion here.
Reasons - This one influenced the designer of the sequel Destiny to design ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam and another sequel Stargazer the TMF/A-802W2 Kerberos BuCUE Hound (which is, fortunately, already under this page) One of the rare non-humanoid Mobile Suit of the Gundam series. (Stated by Degeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazine model reviews.)
Reasons for merge of others - A comander type of an exsisting mecha is not notable enough for a new article, please, by all means, merge them.
Any source that this mecha is only commander type and just mere upgrade? Draconins 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Merges (special)[edit]
Reasons - They are pretty much the same thing, but the model recieved a bit more attention for the Gold frame is an event limited item in a Japanese model convention not dedicated to Gundam. Also for the new technology in modeling in hiding the cut between the useful pieces and the backbone of the injection moulding piece. It is not the first to have such treatment, but the second of the Bandai modeling series, after Hyakushiki. And since the other astray articles should tag along, I'd say merging them to a page for the Astray series is not a bad idea.
  • ZGMF-X23S Saviour, ZGMF-X24S Chaos, ZGMF-X31S Abyss, etc. that starts with ZGMF-X??? that is not 1X are called Second series on the official Japanese page, they generally recieve the same treatment altogether, and should be merged to a page other than the mass-production ZAFT mecha. This includes ZGMF-X56S Impulse Gundam and ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam due to their not so important figure out of the series. At least until something special about them is released, I'd say this is good enough.
  • ZGMF-X09A Justice and ZGMF-X19A Infinite Justice are not even satisfied as a main plot device to some certain extend. They might be a little more important to the series, but is definitely not having any special impact to the real world. The latter actually is less popular than a Zaku unit in the series(per the series models having it out so late that it is 11 months later than the last Zaku unit.) (for the 1/144, it is even 1 month later than the Dom units) For a unit appearing pretty much the same time as the Freedom, its attention is way lower and my view on this is that its popularity is not high enough for the modeling company to release it early. Therefore, I'd say merge it to Freedom, its partner and let them tag along to increase that article's notability instead of being evaluated to be deleted soon after this.
Other Merges[edit]

I would like to say the others should be deleted, but redirects to big lists would greatly reduce the chances of them being recreated by randomly dropped by fans. Since merging everything left into one page is definitely going to exceed 32kb, I propose 2 methods of merging:

  1. Merge by fictional nations
    • Advantage: Easy links from the fictional nation page (though I kinda think they should be merged to one page, too) Easier explanation on which is the predecessor of which.
    • Disadvantage: too easy to get the articles into another mess of in-universe article, and is hard to organize the whole thing to let people without any knowledge to comprehand which one is from which story.
  1. Merge by series
    • Advantage: Easier to let people know what appeared in which series (All the manga Astray series viewed as a whole) which from my point of view, it is better served as an out-of-universe view of things. (Most people walking by is not going to understand what is ZAFT and Orb and etc.)
    • Disadvantage: Units appearing in more than one series is going to make a big mess.
Last notes[edit]

I will not work on the above articles until I have finished a major part of the Universal Century mechas having similar pages like this one. I have provide sources and what I have listed in this page should be enough to improve the articles I have listed as keeps to a point where they meet wiki's policies. If nothing has improved for some while (like more AfD pops up), I will not back up those pages any more. Because it is obvious enough that nobody cared to improve those pages. However, I see that there are people who seems to be willing to do so in the above discussion and I am assuming good faith on this. MythSearchertalk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm fully supportive of these proposed merges and shuffling. Kyaa the Catlord 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support merge No. 2 for out-of-universe reasons.--SidiLemine 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having consesus?[edit]

So.... if we are having consensus which either keep or merge, let's propose ini the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam. Or may be still a deletionist to argue? Draconins 12:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or Keep: A lot of stuff is noteable and I would suggest that since a lot of debate is being brought out about all the mobile suits in one of the Gundam Universes then shouldn't this affect the mobile suits from the other Gundam Universes as well. Anyway after taking a look at some articles I can say that some ideas I have to towards trimming an article down is not to go into so much detail over Mobile suit capablities since that had resulted in mutiple paragraphs also the triva section should be trimmed down to remove any speculative, and unneccessary material. -Adv193 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other comment to post: It would help if for the Gundam articles not to go into extra detail on the Technology used in that Gundam such as Phase Shift Armor, N-Jammer Canceller, and DRAGOON System since there are already sperate articles for them and it wouldn't be ripping off the Gundam website MAHQ.net of their style of explaining this technology in their Mobile suit summary. An example I have is of the Gaia Gundam ZGMF-X88S (RGX-03) Gaia Gundam. -Adv193 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article merges, trims, redirects, and maybe some individual AfDs seem to be our next step. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gundam would be a good place to organize this. I think we can all agree that things shouldn't stay, as they are now, for these articles. What to cut and what to keep is the question now. Personally, I think the whole thing could be cut, especially if it's been transwikied, but that's just me. -- Ned Scott 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've still yet to see an example of content in this category that should exist, although I imagine it would be possible to write different, out-of-universe article(s) on the topic. My first choice position would still be to delete these and start over; but I have no particular objection to a merge so long as it 1) drastically reduces the number of articles (sections can always be split into new articles later) and 2) Gets pushed towards WP:FICT's goal of articles about fiction in the real world, instead of an encylcopedia of fiction as if it were real. BCoates 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneman3x[edit]

Delete, vanity page, nn San Saba 23:37, 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. Sango123 (e) 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MindTree[edit]

Tagged as repost but not actually a repost, a new article about the same firm. Looks like a great place to work, bit dies that make tem notable? Looks a bit spammy, too. Has been dleeted more tan once at various places but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree Consulting seems to be the most relevant past AfD. No awards in the article back then. That's about all that's changed. Just zis Guy you know? 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. Also, they use the phrase "human capital development." Brian G. Crawford 23:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: it wasn't notable in the past, and nothing has changed. --Hetar 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It's a repost in all meaningful ways. If you check the history, it had a AfD template that linked to one of the AfDs for another incarnation of this article (the one closed with a "delete" consensus on April 21st), but was bundled with that AfD incorrectly, thus escaping its rightful deletion. --Icarus 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company. jni 07:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted page, and as a non-notable group. Turnstep 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongview[edit]

Non notable. -- Szvest 23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, but wouldn't this qualify for {{db-band}}? Evan Seeds (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, this has been deleted twice already so it's {{db-repost}}. Nationalparks 00:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep as an incomplete nomination. This should have no bearing at all on future nominations. Turnstep 01:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Żydokomuna[edit]

  • No Vote I'm just creating this page because it was improperly listed. Cool3 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm fixing the page Cool3 didn't list properly! No vote either. Grandmasterka 23:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody can really vote unless the nom states a reason here. I'll refrain from speedy keeping and give the nom (noms?) a chance to do so. Turnstep 03:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, just speedy keep this thing as a bad faith (original) nom. I just looked at the history, and the original attempt at a tag was added by an IP that was removing perfectly NPOV edits he/she thought was propoganda. It's funny that nobody fully fixed the nomination or removed it for almost a month though... Grandmasterka 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as bad nom... then I may or may not renominate it as WP:NEO, depending on what I find when I look at the term.--Isotope23 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lalaba[edit]

Nonsense. -- Szvest 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent (medicine) nonsense. The claims aren't exactly verified, either.Colonel Tom 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. All claims are nonsense. A "gylaloscope" does not exist, Thomas Jones Asquire did not discover Meitnerium, and there is no "lalaba". — TheKMantalk 02:16, 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 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nfomedia[edit]

Totally non-notable and fails WP:WEB. Even if it did, this is nothing but marketing material.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coren (talk • contribs) .

(Sorry about that, nom was indeed by me) Coren 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Alexa rank of 2,044,020, no indication of meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP. --Hetar 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. Wikipedia is not for advertizing your startup. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_23&oldid=1116878645"