Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 23 April 25 >

Purge server cache

April 24[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. Tawker 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association des étudiants musulmans[edit]

About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:22, 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 Deleted. Tawker 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MSA UdeM[edit]

About some Muslim student association. The article says nothing about it. This doesn't sound notable at all. WhisperToMe 23:23, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAT-X102 Duel Gundam, GAT-X103 Buster Gundam, GAT-02L2 Dagger L, GAT-04 Windam, GAT-X370 Raider Gundam[edit]

This is part of a walled garden of almost a hundred articles that I proposed for deletion. All PROD tags have been removed, so they come here. I'll nominate them one at a time or in small groups to avoid problems like those seen with the mass nomination of Polynesian mythology articles. This is obviously fancruft, highly specific material about a fictional world. These articles go into excrutiating detail on the specifications of fictional giant robots from a Japanese cartoon. It's not of general or encyclopedic appeal, and this series already has a Wiki at WikiCities anyway. It needs to go. Brian G. Crawford 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. (We can do this right?) Kotepho 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete then. Kotepho 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, they seem to have been copy/pasted there. No histories. Probably should transwiki them for GFDL reasons. Plus, ours have pictures. Kotepho 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per Kotepho. Delete It's already there, so no reason for it to be here. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're already at wikia:c:Gundam. I guess I should've mentioned that. Brian G. Crawford 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Declaring your intention to mass-nominate articles relating to a massively popular, genre-defining franchise seems like bad faith to me. Redxiv 06:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While I don't like SEED much, it's worth to keep. No general interest? Gundam is consider to be largest mecha franchise in Japan. Delete these article would be like delete all Star Wars's article like AT-AT, AT-ST and AT-PT(and there are TWO wiki web for Star Wars already as well). Not that I don't like Star Wars, but Japaneese anime is a form of art too. If mecha and spaceship from American's sci-fi movie can be include here in Wikipedia, why mecha from Japaneese sci-fi anime can't? L-Zwei 06:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote the same way on those article. I do want to reiterate your point and Redxiv's though; Gundam is a huge franchise and arguably genre defining. Kotepho 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per L-Zwei. Dspserpico 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and the same should be done with a lot of star wars stuff (et al) too. Lundse 10:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge summaries into some kind of list if there isn't one already. Delete if such a list already exists. Fictional robots that are not actually iconic (like Optimus Prime or R2D2) do not need articles of their own; but the Gundam series is important enough to deserve more detail than most mecha anime. ArcherXRin 11:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, along with about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. — Haeleth Talk 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If that is done, Wikipedia would be pretty useless - Plau 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we'll still have articles on porn stars. If we delete them then, ooh, we'll have to have articles on boring things like Belgium and Shoe polish. Obviously without all the detailed in depth articles on a robot that appeared for three seconds in a Japanese anime in 1997, there's no point. After all, Wikipedia is such a pathetic idea we couldn't possibly compete with *real* encyclopedias. And yes I am being sarcastic. Average Earthman 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Weapons in Gundam universe or somesuch -- there are two or three orders of magnitude in terms of cultural notability between SW/ST and even the world's most popular manga, and even the SW cruft should be merged into less nerdily completist articles. Manga-cruft. -- GWO
    • Comment - Do you have any idea how bloated an article that would create? You're talking about merging hundreds of articles together, not just the four that were chose for this particular AfD session. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not paper. There's no reason we can't have "nerdily completist articles", as you put it, for these subjects. It's not as if we're dealing with a finite amount of space and these articles are preventing us from fully covering some historical or scientific subject. Redxiv 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge into Weapons in Gundam universe. --Eivindt@c 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into a single article, per Esperanza. This info can be kept somewhere, but these do NOT merit articles of their own. Kuzaar 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Kuzaar. Semperf 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:kMEMES?) 14:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki articles to wikia:c:Gundam as it appears from comments above that the articles currently at wikia:c:Gundam are not complete (missing pics, etc). I'd also support a Merge to Weapons in Gundam universe if there is a strong interest level in keeping some mention of this in Wikipedia. A link to wikia:c:Gundam would be wholly appropriate there. No good, logical reason for keeping separate articles for all these things has been put forth. For the record, this would be my preferred treatment for Star Wars vehicle, weapon, et al articles; Pokemon; and virtually every other fictional world that spawns this level of minutae.--Isotope23 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Lets keep the fancruft to a minimum, shall we? --Mmx1 16:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These subjects are quite notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you know... this much coverage of a particular fictional universe is probably a kind of copyright infringement. Mangojuice 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Do you actually know what copyright infringement is? Redxiv 19:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'll admit I wasn't that clear, but yes, I do. I spelled it out more clearly in the other AfD. There's a lot of specific, authoritatively-presented information here. Is it okay to mass-reproduce the stats and critical data of these robots from an official source? It goes beyond fair use, so that's not okay. On the other hand, it may not come from anything published... in which case it's unverifiable. Mangojuice 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Mangojuice - as the numbers and 'facts' involved are a work of fiction rather than a measurement of reality, they do indeed come under copyright. Copyright doesn't just mean "don't cut and paste". Average Earthman 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Dominus 18:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam might as well be merged with this debate, they're both big group-nom AfDs, and no one seems to be giving any attention to the individual robots here anyway... might as well have only one debate. Mangojuice 19:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • THe only reason they're not is that Crawford thinks he's more likely to achieve some deletions with them split. He basically admits as much. Redxiv 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, process objection. I've changed my mind. These articles are not sufficiently similar to warrant bundling them together in this group while others get bundled together in a different group. I still don't like all this Gundam cruft, but these small-group AfDs are a bad way to decide the question. Mangojuice 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT the correct merge target is: Cosmic Era Mobile Units 132.205.45.110 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE 132.205.45.110 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 22:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) User has 14 edits, the last four since Oct 2005 are to related AfDs.[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator states "highly specific material about a fictional world". Sorry, if Jimbo wanted to keep Wikipedia from containing details of fictional worlds like Buffy, Star Trek, B5, the Simpsons, and Gundam, he would have said so at the beginning of the project. But this is the Wikpedia we have, and I frankly think we are better off for it. If the breadth of Wikipedia bothers you, don't read those sections. Turnstep 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Jimbo didn't say about hypothetical content generally, says bugger-all about the actual worth of the actual content under actual discussion, even if one ignores the ever-popular false dichotomy of "If have X, you must keep unrelated Y!" Perhaps we could stick to the actual topic at hand? --Calton | Talk 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a false dichotomy at all. The claim is not that the articles should be deleted specifically because they are about Gundam, but that they are "fancruft" for a science fiction series. But if that's the reason we're going to delete these articles, the same reason applies to any fictional science fiction series like Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.88.2 (talk • contribs)
  • Smerge or even delete. The very model of fancruft -- very detailed information about a narrow (usually entirely fictional) subject, of very little or absolutely no significance outside of the fanbase (and, really, not even usually there). This ain't the Otakupedia. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even before I created an account on Wikipedia I assisted on Gundam articles through many of the Gundam Alternate Universes. I will not see them deleted because of a non-Gundam fan proclaiming it as fancruft. Besides the Gundam Wikicities is not a note-worthy site yet due to the lack of contributors. Anyway be keeping it on this page it would make it easier for these articles to get noticed even if I have to put a plan together to shorten these articles to do it. Adv193 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add why you believe these should be kept? While your contributions to the articles are appreciated, they, the nom, and the noteworthiness of the Gundam Wiki have nothing to do with whether these articles should be kept. You might want to look at WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRUFT --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is only trying to delete minor components of the series. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please let me know where those other articles are so that I can nominate them for deletion also. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I think the deletion requests that I've seen in most of the entries are a bit ridiculous. Be more reasonable. These articles are important to the Gundam SEED entry. Ominae 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability for these ... whatever the heck they are. Fagstein 07:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First and foremost, I agree with Mangojuice on the subject of the process involved in the AfD. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with including an article about a fictional vehicle in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be far better served by attempts to improve existing articles than crusades against articles that some see as too detailed or irrelevant. One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is the breadth of its coverage. NoIdeaNick 12:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please base your opinion on policy, especially WP:V and WP:N, not on your individual feelings. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series. Then nominate all USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you assert the non-notability of a few major, unique ships in a well known series? While Gundam might be well known, having articles for minor things like this is [WP:CRUFT]]. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP it seems that people want to combine or delete Gundam's articles and calls them fancruft, isnt that what ALL of Star Wars' articles are as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP as explained above Lone Jobber 06:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness has no bearing on notability (WP:N) and verifiability (WP:N). Please read these policies before commenting on deletions - this is not a question of whether the articles are important to some editors, but is instead a question as to whether the articles conform to policies for inclusion. Wikipedia has a specific mission, and this mission does not include being a repository of all knowledge. --Philosophus 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? --Philosophus 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Transwiki. None of these appear to be verifiable (WP:V), and there are no sources listed. In addition, the notability is highly questionable, and it is quite possible that there are copyvio issues. However, the nomination was done poorly. All of these should have been listed on one AfD. --Philosophus 11:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I will reconsider this if the articles are properly sourced.
Update 2: Rappapa seems to have started to give references for the articles. Whether these references satisfy WP:V or not is unknown, but they do seem to at least partially dispell the copvio concerns. I am just changing my vote to weak delete. Others should look into how well these sources would work. --Philosophus 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepMarineCorps 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the fancruft page explicitly uses the words "eighty-seven articles on giant robots from a Japanese TV/comic book franchise"… I gotta say delete, as animecruft. --phh (t/c) 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please re-read the essay. The essay takes no position on whether such things constitute cruft that should be deleted. JoshuaZ 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -The Fancruft page uses it as an example. The page has been editted so that the parties who want this criteria gone cannot use the cruft page as a way to make their opinions justified. Rappapa
User's first edit was a vote on one of these AfD's. WP:CRUFT has been reverted, please do not change other pages in order to make a point and undermine the positions of others. --Philosophus 01:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Mr. Crawford is trolling. I'm no fan of Gundam SEED, but if Mr. Crawford desires all this Gundam material to be deleted, then the subpages for all works of art, Star Trek, Star Wars, the Simpsons, etc... should be deleted too. Thats absurd. Just because you're ignorant or disinterested on the subject doesn't mean that it should go. Quiddity99 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Disagreeing with Brian's nomination doesn't make his nomination trolling. JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per L-Zwei and Kotepho although the articles could use some explanation of why they are significant (i.e. how they have influenced anime and other media). JoshuaZ 01:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all the info into a table, and delete the images. -- infinity0 18:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - These articles are all of our work, not his, and just because he wants to wipe Gundam off Wikipedia, then he's gonna have to get a lot of supporters. As everyone has implied, taking Gundam off would lead to every fictional article on Wikipedia being deleted: Star Wars, Star Trek, South Park, Simpsons, Family Guy, all of them; and that would make Wikipedia not...worth updating. Sorry I had to say that. GrievousAlpha95 9:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Keep. - In the past, I have refrained from getting involved with AfD issues so as to limit interaction with users who are, for all intents and purposes, "undesirable unmentionables." I support keeping these articles for all of the reasons which have been articulated by the majority of those who voted keep.
If this is the only way to control trigger-happy wikipedes — who make no positive contributions to entries in the main space, well... so be it.
(FYI: This user who nominated the articles is an avowed deletionist.) Folajimi 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with being a deletionist. And we shouldn't be keeping articles that don't belong here just to silence a group of Wikipedians. Fagstein 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as that is your opinion, I say YMMV. Given my first-hand experience with such users, I am unpersuaded that they have any appreciation of the effort which goes into creating worthwhile articles.
As for the latter half of your remark, I have no idea what you are talking about. Looking over my remarks, I never suggested censoring users who are interested in removing entries from the Main Space. (Considering the amount of indisputable cruft which I have "stumbled upon" in Wikipedia, I do wonder why so much effort is expended on trying to deep-six contributions like these...)
At any rate, I maintain that deletionists are a little more than a nuisance to this project; that goes double for inclusionists. Folajimi 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:19, 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 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Stars[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable weekly show on a university radio station that doesn't have its own article. This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Tubbywsou. This is the show's host. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so the station does have its own article, but the creator didn't get the link right. It's still not a notable show.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Morgan Wick 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 00:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity and barely notable.--Cini 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn radio station, vanity. --Terence Ong 10:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as suggested by all above. Semperf 12:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. If it's not vanity, it sure has NPOV issues. Ginkgo100 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity - nn at leasr Computerjoe's talk 20:35, 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 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special School (comic)[edit]

A non notable webcomic hosted on the non notable SpiderForest collective, here. The spiderforest domain has an Alexa rank of over 300,000 and this is just one of the many comics on the obscure network. You can also see their forums here, not exactly buzzing with activity. - Hahnchen 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: invalid reasoning. This is not a vote. By making blanket statements without reasoning you are asking for your opinion to be discounted by the closer. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm & Cory[edit]

I think people have absolutely abandoned the comixPedia wiki. It just doesn't have the high profile shelf space of Wikipedia's List of webcomics nor the prestige. Anyway, this comic, like many others, isn't there and isn't notable. This article is the work of sole contributor and its subject can be seen here. The website does not attain any Alexa rank, its forums are mostly dead and Googling "Norm and Cory" brings up 60 links whereas "Norm & Cory" brings up 40. This is not a notable website. - Hahnchen 00:07, 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 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken[edit]

This page is mostly original research with bits and pieces of Capcom information to support it. Pretty much all encyclopedic and relevant info can be found on the Ryu (Street Fighter), Ken Masters and Akuma (Street Fighter) pages. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete its a pity since a bit of effort has gone into it, but unsourced and POV issues are troublesome. "Ansatsuken" comes up with less than 1,000 sites in google which is pretty low in regards to Street Fighter and raises doubts about notability. Decent addition to the Ryu, Sean etc pages, but not encyclopedic enough for an individual article. --Cini 02:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move it to Akuma.--UsaSatsui 12:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR Knucmo2 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if more sources can be produced. See previous discussion at [1] As I pointed out last time, there really is no official name for this martial art so I just added that notation. Evan1975 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem here is that "Ansatsuken" is not notable enough for an entry as it merely is a name for lethal martial arts that can apply to any number of styles; whereas "Goutetsu-ryu Ansatsuken" is not even a term recognized by canon but sounds plausible enough to give the novice an impression that Ansatsuken is somehow tied to the general Hadoken/Shoryuken styles of the SF stars. Neither one is encyclopedic, and the latter is extremely tenuous as Capcom-sanctioned guides have next to nothing about the "Hadou" and "Shoryuu" style beyond their names. Danny Lilithborne 19:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, lots of original research here, I'm afraid. I've never heard these terms "Ansatsuken-Jitsu" and "Ansatsuken-Do" before and I'd really like to see some sources for them. Evan1975 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, Restore or Move I think the major stem source for this problem is that people gave the martial arts a non-canon name. There IS a fictional martial arts practiced in the SF universe, much like 'Special Forces' style, but it doesn't require it's own page. It could easily be broken up and placed on Ryu and Akuma's pages respectively, much like how Dan has Saiyko-ryuu on his page. There's alot of good content and information on that page that can't be found anywhere else, and while I admit that alot of people went overboard, adding a bunch of move names on the list that could easily be placed on the respective characters profile pages, deleting it would sever alot of good tidbits and a single merging of alot of netural information. I think the page should just be restored to one of it's older variations. Sean Matsuda 03:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge at the current time. This article was bare-bones fact and essential in one of its older versions, but as time accumulated more content was added for the sake of inclusion. Its become stupidly large and unsourced. We don't do that at wikipedia. I'm afraid I can no longer support the entire exsistance of this article. -ZeroTalk 17:25, 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 Keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Valentine War and Second Bloody Valentine War[edit]

Fictional wars from a Japanese cartoon that involves battles between huge anthropomorphic robots resembling samurai wearing different colors of car fenders. Part of a huge walled garden I am nominating for deletion. Brian G. Crawford 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already there. Brian G. Crawford 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as they were copy/paste moved there. GFDL problems. Kotepho 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Kotepho Delete per Danny Lilithborne —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (changed to delete —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC))realized I don't know enough about Gundam to determine notability. For the record, the nom's word choice does bother me —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Lundse 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single fictional timeline including ones of Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Star Wars is one of the most succesful movie franchises ever, and even that is over-represented. This isn't. Not notable enough for this level of detail/anal-retentiveness. -- GWO
    • Comment. Gundam is a genre-defining franchise that's been produing new installments for nearly 30 years. It's clearly a notable subject, and I fail to see how very brief listings of the events in a fictional timeline qualifies as "anal-retentive". Redxiv 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gundamcruft. If it means creating a precedent to clean out some Starwarscruft and Trekcruft as well, all the better. — Haeleth Talk 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, look like very strong articles about an aspect of a notable series. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment Being related to something notable does not make something notable. Fagstein 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As I said in another of his AfD nominations, Brian G. Crawford's declaration that he wants to purge everything Gundam-related from Wikipedia smacks of bad faith to me. Redxiv 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. I'm unsure what is prima facie bad faith about an editor's assertion that a separate article for every single bleeding individual weapon system ever featured in a Gundam spinoff involves massive NN ubercruft -- a position with which I happen to agree. What I think is bad faith is claiming he wants to purge every Gundam-related article from Wikipedia. The source for this, please? RGTraynor 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A single user deciding he'll go on a one-man crusade against a subject he's too unfamiliar with to tell what's notable and what's not seems like bad faith to me. And he's admitted that he wants to wipe out the Gundam articles. He said as much in his cluster of AfDs. Also, his methodology seems disengenuous to me. He's arbitrarily grouped articles together for mass AfDs, but logically the should all be in a single AfD. The debate is over whether any articles along the lines of the ones nominated should exist, not over any specific article. The impression I get is that he's going for a shotgun approach. If he succeeds in getting some of these articles deleted, even if others survive AfD, he'll use the deleted ones as precedent for a new round of AfDs. Redxiv 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Setting precedents for future actions? Why the nerve of the guy! I also understand that Brian G. Crawford hates puppies and kittens, and kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
        • (BTW, "The source for this, please?" means a request to provide a source of a statement, not to repeat it using more words.) --Calton | Talk 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought much the same myself, come to that. There's a lot of "said as much" and "seems like" in Redxiv's reply, and not a lot of actual fact in the heap of inferences ... never mind complaining that this isn't in one giant AfD, given the complaints about giant AfDs. Should we start speculating about the lack of good faith of the Gundam crowd in passionately defending each and every article, no matter how trivial (an article for every individual weapon system?!?) and launching unprovoked personal attacks? This would work a great deal more smoothly if there was less "he's out to GET US" rhetoric and more focusing on the merits of the argument. RGTraynor 13:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE and make a comment in a Cosmic Era chronology article. 132.205.45.110 19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AfD is for registered users. Redxiv 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Untrue. Kotepho 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only untrue but inflammatory. WP:AfD if you need a refresher, Redxiv. RGTraynor 13:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really like the elitist attitude that some registered users have towards anons. Like it proves you're better because you have an ego that needs assuaging by getting an account and then denigrating others who don't bother. 132.205.45.148 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's borderline but I think it's notable. Ginkgo100 19:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)User has 14 edits, the last four since Oct 2005 are to related AfDs.[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This pretty much has the entire story of Gundam Seed and the information is controlled well enough that it is not excessive. Adv193 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article in question outlines a cannonical event of critical significance to one of the most prolific and lasting science fiction series of all time. Supporting a motion to delete this article demonstrates a severe lack of perspective uppon the part of the supporter. It is also clear, to this humble anonymous user, that the article in question was specificaly selected by orrigional poster because of its significance, in the hopes that he may urge it quickly to deletion, and use it as a precident to delete other significant articles, creating a vacumous void with more lasting power than simply removing all the text and saving it. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's [DbaD] policy, and I sincerily hope my fellow users will recognize it as such.--72.140.12.15 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. No assertion of notability. Few people care about the fictional storyline, and those that do will go to the wiki specially designed for it. Hence, it has no use here. Fagstein 07:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly! It is dates and tech specs from a fictional universe. I am all for fictional universes and their place on wikipedia, but not the details and specs of individual machines in them - there are places for this, where the fans who want to know and add to these things go, cf. my transwiki vote above.
  • Keep. There isn't anything wrong with material from fictional universes. The level of detail of these pages doesn't bother me. I only wish that every article on Wikipedia was this detailed. NoIdeaNick 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we delete this article we would have to delete a lot more. Diabound00 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as other users have explained above. Lone Jobber 06:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- If you delete all this, you'll have to delete many (or perhaps even ALL) of the Star Trek and Star Wars articles, claiming they too should just get their own little Wiki like the rest of the, "FanCruft", I believe is the word? Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to be a treasure trove of knowledge on almost ANY subject that anyone can add to and enhance, these Wikis are nothing more than the culmination of hard work from various fans. And finally, just because someone else made their own Wiki doesn't mean that any and all articles on the subject of the Fan-Wiki should be deleted from the real Wikipedia, this is a strawman arguement. If I created a Wiki that chronicled the works of Jules Verne, does that mean you'd delete any and all info Wikipedia has on Mr. Verne's fine works? Did not think so. --71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, Star Trek does have its own wiki, and Star Trek articles are nominated for deletion and deleted or merged on a regular basis. It's not that we don't want articles on fictional subjects. But those fictional subjects have to be notable, meaning they have to have been referenced by reliable, third-party sources. The Star Trek wiki (MemoryAlpha) was created precisely for this reason, because a lot of hard-core fans were writing articles that were obscure even within the Star Trek universe. Fagstein 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There's a lot of ppl out there who care about this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.49.153 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep- The Information are relevant and not too excessive. And they are correct.202.156.6.54 05:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This opinion will likely not be counted if it's unsigned. Fagstein 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, many useful explanation. In similar opinion with NewtypeS3. Draconins 08:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since they're already at the wikia page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could have fooled me... Iceberg3k 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Gundam is an important series in anime history and I don't see the purpose in deleting an article discussing a fictional war within the storyline. I find the article informative and useful. Also, deleting this and not deleting every other fictional timeline on Wikipedia would be nothing more than pure hypocrisy.--Pkmatrix 00:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This opinion will likely not be counted if it's unsigned. Fagstein 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If it would be possible I would like to know Mr. Crawford's reasons for deleting this article. The Gundam series is a very successful and old series. It is more popular than most anime out there. So why are we trying to delete something that is viewed by its hundreds of thousand fans. This article is very informative despite it being a made up show about "anthropomorphic robots with japanese swords" (extreme paraphrase). Please Administrators do not delete this article just because of one sour person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben Ortiz (talk • contribs)
  • STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't comment on whether this article should be kept or deleted. I will say that the "car fender" comments in the nomination are unhelpful, irrelevant, and do not help the impression that this nomination and others like it are based on personal dislike of the subject rather than an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I'll also echo Iceberg3k's comment above, in that the vast majority of Brian G. Crawford's contributions consist of participating in the deletion proccess, often times supporting the deletion of articles on fictional characters and the like. Frankly, it disturbs me, and I hope very much that this user's conduct changes to a drastic degree.--Sean Black (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Gundam is a highly verfiable, notable, and revalant to the topic. If you delete this, than all other fictional conflicts would have to be delted as well. How can you understand a series if you have no context of it? What's the War in star wars? Why is Starfleet going arround and doing stuff? Without this context, the reader will have little idea what the point of the series, or why it is important. --Eldarone 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Catholic Crew Club[edit]

Non-notable high school rowing club (Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School)

  • Delete as doesn't meet notability criteria. Colonel Tom 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's possible that people will want to look this up. - Richardcavell 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's true of a lot of deleted material regardless. --Saforrest 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete - Snowball. Tawker 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin & Sawyer Miller[edit]

Non-notable actors, delete as per WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not remotely notable. Two episodes of a soap. Another article about baby actors (I prefer Calton's term "very realistic props") created by someone who is either really, really fond of baby actors, or is a PR agent for baby casting agencies. When one of these kids actually acts then he may deserve an article. Fan1967 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Incidentially, they don't get a guernsey on the Passions page. Colonel Tom 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not old enough to have actually acted. —Whouk (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article asserts no notability. JIP | Talk 09:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not important enough. Semperf 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for it is not important. --soUmyaSch 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted article. Reconsideration of the decision should occur through the undeletion process. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Sheldon[edit]

Delete as being non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - an actor who's appeared on Friends and the Bold and the Beautiful is notable, even if the actor is barely old enough to speak. - Richardcavell 01:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. When the kid actually does something that involves following a script, that would qualify as acting. Wikipedia is not a free website for baby casting agencies. Fan1967 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the text only got moved to one of the kids. I've tagged Noelle Sheldon for speedy as a redirect to a nonexistent page. Fan1967 02:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. DVD+ R/W 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to The Sims. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims Resource[edit]

Non-notable website, prod tag apparently removed by site founder. Objectivist-C 19:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Maxis has mentioned the site quite a few times, and they have gotten a interview with the news back with the Hot Coffee contro: You know, reporters asking the '31337 modderzzzz' about it. I'll try and dig it up. --Avillia 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as Maxis is concerned, the site is well recognized and is listed as a top fansite in the Maxis website. Maxis had also conducted an interview with the site's operator (likely prior to the release of Sims 2 in 2004), which is available here. That's all that I can dig up. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Relisting; this hasn't moved in 7 days. No vote. Alphax τεχ 00:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Brian G. Crawford 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Alexa rank of 7,938 and the comment from ２５ give this at least some faint smell of notability. I'd call it gamecruft though. - Hirudo 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't just some ol' fansite. I'd vote to delete a vanity article for a non-notable fansite in the blink of an eye. This site, however, is one of the (if not THE) best known non-official websites for this insanely popular game. --Icarus 06:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This site deserves a mention in the Sims article, but not an article in its own right. I see so many fan sites up on AfD, most of them should really just be mentions on the article of their subject. Nothing wrong in redirecting it there. TH 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sims/link from The Sims 2. Much of the content of the article seems to be the site T+Cs, which aren't needed on WP. —Whouk (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Sims/link from The Sims 2 as above. DavidH 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per TH. Lundse 10:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into The Sims. --Eivindt@c 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or failing that, Merge per Whouk. Kuzaar 12:37, 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 BJAODN and delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Chawathe[edit]

Non-notable bio. Probably vanity. First version created by User:Amolchawathe was userfied. This version created by user:Aliciaanderson who has edited no other articles. -- RHaworth 00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Salafia[edit]

As a matter of principle, I bring vanity pages here for a notability check. An interesting slip by the creator confirms this as vanity. -- RHaworth 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this guy does actually seem like a fairly prominent figure in his own country. I'd like to see what some Irish editors think of his CV. They'd be better placed to tell us what it really means in terms of notability. Metamagician3000 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He exists, he's a student and has got into the news. Actual achiements are limited. It's down to individual judgement whether a fairly easy way of getting oneself into the media is actually notable. Personally I'd Delete Dlyons493 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it was written by him, yes. But I think he's worth an encyclopedia entry regardless. - Richardcavell 02:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. He got a degree. He's getting another degree. He's suing the government, and he tried to enter politics. What's he done? What's his effect? How has he changed things? Why is he notable? Shenme 03:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The roadway thing seems newsworthy, and he is part of it. Kotepho 03:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seem notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. Dspserpico 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Provide guidance for author (explain WP:AUTO). Monitor article for a few months. TH 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important enough for an article. Semperf 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable biography. Vanity does not automatically means the person is non-notable. --Terence Ong 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO --Knucmo2 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike per Knucmo2 I fail to see anything in that article that meets WP:BIO. Offer him a userfy though.--Isotope23 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." and/or "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" was the ones it seemed to satisfy, particularly the last one. --Knucmo2 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He holds no office - so the first is not satisfied. Anyone can sue, by so doing he has achieved a small amount of easily achievable media coverage - that's hardly renown or notoriety. Dlyons493 01:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO Computerjoe's talk 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and per Shenme. This is reknown? This is a noteworthy event? --Calton | Talk 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personal biography with no notability beyond a lawsuit that doesn't have any outside mention on Wikipedia. StuffOfInterest 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. All the above remarks seem to be based just on reading the article. No-one has yet said "I live in Ireland and ...". Are there any Irish people out there? -- RHaworth 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I meant to imply that I was Irish by the placement of my vote above, but that was bit subtle :-) The case itself is pretty notable in Ireland but I'd never heard of Salafia before Wiki. He has been mentioned a few times in the media all right but they had escaped me - someone who followed the news closely would probably have heard the name but I'd be surprised if 5% of a random sample in a Dublin street would know who he is. Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to debate my entry to Wikipedia. Today I sent to following mail to Mr Haworth, who nominated the article for deletion:

Dear Mr Haworth,

Thank you for putting the issue of the proposed deletion of my Wikipedia entry up for discussion. I am new, as you know, and am not sure how and where to respond to the issues.

One of the reasons I decided to write the page is because I was surprised to discover that I am mentioned in Wikipedia a few times, and thought it would be useful for everyone if I provided a link to basic factual information about myself.

In addition, I have appeared in a good deal of newspaper articles around the world, as a spokesperson for various groups and issues. I think it is important to those groups and issues that accurate information be available, in order to lend credibility to the statements made. Because it is my job to make the statements. For example I have been featured in the Irish Times 127 times since 2002. One of the latest is reprinted below.

As an aside, while I am taking evening classes, I am not a 'student' in the sense that I do work as a lawyer, but do not want to advertise that.

The Tara issue is high profile here in Ireland, and my case has just been appealed to the Supreme Court, so it will run for another couple of years. Much inaccurate information has appeared about me in the media, where I have been branded a "legal terrorist" and other things I won't mention.

[a google search might give you a better idea of the situation]

Kind regards,

Vincent Salafia

[frenzy is at the cost of everything else Irish Times Sat, Mar 18, 06]

Tuathal

Oh, and I did notice a category in WP:BIO that might be more suitable than political figures: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuathal (talk • contribs) .

  • Sorry to belabour this but I am simply responding to some of the comments above, in order to give you an accurate picture. There has been quite a lot more international coverage than I put on the entry. You can see more under International News Stories at [|this page]

Tuathal

  • Delete per WP:AUTO, after the article is deleted get one of your friends, or someone else , to create it again, simple --KaptKos 16:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention I'm Irish, but I think this has more to do with policy than notoriety. Due to the contentious road building program in Ireland, this guy, who is at the forefront of opposition campaigns is going to come up in articles related to the program, and Ireland is seeing huge development in this area, so I would expect articles to be developed around this topic see N3 road & Hill of Tara, so having bio article about this guy would not conflict with WP:BIO, but it cannot be created and substantially written by himself. So Tuathal please read WP:AUTO, IMO it takes precedence in this matter, and the solution is, as I've pointed out above, simple --KaptKos 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AUTO is a guideline, not a policy. There is no reason to Delete this article just because it is written by the subject. If it contains factual information and is NPOV (which it seems to me it does) it is fine as it is. If it does have some NPOV, that can be salvaged by others editing the article, there is no reason to delete it and then start from scratch IMHO. User:Tuathal did not try to hide that it was an autobiography and there is no reason to suspect foul play. He is a newbie, so let's assume good faith. TH 12:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'm bad, its not policy. I will AGF. I off to eat some humble pie:) --KaptKos 13:13, 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 no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silpelit[edit]

This article is irrelivant and contains no useful encyclopedic information. As such, it should be removed from Wikipedia permanently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RabinicLawyer (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, fancruft. incog 01:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fancruft. The article is poorly written and already apart of Elfen Lied. This doesn't even discuss a minor character, this is a race that the minor character is a part of it. Even worse the original race Diclonius has been deleted from the Wikipedia leaving this article dangling in the wind. --TrollHistorian 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless, badly written fancruft. 204.191.190.187 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already listed. DVD+ R/W 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lundse 10:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. --Terence Ong 13:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article actually answered a question of mine. About the poem of Mörike, not about the comic book. Silpelit may not be a household name, but it appears in one of the most reproduced poems of a classical german poet, where it is a bit of an enigma even for educated people. This article solves that problem for thes people. Azate 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Azate--The_stuart 19:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Answered some questions. If it is deleted, information should be put into Elfen Lied article somehow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.76.187 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep - Due to the use of the word prior to Elfen Lied, there is a valid claim for an article separate to EL, as per Azate. But yes, it could do with tidying. Probably should concentrate on the literary use (given there is no entry for Eduard auf dem Seil), with a link to a part of the EL article explaining the use inside EL?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myfanwy (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge to both Eduard Mörike and Elfen Lied, leaving behind a disambiguation page. Melchoir 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Melchoir's reasoning. Folajimi 13:25, 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 freaky. I mean delete. Chick Bowen 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom car[edit]

Article is on a patent application. Only relevant ghits [2] seem to be awe and gawking over how great the concept is (based solely on the application). No apparent proof of existence. original research and/or non-notable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I further recommend, per JIP's comment below, that there be no prejudice against recreation if/when this technology comes to light --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article exists only to point out the utter stupidity of the US patents system. - Richardcavell 02:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. An article about a patent? That's not been realized yet? Shenme 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Arguably the article is (or should be) about the idea of a "phantom car", not just about the patent. Sure, it's vapourware now, but I think the Google search cited shows enough media coverage to justify an article. --Saforrest 03:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently reads more like a press release than an article. This can be recreated if/when a phantom car is actually implemented. JIP | Talk 09:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I rewrote a bit so that it looks more like an article. Obviously the idea is cool and interesting and it did actually interest me. Nonetheless, I shudder at the idea that Wiki would include all new patents! Or even worse, we make new guidelines as to when new patents become noteworthy. To my mind, WP:NOT a list of patents. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like a press release, also sounds a little spooky. Kuzaar 12:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more like a press release, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Haeleth Talk 14:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this sounds like another 'Phantom' to me - vaporware. Tokakeke 21:41, 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 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krispen Hartung[edit]

Numerous self-promotional google hits e.g. CD Baby, but no obvious notability, per WP:BAND Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possibly written by the person himself (see history). - Richardcavell 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. —Whouk (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely in the top half million on Amazon music sales. Not notable unless we want 400,000 albums listed here before this one. StuffOfInterest 18:25, 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. Mailer Diablo 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ghalib Street[edit]

non-notable street, borderline travel guide also Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep by default. There are many streets that deserve their own article. I would like to see more content, though. - Richardcavell 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normal streets normally get deleted on AFD if they are not state routes and stuff by default, we can't have articles on every street Jaranda wat's sup 03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any server space limitations that would prevent us from having one more article about a street. In my home city, there are plenty of streets that would warrant their own article regardless of where you can use them to drive to. This article could be a stayer. - Richardcavell 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a stub, and content should be enhanced. But even at present, the content is more than many other stubs, and reflects the importance of the street in the parent city.--Dwaipayanc 04:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not exactly the Las Ramblas but still worthy of inclusion --Knucmo2 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place Jcuk 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Fagstein 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far from the worst stub I've seen and makes some assertion of notability within context. StuffOfInterest 18:30, 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 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamo uknz[edit]

WP:CORP WP:VAIN Non-notable company, self promotion John Nagle 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two (2) hits in Google, both on Myspace pages. The company's web site doesn't even have any products live yet. The company's web site allows people to "join" and reports only 7 members. "prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 01:58, 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 Speedily deleted by Vamp:Willow.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive Demand[edit]

I believe that this is either copy pasted and copyvio, or original research. Perhaps whomever summarily removed my prod would like to defend this wall of text? Appropriate Username 02:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as original research. The page says the article is by Ajit Kumar Pandey, who seems to be a student (see his page at [3]) -- Hirudo 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly OR (the guy signed it, for Pete's sake), and the history shows he Moved it from his user page. Reads like some fairly basic principles of microeconomics, poorly translated from another language. Most of it sounds like stuff I've read before, with very odd word choices. What he calls "obsessive demand" seems a lot like consumer preference. Fan1967 02:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT original research, WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a proposed study. Tony Bruguier 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's an essay. Full marks to him for writing it, but he should subject it to peer review and publish it in a journal, not here. - Richardcavell 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a text-dump of a student research proposal, no original research refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, seems like OR. Dspserpico 06:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out on a speedy basis as clearly original research (signed!) etc. --Vamp:Willow 11:02, 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 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sonic Adventures[edit]

Sonic the Hedgehog fan fiction webcomic hosted on Angelfire, with the article written by the author. Absolutely nn, only reason it's been at Wikipedia so long is because nothing links there. - Hahnchen 02:35, 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 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brigida[edit]

A page claiming that this guy was in Rolling Stone magazine, although he hardly shows up on google. Probably a hoax. Delete. Grandmasterka 02:51, 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 07:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Gokcekus[edit]

Looks like a non-notable academic. A few hundred Google hits, but any professor would have that. Can't really see any notability. JW1805 (Talk) 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - he seems to have written a fair bit, but it's hard to tell from a quick search how notable his work is. The article fails to assert his notability. —Whouk (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails to assert the subject's notability. I'll gladly change this vote to a keep if the article can be expanded, but until more information is provided I have to vote delete. Kuzaar 12:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded with proof of how he's any more notable than the average professor. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed timelines[edit]

Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant to Category:Timelines. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very useful because it's all on one page. Quite different from the categories and not at all redundant. Would possibly support deleting the categories though. -- JJay 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe there are quite a few timelines in the category that aren't in the list. If they were added wouldn't the list become too long and need to broken up? Then it wouldn't all be on one page anymore. --JeffW 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Anyone can edit wikipedia so if there is something missing, by all means, add it to the list. It's your participation that will help this list expand over time. -- JJay 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which was that if all the timelines are added to the list that should be (it doesn't matter by whom) then the list will be too long to be one page anymore. Thus the argument that it is all on one page is a red herring. --JeffW 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it gets that long where it is almost complete then we can examine our options such as deletion. For the time being, considering it is all on one page and far from complete, deletion is obviously premature. Of course, it is also possible that many of our existing timeline pages would themselves be merged or deleted over time, thereby eliminating the risk that the list would ever achieve a length that would even suggest the need for deconsolidation. Not that this is intended in any way to disparage the often very real benefits derived from spinning-off articles and lists. Despite your well-meaning question that seems to view AfD as a discounting mechanism establishing a net present value for articles based on future editing flows, my personal timeline for forming an opinion on AfD only runs for five days. Put simply, I am uncomfortable with a capital sentence rendered for alleged future crimes. In the present case, now well beyond my timeline due to the quite unfortunate initial close, no crime has been committed so the judgement must be to acquit. -- JJay 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Little in the list?? I think this matter is resolved. Please remove the AfD tag Slicky 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole sentence is "There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories." When you read the whole thing the meaning is different then when you pick out bits and pieces from it. --JeffW 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per JJay --myselfalso 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is the same as the Timeline category. Unmaintainable as is and would be much better suited being merged into the category as either pages or subcategories. Radagast83 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was raised at the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink) and on Deletion Review. Restored and re-opened without prejudice.
  • For previous existing backlinks I removed see here for edits with summary "removed red link (themed timeline)."
  • Also here for redlinks removed by User:JeffW in this period.
brenneman{L} 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This can divide the lists by type of list, something which categories cannot yet do. As such, this is actually currently more useful than the category! Grutness...wha? 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean, what types of lists? A category can easily by subdivide by several different criteria, something a list cannot do without repeating entries. I know that there are several entries on the list in question that are repeated under two headings. --JeffW 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually deplore lists, but this is useful. Eusebeus 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you usually deplore lists, and how is this one different? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its not an article, it is a navigation help - and better than the Category which should link to this... Lundse 10:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But a category is also a navigation help, so how is the list better than the category? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see absolutely no legitimate reason to delete this perfectly good, well establiahed article. I commend Aaron Brenneman, the original closer, for listing this very controversial deletion close for review, but I do strongly recommend that he seriously consider that he is permitting his own personal views on deletion to influence his closes. There was in the original discussion a strong consensus to keep, which he appears to have completely ignored. This is not the way to close a deletion discussion. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any arguments here other than that the list is well established. Why does the age of the page matter? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How on earth do you interpret 3 delete votes against 3 keep votes as a "strong consensus to keep"? — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How on earth was it originally closed as "delete"? -- JJay 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If its 3 delete and 3 keep, it means that it did not reach any concensus (50% delete). A concensus of 75-80% (same as RFA) to have the article deleted. When it's no concensus, its automatically a keep. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Semantics. The original comment said "strong concensus to keep" and you yourself said that there was no concensus. --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good list. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's it? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lists of lists/timelines are quite possibly the most pointless thing anyone could waste their time creating here on wikipedia. Now why isn't this a "No Consensus" result yet?--Isotope23 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I hope you will reconsider, bearing in mind that lists are not pointless when used as navigational tools. Lundse 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And so is a category. Why do you think a list is a better navigational tool? --JeffW 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly... this should be a category.--Isotope23 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just compared them, the list is easier to navigate from, the category seems a mess. I am no expert, but unless the category can be made as easy to use as the list, it seem something useful is lost if we delete it. Lundse 09:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. An immensely-helpful resource for researchers, as many articles aren't categorized appropriately and many users don't browse category pages. Policy isn't an end in itself, but an means to an end. If you guys aren't sure what deleting the list will accomplish, then why vote to delete it? I'm sure someone will just ignore all of us and delete it anyway, though.--Primetime 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly valid, verifiable, and useful list. Lists can do many things that categories cannot: they can have redlinks to help direct people to articles that need creating; they can be sorted and organized in arbitrary ways; they can be annotated. Finally, they can eventually strive to be made into a featured list. Turnstep 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, lists can do many of those things, but it has been around for years and no one has put in the effort to have it do any of those things. If no one is willing to put the effort into the list, maybe the list isn't worth the effort? --JeffW 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't consider than an issue. Just because a page has not reached its full potential is no reason to delete it. Turnstep 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has use beyond basic category. StuffOfInterest 18:41, 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. Whilst many editors seem to be convinced that this is either a game guide or "cruft", it actually has the form of a glossary of the type that is quite common on Wikipedia, and there is significant evidence that the bulk of the terms are in common use and are referenced on relevant gaming sites. The popularity of this particular game and the sheer size of the population of players is also a factor here. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft terminology[edit]

This seems rather cruftish and unencyclopedic to me, something that is probably more appropriate at WOWwiki. Delete per WP:NOT. --Hetar 03:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per this AfD and others. Nifboy 04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 8 regarding video game guides specifically.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. World of Warcraft is a major game, and a glossary over terms used in it is useful for the coverage. Also, it serves another useful purpose by providing a merge target for all sorts of short stubs people make on various items. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per aeropagitica. Fansites abound for this. Teke 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per aeropagitica. Good list but does not belong on wikipedia.--Cini 07:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep... What is unencyclopedic about it? This is not a video game 'guide' specifically... this is a glossary as well... i mean, i'm sure we don't have to mention that the finer points of Monopoly are a game guide... or even yet Dungeons and Dragons... also a game guide, that explains the game to only the depth that wikipedia can... the Glossary of firefighting terms and Contract bridge glossary are well constructed glossaries of terminology that have outgoing and incoming wikilinks that further can assist broad topics... as far as section 8 goes... "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." this is none of the above. This is not a guide to the 'game'... not in any way shape or form... it's a guide to the language surrounding the game... to get the VfD you need a broad consensus that wikipedia is not a place for glossaries, do not go after each individual instance of glossaries based on the content... go after the concept of them and shut them down from the top... as opposed to re:VfD for lists... which already has a consensus... This should not be a VfD without regards to the separations between a list and a glossary... This article is an encyclopedic Glossary of information as opposed to a List, as opposed to Common School Pranks (which i don't know if it exists anymore)... which was a list without many outgoing wikilinks... this is a comprehensive list of redirection and a compilation of more than just 'items', but a glossary of items that are contained under a very large topic with very specific nuances... see List of glossaries... this is there too... this is not a manual by any means, but more of an idiom and slang glossary that has not a loose base of topics (it's easy to see that it's focused on just WoW specific terminology just like ... while the common mmorpg termonology has a very focused role as well)... which doesn't violate 2... so, with both of those covered... i apologize with the verbose nature of this entry... --evesummernight Edited at 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WikiPedia is not a video game guide, and that is what this article boils down to. Host this (useful page) somewhere else and by all means link to it from the World of Warcraft article. But it is not encyclopedic. TH 08:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic information, bordering on gamecruft. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. JIP | Talk 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a slang dictionary either, make a deep link to this in the WoW article where the special slang is mentioned to some WoW wiki. Lundse 11:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to various keep votes around here. Who is going to look at this, except WoW players (mainly newbies)? This in itself makes it a gameguide of sorts. This sort of thing belongs on WoW pages, wikis, guidebooks, their help system, etc. I do not see why it should be here, it is just not notable (the game certainly is, and a deep link to this would be highly relevant).
  • Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary/Gameguide, doesn't WoW have it's own wiki!?

--Eivindt@c 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Whatever your opinion as to the worthiness of the subject, it's a place to merge and redirect minor WoW topics that the game's fans are certain to create. Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not what encyclopedias are for. — Haeleth Talk 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Face-melting two-handed delete. --Optichan 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WoW cruft, transwiki to WoW Wiki (if there is one). --Terence Ong 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nce Ong.--Isotope23 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evesummernight and Smerdis of Tlön and especially Turnstep (below) --Naha|(talk) 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry to buck the tide, but Wikipedia is studded with glossaries, as this article is. I can't see where this is a "game guide," which while people are waving around WP:NOT, is not in fact specifically excluded. By the way, I have a WP:NOT quote myself: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." It's tough to call WoW below the radar for that purpose. RGTraynor 16:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I completely understand your point. I suppose it's in personal reading of the NOT texts; I feel that "specialized fields" meant more of the academic genre, rather than fictional video games. Que sera sera, and to each his/her own. Teke 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While video games may be set in fictional "worlds", they, themselves, are not fictional - I'm looking at one sitting on my desk right now. Also, video games and computer games are a billion dollar world-wide industry and in that sense do deserve a tad of respect. Neither of these things justify keeping the article necessarily, but just some food for thought.--Naha|(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I realized after I wrote "fictional" the way I did that it could be misconstrued as negative; I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that while the video game industry itself is a specialized(and lucrative) field, I don't think the product itself is deserving of that consideration. Users of the game may specialize, but to me that is fandom. Once again something I have no problem with, but that's in NOT too. Teke 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the breakpoint, though -- hundreds of thousands of people play this game, avidly, probably many more than practice some of those specialized academic fields. Its glossary page isn't any less valid than the Contract_bridge_glossary or Chess_terminology pages. I really hope people aren't voting on the basis of "highbrow game good" / "geek loser video game bad" mindsets. RGTraynor 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope that is not the case. Sometimes I get that feeling from people while I am working on game related articles. --Naha|(talk) 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure that is not the basis of my vote, I don't know about others. Teke 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments of delete voters above -- Hirudo 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It may not be the best or most organized, but it is worthwhile and useful to people just learning the game and there are alot of us out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.208.249.216 (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a game guide, so that's not a valid argument in this context -- Hirudo 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This article is also not a game guide. --Naha|(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT a game guide, and the fact that this article is completely unsourced. --InShaneee 20:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you would look at the article, you would see it is not a game guide. Also, is being unsourced valid deletion criteria? If so There are thousands upon thousands of articles that you should be putting up for AFD. --Naha|(talk) 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Nomenclature sections on many of the WoW articles remove the need for this -- Peteresch 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having to define the same term over and over doesn't seem right either. Being able to link to it is extremly helpful. --Naha|(talk) 21:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per evesummernight, RGTraynor and Smerdis of Tlön. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid, non game-guide glossary. At the very least, the crustophobes should realize that having a single page to put all of this stuff is better than having people create and recreate all the items on this page over and over as separate pages. As stated above, glossaries are perfectly acceptable on Wikpedia, and (like it or not) more people play WoW than play contract bridge these days. Further, having the information on another wiki or external site is not, in and of itself, a reason for NOT having it on Wikipedia. Rather, that argument is more appropriate for deletion of things that do not belong on Wikipedia in the first place. This clearly does not fall into that category, unless you want to remove all glossaries, and this is not the place to do that. Turnstep 23:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it dead. It is game-guide glossary. As for the crustophobes should realize that having a single page to put all of this stuff is better than having people create and recreate all the items on this page over and over as separate pages, that's what {{deletedpage}} is for. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the existence of other game glossaries such as Contract_bridge_glossary. Seems a little too POV to single out a specific game to be nuked for having it(unless it's a non-notable game, something WoW certainly isn't). Not sure that glossaries are very encyclopedic, but if they don't belong in Wikipedia, there should be a rule made against them and then they should ALL be removed with none singled out. Shadowoftime 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out that this nomination has nothing to do with POV. I'm an avid WOW fan, I have the user box on my user page, and spend a large amount of time contributing to WOW related articles. The precident for this nomination is more clearly lined out by this AfD which relates much more closely to WOW than bridge does. --Hetar 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking mnore of an anti-video-game. Whether conscious or not, people often have a POV about video games that they are less respectable(and therefore something you'd less likely associate with an encyclopedia) than non-video games and I'm betting many people that voted delete here would vote keep should the bridge glossary go up for deletion(the fact that it hasn't seems to support this). If you have a good reason for how video game glossaries violate WP:NOT when non-video game glossaries don't, type it up and I'll change my vote. I'm not a fan of WoW myself, but I can't see how we can base a deletion on whether glossaries seem "encyclopedic" or "cruftish" and not be POV. Shadowoftime 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Not to mention that it's impossible to verify or find reliable sources for. Cyde Weys 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but Expand/Rewrite. The bridge glossary is a precedent, but this article is mostly a list of abbreviations common in the game. Arguably, some of this information, i.e. defining corpse camping, is glossary fodder as much as defining various bidding/signaling strategies in bridge. Bridge has a larger number of players, but that does not make a bridge glossary more encyclopaedic than a WoW glossary. However, a list of abbreviations does not constitute a glossary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ESnyder2 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 April 2006.
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks for reasons as per aeropagitica. Violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOT aside this is excellent content, and will make a fine addition to the WoW Wikibook. But not here. It unquestionably violates WP:NOT, and thus must be removed. GarrettTalk 21:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Better have this than have to deal with people making pages for each of these terms. Arctic Gnome 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A glossary of terms that are used by five million subscribers is not 'nerdcruft.' TDS (talk • email • contribs) 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read this section of WP:NOT and reassess your vote. Calling it "notable" or "cruft" is entirely beside the point, the point here is that it clearly violates policy. GarrettTalk 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which part of that section do you think this violates? The only thing close is #8, and this is clearly not an instruction manual. Turnstep 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft and per nomination. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 10:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would urge those suggesting Delete to be very careful. Deleting this article gives precedent for putting in AfD for List_of_slang_names_for_poker_hands, Glossary_of_darts, perhaps all of List_of_glossaries#Games; Glossary_of_anatomical_terminology,_definitions_and_abbreviations on the basis of being barely more than a list of abbreviations; List_of_terms_associated_with_diabetes, which is almost entirely made of mere internal links; and most certainly List_of_Internet_slang. Weaker arguments could be made along the same lines for most of List_of_glossaries.

Can anyone explain, in terms of Wikipedia policy, what the difference is between this AfD (and other deleted game articles quoted as precedent) and the articles I've just linked? Is there a reason that Point 8 here says "video game guides" rather than the less specific "game guides?

We need consistency. I'd actually be willing to argue that all of these glossaries are non-encyclopaedic, but if we keep one, especially one as crufty as List_of_Internet_slang (which can almost certainly be found on thousands of other, more appropriate sites), then precedent should be established that we keep all. --ES2 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please check all of the other so called glossaries... if they all indeed violate 8 then delete them all... but if a particular entry is 'poorly written' (which, in my eyes, is not...) please change from 'delete' to 'clean up'... prescedence i think takes priority... if you allow one... you should allow them all... but force them to a higher standard... i think people (including myself) aren't willing to undertake the responsibility to update wiki:not to further identify what wikipedia isn't... either follow the written law, or allow some permeability (akin to esnyder2's comment)... even more precedence can be found here AfD: for Poker Jargon the result of which was the AfD failed... --evesummernight
  • Transwiki to WoWWiki. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Having the information on another wiki or external site is not, in and of itself, a reason for NOT having it on Wikipedia." --Naha|(talk) 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cite as reference a similar document that has not been called out for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_slang, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_slang, which function in a similar manner to the WoW Terminology page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.10.130 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Just pointing something out: Would it be possible, or even recommened, to just transfer each of these over into their own articles on Wiktionary? I know a list of fighting game terms was deleted not too long ago and was wondering if this might be a solution for lists of video game terms. Unfortunately I don't really know much about Wiktionary so I don't know if that would be against policy there. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the more generic ones can be moved to MMORPG terminology. -- infinity0 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why keep MMORPG terminology instead of this? This isn't a particuarly bad glossary... besides, most of these (meaning a fairly high percentage) are actually WoW specific... --evesummernight 18:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I supported keeping EVE Online Acronyms and Abbreviations. After looking into the issue more however, it seems other online game glossaries were deleted or moved as well. WoW terminology isn't more vital than any of the others. Anyway, there is a detailed Wiki out there just for Warcraft things. Landeyda 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World of Warcraft is a Multi-million dollar industry. They currently have approximately 7 million customers. This article, if anything, gives insight into the subculture created online as well as what keeps WoW ticking. Surely if we can have Ytmnd, which praise the most obscure facts of pop culture, then we can have an article on the pop culture of a game with a higher player base then the population of Mongolia

Cowbell14 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable Melchoir 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blizzard has a full-length terminology page on their website via worldofwarcraft.com, but it doesn't go as full-length as this. Doesn't imply nearely as many of the phrases such as "3 minute mage" which is considered an insult to people who play that way. This is a definate keep. --Spazztastic
  • Strong Delete. WP:NOT. Show me some citations of the terminology being used outside of the fan groups (like a completely unrelated article in a magazine that has nothing to do with games), and I'd be willing to change.In1984 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a poor criterion. Show me citations of Glossary_of_graph_theory used outside of mathematics circles. --ES2 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time. Almost everyone I know has a particular hobby or interest, be it sports, gaming, art, models, etc. For just about every hobby I can think of, there are terms used to describe various elements within the hobby, but they are rarely heard outside of the special interest groups in which they are used. There is nothing wrong with that. Words/terms/concepts should not have to be pushed onto the general public or become "important" on a world scale to justify inclusion in Wikipedia, Wikitionary or wherever. --Naha|(talk) 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Sandstein 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per evesummernight and Smerdis of Tlön, Turnstep and Cowbell. The Mongolia comparison is striking. JoshuaZ 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Book of Nehemiah. – Alphax τεχ 07:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noadiah[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternitas Coyotii[edit]

non-notable, no book sources cited, vanity page? 999 03:47, 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 the current version (a copy is currently at User:Stanley011/Robert Federer) - Liberatore(T) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Federer[edit]

seeming nn, but he did invent some paper-whitening thing and he is Roger's dad M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted--expanded upon and cleaned up, clearly, but not deleted--the study was published in a notable publication and seemed to have a significant impact upon the field Stanley011 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep per Stanley. The El Reyko 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article needs to show what kind of impact Robert Federer's study had on the field, and it should show the sources. But are we sure this guy warrants his own article? If there isn't enough material on Robert Federer, the info in this article can possibly just be included in the Roger Federer article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would be willing to compromise on a redirect to Roger Federer but at this point I'm leaning towards delete. Only 537 results on google which leads me to believe it lacks notability.--Cini 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. References to notability isnt provided. The article contends his study was "revolutionary", but only links to the research itself. Without specific proof that the study was indeed revolutionary, we should assume it probably wasnt. Many people publish stuff every day, and not all of it should be in an encyclopedia. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all of the above. Eusebeus 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem notable except for his offspring, and it's unsourced. --Eivindt@c 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article IS sourced--it provides a link to his study, which was published in a peer review publication; it is clearly not "original research" because it was actually published in a respectable source and is therefore verifiable. The study would not have been published in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal if it did not have a significant impact on the field. Stanley011 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article, as it now is, is rather incomplete; I do plan on adding much more to it in the coming weeksStanley011 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the haste with which some editors believe incomplete articles should be dealt with, I recommend you copy the article to your user space, work on it there, and bring it back to the main space when it is finished. Instructions can be found at WP:USER. When expanding the article pay attention to the notability guideline. There is no question that he co-wrote an article on paper-making technology, the question is whether it is "revolutionary." There are thousands of scientific papers published every month and only a very few are revolutionary. Thatcher131 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thatcher, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I will do that. Stanley011 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC). P.S. How do I copy the article to my user space? Stanley011 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stanley: Go to the Robert Federer page and go to edit. Copy the code there. Then, go to User:Stanley011 and click edit. Then paste the code. Yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miss1on: When you write "copy the code there" what code are you refering to? Where do I find this code? Stanley011 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The complete text in the edit window -- Hirudo 02:25, 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 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Corollary of Varying Levels of Male Confidence on Female Affinity[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion, and is clearly original research, but there's no clear speedy criterion for this sort of thing. Should be deleted though; Wikipedia is not the place to publish research. Chick Bowen 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can argue that this is not original research but a factual account of the presentation of a piece of original research - a subtle difference. However it is unreferenced, non-notable and verging on something made up in school one day! -- RHaworth 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It "is a high school science fair project". 'Nuff said. --Icarus 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although it did give me a good laugh :) TH 08:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. It could have been notable if the project had won more prominent prizes. Pity, though, it's better quality than a lot of verifiable research. Peter Grey 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR... StuffOfInterest 18:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military careers open to the colorblind[edit]

Delete. Per WP:WWIN: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Any relevant information is already contained in Color blindness. -AED 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Good intentions per author but as AED has stated, falls under deletion through the WP:WWIN policy.--Cini 07:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too specific topic to be of interest. JIP | Talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Color blindness effects 8% of males in Australia, one of which I happen to be. This article would be very valuable to a young person choosing his/her future career. davidzuccaro 10:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which doesn't affect whether this is a noteworthy article under Wikipedia guidelines. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunatly wikipedia is not a guidencecounsellor. --Eivindt@c 12:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Children use encyclopedias to help shape their career aspirations.davidzuccaro 11:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do they? So that's where I'm going wrong! -- Saberwyn 21:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT.  RasputinAXP  c 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nor should wiki be responsible for organizational policies subject to change at any time. --Mmx1 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably unverifiable --Ajdz 04:42, 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 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randie Blooding[edit]

Seems to be a vanity article to me. Is the associate professor of voice at Ithaca College really notable enough to warrant his own encyclopedia article? ekedolphin 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The notability of the organizations he has headed is difficult to verify. A single member of a notable opera company or college faculty isn't notable, though. His teacher Larry Day is of questionable notability, as well. AKADriver 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer is: not remotely close. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability --Ajdz 04:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indrayudh Shome[edit]

Subject wishes this article deleted because he is "not anyone noteworthy". (I have no opinion on this nomination, but it doesn't make a very strong claim of notability.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: being involved with "several musical projects" is hardly an assertion of notability. --Hetar 06:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete looks like it meets A7 to me. Myspace band? and if the author doesn't think his is notable, they probably aren't. Kotepho 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 11:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Speedied as an A7 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 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 moot - speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 07:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silentarmy[edit]

this article does not proclaim notability. I could be wrong on this, but it comes across as a autobiography of a nonnotable group. Kukini 06:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I only found 3 hits to the Silentarmy to which this article refers on Google. Kukini 06:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The official website states; "...the debut record from Silentarmy will also be the first studio recorded record. No release date has been set yet.". WP:Music refers, album/single releases + chart positions.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability far too low for an article at this point. --Cini 07:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band per WP:MUSIC  RasputinAXP  c 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silentnonentity per nom. RGTraynor 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This has been deleted, but the AfD discussion is still open. We can no longer view the article to evaluate its merit. Ardric47 03:13, 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 07:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shintani[edit]

Prodded as listcruft, de-prodded on the grounds that it's a disambiguation page. However, neither item that's being "disambiguated" even has an article to disambiguate from any other article in the first place. Icarus 06:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense page, you write the article and then create the necessary disambiguation page. TH 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not nonsense, but nor is there any point having a dab page that doesn't actually disambiguate anything. The only other content is a dicdef, and WP:NOT the place for them. — Haeleth Talk 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was trying to get rid of some of the red links on List of Japanese surnames, and ended up making some of my own for Shintani when I made links to some notable people with those surnames. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Akira 16:41, 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 nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majestical[edit]

Gibberish? Dictionary definition? Hoax? Take your pick. Dspserpico 07:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. --Icarus 08:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no context (or sense). —Whouk (talk) 09:05, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru's Son[edit]

Information is already covered in the main Inuyasha (character) article. A redirect would be pointless, as this title does not make sense. Inuyasha is Sesshomaru's brother, not his son. Icarus 07:26, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yale Falun Gong club[edit]

One of the many non-notable student political groups at university campuses. Other similar groups don't even have an article.--PatCheng 08:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable student group. --Eivindt@c 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have a page on Falun Gong, there's no need to make a page for every college club and group around. --Bachrach44 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable student group incog 02:16, 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 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Tracks[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Very new site - unable to establish notability. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge that wasn't already there. Chick Bowen 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milano-San Remo 2006[edit]

This article is made redundant by the existence of the Milano-Sanremo 2006 article. The official title of the race is "Milano-Sanremo" as opposed to the "Milano-San Remo" this article uses. Thethinredline 08:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thethinredline 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge and Redirect to Milano-Sanremo 2006. If the latter has been created from this artice, as it would seem, it would be good for an admin to move the page history over to the new article too. —Whouk (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect obviously. --Eivindt@c 12:44, 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 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Alger[edit]

Article doesn't establish notability. Dismas|(talk) 08:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. If he gets elected to the State Assembly, he'll become notable. —Whouk (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:Whouk, also the "suggested edits" make the article unreadable. The user who made them should just have been WP:BOLD and made those edits instead of suggesting them. JIP | Talk 09:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. Hell, it was created by Jimalger (talk · contribs)! Also, as his friend Nate (aka 75.6.196.170 (talk · contribs)) suggests on the talk page, Jim Alger is just your average Tom, Dick, or or Harry. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN made me laugh any way. --Eivindt@c 12:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Pure vanity article. The spelling reminders were good for a laugh though.--Cini 13:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...Mistress? Er? Danny Lilithborne 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly --Ajdz 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Funny as hell, though. ergot 19:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:55, 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 speedily deleted. Blatant hoax/ non-notable biography silliness.--Sean Black (talk?) 22:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Plapp[edit]

I think that this should actually be speedied as patent nonsense about a person for whom there has been no assertion of notability WP:CSD G1 and A7. However, this recently created article has attracted quite a few edits and I thought that in light of that AfD might be a better option Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) Delete - per my nomination - Politepunk 09:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep Max Brown 09:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (this comment was made by 212.219.117.140 —Whouk (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. And the sitcom thing is nonsense. —Whouk (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (No longer speedy as it now has a - bonkers - assertion of notability. —Whouk (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree, after the commission of the sitcom "Mike: Attack of the Plapps" I feel this is a noteworthy article. Strong Keep - Max Brown2 11:07, 24 April 2006

  • Strong Keep - i am one of the people trying to keep this good and free of crap, i dont think it should be deleted, this artical is a important part of the Isle of Wight College artical as i am trying to get one for all teachers, as you can tell it is mostly one IP 212.219.117.140 messing it up, i beg this not be removed Fallen Angel talk 14:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity waste-of-time ka1iban
  • Delete, vanity hoax etc.  RasputinAXP  c 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect this is an attack, rather than vanity. I'm also dubious as to whether the Isle of Wight College is qualified to name someone a professor in the UK sense. Impressive sockpuppetry from 'Max_Brown' there. AlexTiefling 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The answer to whether the college is qualified to do so is "No." That shouldn't affect the discussion, though, since whether the word "Professor" appends to an academic's name in a particular country ought not affect his or her duties there, if the subject otherwise satisfies the Professor Test. RGTraynor 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete My original vote was deleted for no reason. Following link shows proof and my original reason why I nominate for Strong Delete: [4] As you can see a number of other delete votes were blanked as well.--Cini 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:BIO. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • if Mike has been educated to the level of professor, he is a professor, this has nothing to do with the college. he could go into a pub and still be a professor Fallen Angel talk 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor" is a title in a University or College. One is not educated to the level of professor. One can be educated to a doctorate, but that does not mean all people with doctorates are notable. Kukini 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and nice for him to be introduced so at parties and suchlike. It still doesn't in of itself translate to notability. RGTraynor 20:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very informative, accurate artical.

  • Delete - per nom and above. Kukini 21:00, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily and Elena Bodkin[edit]

Non-notable actors/"props". Bjelleklang - talk 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO Kevin 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the links at the bottom of the article, they are not on IMDB. Optichan 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sign of notability --Ajdz 04:50, 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 merge to P&O. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fastcraft[edit]

Prod removed, so bringing to AfD. This was a name used by P&O for a ferry service and, as such, not-notable. Eusebeus 09:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Merge with P&O. Deprodder Kappa ought to have left the prod tag on and added the information to the mother article. Kuzaar 11:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with P&O. GWO
  • Merge then redirect. -- Hirudo 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. RGTraynor 16:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then redirect. San Saba 04:07, 25 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]
    • Comment - I'm not going to post this on every Afd where you put this message, but I think you're wrong about this. I do not think any of the articles he nominated after deprod would qualify as a speedy keep; in fact it looks like consensus is that nearly all of them deserve an Afd. -- Hirudo 14:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Perhaps Monicasdude is voting keep on every AfD Eusebus nominates because all of Eusebus' nominations lately have been to articles deprodded by Kappa. Neither behavior is in any way productive. Thatcher131 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point of Information. This sounds like wikistalking; what do you think Thatcher131? As I see it, the conduct of both the deletionists and inclusionists are rather counterproductive. --Folajimi 13:37, 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 recommend possible redirect to bianca.com

Smut Shack[edit]

Prodded by User:Maustrauser as advertising (which it isn't), removed by User:Kappa; however, the information here is covered more extensively and articulately at Bianca.com, so this is unnecessary and redundant. Eusebeus 09:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a bad faith nomination? I thought it was a PROD, Kappa didn't. We were in dispute. Thank you Eusebeus. Maustrauser 11:28, 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Surfing Association[edit]

Prodded by User:JuliannaRoseMauriello, deprodded by User:Kappa on grounds that it sounds notable. A quick check, however, determines that it isn't. Under 200 Google hits [[5]], many of which are Wikipedia mirror sites. Eusebeus 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable body (replaced shortly after inception by a more notable and permanent one!) inappropriately deprodded by chronic deprodder Kappa. (if it's not already, this might be worth mentioning on the USSF page.)Kuzaar 11:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - once someone creates an article for United States Surfing Federation this may be worthy of a mention and a redirect though. -- Hirudo 13:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with Hirudo above, "worthy of a mention". The organization did exist, and may have had historical merit, but without corroborating evidence not worthy of being a mere stub. LittleSurferBoy 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. San Saba 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Eusebeus presented reasons for the nom on its own terms. Do you have grounds for your explicitly systematic votes of Speedy Keep other than your dislike of Eusebeus' nominating disputed prods? RGTraynor 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebus seems to be only nominating Kappa's disputed prods. This is one of the few cases in recent days where he has given a more expansive rationale. Thatcher131 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the last thirty AfDs Eusebeus has filed, and in each and every case he's given an expansive rationale. RGTraynor 16:19, 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 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicane (video game)[edit]

Prodded by User:RayaruB as Non-notable game that never came out of development ; deprodded by User:Kappa. The unrelenting use of the conditional tense here would seem to suggest that, while this might have merited an article had it ever actually been made, its actual lack of existence serves as an impediment to its encyclopedic value. Eusebeus 09:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inappropriately deprodded by Kappa, and additionally for reasons provided by nom. Kuzaar 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice for all the reasons stated above. -- Hirudo 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my prod. --RayaruB 13:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --blue520 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I wonder if Kappa has realized yet that him deprodding an article is becoming a redflag to the article's probable non-notability? RGTraynor 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... as this article essentially describes vaporware.--Isotope23 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. San Saba 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- are you suggesting that voting Keep is in regard to the merits of the dispute? RGTraynor 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since I don't want to spam every single AFD this happened on, I'll just say it once here. Opining speedy keep based on "bad faith nomination" on a series of AfDs of deproded articles is the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to opine Keep or Delete, at least do it based on the merits of the article. This is borderline WP:POINT.--Isotope23 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is sending only Kappa deprods to AfD, as Eusebus has been doing. Thatcher131 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "Pot and Kettle" comment. Look, I'm not going to start attacking people personally, but there is a lot of poor behavior surrounding this whole situation and it's not just confined to one person. This is sort of the wrong place for that discussion though.--Isotope23 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the principles to WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL -- which, in fact, I do not believe Eusebeus is violating -- is that it isn't okay to be disruptive just because you think someone else is. As it happens, given Kappa's prod deletion totals, Eusebeus is nowhere near to AfDing them all, so I have a very hard time crediting any claim against him of disruption. RGTraynor 16:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Seems it was last heard about when pre-release screenshots were published around May of last year. [6] Barneyboo (Talk) 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 18:02, 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 redirect to Cluedo. Flowerparty☀ 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clue VCR Mystery Game[edit]

Prodded by User:RayaruB as non-notable game ; deprodded by User:Kappa, so here it is at AfD. Non-notable release. Eusebeus 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, NN variant of popular game inappropriately deprodded by chronic deprodder Kappa. Also, information already available ad Cluedo. Kuzaar 11:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the information needed about this is already at Cluedo.--UsaSatsui 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cluedo, which already has a blurb about this specific release of the game -- Hirudo 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Hirudo. --RayaruB 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cluedo.--Isotope23 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Hirudo. San Saba 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per above. --Bachrach44 19:12, 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 merge per nom, although though this is articles for deletion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H.P. Products[edit]

Another Kappa deprod of the company founded by an engineer who created the obscure tt-scale model railroad. This company did exist ([[7]]), but it is now defunct. The information could be merged into the TT scale article, which is hardly overwhelmed with detail. Eusebeus 09:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom sugestion.--blue520 10:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, the TT scale article could use this info, but this does not merit its own article. The de-prodder should have copied the information over and left the prod tag on, IMHO. Kuzaar 11:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above -- Hirudo 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Isotope23 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a notable company even if it no longer exists. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TT scale is a notable (though now largely historical) scale in model railroading and H.P. Products is a notable company in its own right. I could live with a Merge, but I'd rather see this article kept and expanded. Gwernol 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. San Saba 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs wikifying and cleaning. -- infinity0 18:45, 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 keep all. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refounding Public Administration[edit]

Non-notable "classic text", part of a walled garden of probable collegecruft from a single user that also includes:

Many of these articles have gone down the speedy/tag removed without comment > PROD/tag removed without comment path, so now they come here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge; I disagree with some of the above non-notable categorizations. This is a legit academic subject. I am not an expert either, but a cursory google search turns up lots of courses and summaries. Mosher's and Waldo's names come up several times as seminal authors. I don't know if all these authors, books, and journals deserve their own pages, but I don't think that we are dealing with a walled garden of probable collegecruft from a single user. Rmilson 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete all; WP:NOT a free webhost. I'm 1000% sure that VATech has their own webserver.  RasputinAXP  c 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is an interesting term. Just who gets to decide that and what are the implications to one of throwing it around flippantly? 105 people appoint someone a ranging expert...the august REDVERS...on whatever he wishes to rudely lambast and that is the basis of governance? Talk about the Wild West!

I notice there are not articles concerning Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones--easily two of the most important active political scientists in America by any serious expert's opinion...but no article on them? Obviously not notable. No article on Charles Perrow? Insignificant? No, forgive me, not notable. What would qualify one to call Charles Perrow or Dwight Waldo not notable, I wonder. Waldo has probably been read in Korean more than the sum total of all the people who will ever gaze upon REDVER's obscure writings he lists so pridefully at the bottom of his user page. What expertise and degree would you have called upon to state that Frederick C. Mosher is not notable when his work is translated in 8 languages and could probably be discussed by senior government officials in 10s of countries? I'm just curious what sort of definition of encyclopedia that might fulfill?

I was obviously mistaken in thinking that the purpose here is to start a thread that expands underexplored knowledge based on one's legitimate and demonstrable learning as expressed in articles. Now I find I did that only to have it ridiculed by the ignorant Mr. X...or REDVERS as he prefers. The Encyclopedia of Public Administration which would mirror most of what I put in here costs hundreds of dollars but would have been neither succinct nor wholly accurate. Just what is the point of the silly articles on obscure European punk bands and photos of even more obscure Belgian fountains you seem to prefer as content (if WP is not a free resource) when there is almost no discussion of the primary field that studies government bureaucracy and dozens of allied areas? I suppose it's just yet another Internet power trip of some frustrated and indenty-starved persons without the guts to sign their name or to discuss their qualifications on their web pages or in their edits. I suppose this resort to insult by REDVERS when someone has donated their time and expertise is deemed acceptable etiquette here. Shame. What a puny thing to do...to use your administrative authority to go through a contrib file to systematically delete contributions. That is strikingly ugly and remarkably small. People like you are exactly what the idea of free software and knowledge is not about. Oh dear. I had heard this was the deal of late here, but I was so naively hopeful. What a bizarre ethic you have; thank goodness we have relatively few power abusers as serious editors in the print world. Congratulations, you have preserved your fiefdom from another serious contributor. Ryan Lanham 00:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ryan, first... please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Next, please read WP:BIO. The best usage of your time here would be to argue why these people meet the criteria for inclusion laid out at WP:BIO rather than disparaging REDVERS for nominating your articles for deletion. You might want to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy too and lay out a case for keeping your articles based on the criteria there. I should also mention that REDVERS isn't an admin to the best of my knowledge, so he has no power to abuse... I will say though that REDVERS should have notified you on your talk page when he nominated these articles per AfD ettiquette... bad form on his part.--Isotope23 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your kind response. First, I had read the BIO page specifically on professors just before reading your note. All of the above easily qualify if anyone bothered to speak to a human about their reputations and works. I was myself setting place markers in a field I was encouraging others including world famous professors regularly invited to speak to many persons listed in wiki articles (deemed now not-notable by REDVERS) to contribute. Dream on concerning that point now. Second, it was not me who launched into a systematic edit begun with a rather sociopathic insult. I believe REDVERS claims to be an administrator on his user page. I hope it is not the case, but he claimed 105 users gave him the "keys to the janitor closet." NPA is a fine policy. Where does the right to self-defense get written up? Where does the right to know what you are talking about prior to using an AfD get described? As an academic I am inclined to defend my words. Criticize the merit, but if you delete because you believe you think things are not significant, the burden should fall to you for justification in print prior to having the AfD power. I accept your other points and agree with them.
Comment Please also be mindful of the need for verifiability. It is not enough for you to assert that the accomplishments of these scholars is notable in their fields; each article needs to point to some independent reliable sources (as Uppland shows below through JSTOR). Also, the burden for any edit (whether a minor content change or the creation of a new article) is on the editor, to show with reference to Notability and Verifiability that the edit or article is justified. However, it certainly would have been more polite for someone to contact you and refer you to these policies, giving you a few days to work on the articles, before proposing them for deletion. Thatcher131 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I revoked my delete opinion above based on Thatcher131's reasoning, which is rather sound. I think it is worthwhile to give Ryan a chance to source these articles and prove that they meet accepted wikipedia guidelines. I want to reiterate what Thatcher said above though... speaking to a human about their reputations would constitute original research and is not going to meet verifiability. These articles need to be sourced with written citations (web or good old-fashioned print) that support the claims made in the articles. This shouldn't be too difficult for some (if not all) of these articles based on what u p p l a n d has stated below.--Isotope23 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Thatcher131. Does verifiability mean consensus? Or does it mean expert opinion? There are trivially hundreds of articles written with facts that are not "verifiable" in some hard form every day. I am all for journalistic standards--to pitifully invoke credentialism, I have worked for someone on the Pulitizer Committee (who is not in Wikipedia) for the last two years. That is easily discoverable by someone who wishes to search about me. Is it "verified?" No. It is counter-sourced. I think this is a good and worthy project overall, but the goverance and the standards are where the hardcore should vett their expertise, not in AfD'ing article stubs. That should be a democratic process of the marketplace. If a new article is now hit within 30 days by an outsider, simply bot delete it as insignificant. Don't rely on the power-crazed to serial AfD with a two-word explanation. Ryan Lanham 13:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifability does not mean consensus or expert opinion. It means the claims are sourced in what would be considered a reliable source. As it states on the WP:V page: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Yes, there are loads of article out there that are not verifiably sourced... and there are at least a few people around here who go around tagging them for missing sources, contacting creators, etc. That's pretty much the nature of an open collaboration such as Wikipedia.--Isotope23 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verifiability in some respects depends on the claim being made. If you are writing an article on John Smith that says he teaches and writes in the field of public administration, you should be able to provide a bibliography; not his entire CV, but selections showing his more notable accomplishments. If you want to say john Smith is the leading PA theoretician of the 21st century, you will need rather stronger proof, such as winning important prizes, or being recognized by the leading expert group in the field (for science in the US this would be the National Academy; I don't know what it would be in PA). If it is the unwritten consensus of the field that he is a leading figure, you will have a problem, but maybe he was the keynote speaker at an international conference, which would validate the unwritten consensus. To give one specific example, you can't say that Waldo's The Administrative State is the classic work in PA but you can quote other sources as saying so (such as textbooks, articles or reviews in peer-reviewed journals, and so forth). Post to my talk page if you want to discuss it further. Thatcher131 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again Isotope23. I apologize for my ignorance and will be more thoughtful in laying out pointers to sourcing in the future if I cool down enough to write again. What Uppland quite authoritatively and appropriately researched and wrote below I could have written off the top of my head, but I did not...I was trying to learn how to start writing here...what the style is. Perhaps one could tag new authors for particularly helpful comments until they reach a standard deemed "experienced" rather than spanking and alienating them. That is what many academic journals try to do. It is what all newspaper editors do. Regardless, I understand the point you make and that which is in the rules, and I agree to comply with it. Still, I would not be so quick to fall back on the rules as perfected. Those with more experience, I reiterate, probably can do more good by thinking through how those can work better and offering encouragement rather than using a heavy hand which is alienating in the extreme--accuracy is great as a norm in WP--public is an even better norm. There are trade-offs.
  • Strong keep all, as this mass-nomination is clearly insufficiently researched. Recognized academic fields, recognized academic journals and leading academics in those fields are all notable. I just made a sample search for Dwight Waldo, as his was the longest of the biographical articles. "Dwight Waldo" gets 16,500 Google hits, 573 Google Books hits and 906 Google Scholar hits. "Dwight Waldo" also gets 1096 hits in the academic journals incuded in JSTOR. Hits on Waldo include books titled Mastering Public Administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo (Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House, cop. 1989) and A Search for Public Administration: The Ideas and Career of Dwight Waldo, by Brack Brown & Richard J. Stillman, II (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 1986). I am convinced of the good faith of the author and suspect that we would get similar results with several of the other articles. I might add that I had personally never heard of Waldo before. The Dwight Waldo article is actually posted on April 23 – any reason not to just give it more time, and perhaps add a {{unreferenced}} tag or something? u p p l a n d 03:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an ethic I can admire even if it serves my interests. Frankly, Max Stephenson is iffy at best. The rest are no brainers to public administration experts--as was budget theory which was summarily deleted--perhaps the most important topic in PA. On that I would frankly sign my name and stake my reputation--that is what academics do every day. Imagine the power of the summary delete. Imagine it. You can erase the words of another with 5 characters--that sort of power without a review--without a countersignature? This is the sort of governance issue that should constitute the meat of what is meant by "verifiability"--in short, checks and balances--not reputation is what should matter. Why not make all new articles provisional until they have been edited by at least 5 independent persons? Again, I would argue that these are the sorts of administrative ethical processes that need to exist in WP...not some empowered idea of an administrator who relies hugely on discretion. By the way, anyone who knows something about administrative discretion of public bureaucrats--which clearly WP administrators are--would associate the idea with the "not-notable" John A. Rohr and his not-notable contributions to Refounding Public Administration while he was at an non-notable CPAP studying the non-notable theorist Dwight Waldo and other things. Sorry for this and the other rants...they are overboard I admit.Ryan Lanham 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a previous article was deleted you can request its undeletion at Deletion Review, or recreate it so it does a better job of asserting notability and verifiability. Your 5 editor suggestion would be completely unworkable given the amount of vandalism and hoax articles that target wikipedia. The New Pages Patrol is generally a good thing, as you will see if you stick around, but some of the editors there need to have Suggestions for patrollers inked on their monitors in large black letters. Thatcher131 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I restored Budget theory, which had been redirected to budget, but not actually merged (and not deleted). Ryan, if you are uncertain about how to best write and format articles on Wikipedia, you can work on them in your user space until they are ready to go out in the main article space. Just make a temporary subpage of your userpage with a slash, like this: User:Ryan Lanham/Dwight Waldo. And always keep in mind that you are not writing for a limited academic audience, but for people who in most cases have not the slightest idea about your field. u p p l a n d 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will study that process better. Maybe public administration and the legal process in general can learn something from WP. Ryan Lanham 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Yet another case of articles sent for deletion before they ever really get started. There's no harm in leaving them alone, tagging for references or cleanup, and coming back in a week or so. In any case, the articles should be nominated separately next time as there appear to be great disparities in the notability of different people. Thatcher131 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Refounding Public Administration' as advertisment. As for the rest, keep (on the basis of Wikipedia is not paper) for anyone who has obtained some notability outside of their place of employment, delete departments, 'theorists', etc. (on the basis of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Peter Grey 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a walled garden of people who don't meet WP:BIO/WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the reason this appears to be a walled garden is very likely that it is an underrepresented area of little interest to most authors on Wikipedia, as opposed to the hundreds of articles in Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its subcategories and subsubcategories, i.e. a case of systemic bias. That does not make the academic field of public administration in some objective sense less important than Buffy the Vampire Slayer, its theorists less important than Buffyverse characters or its journals or institutions less important than individual Buffy episodes. This is not a case of "if we keep that cruft, we might as well keep this cruft". This is a case where we keep enormous amounts of cruft because of a determined fanbase blocking any attempt to delete it (not that I really mind it so much), while some AfD participants apparently aren't interested in listening to people who actually seem to know something about and are willing to contribute to articles on key persons, concepts and institutions in an underrepresented but established and recognized social science (the Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR hits I mentioned prove this to be the case) which Wikipedia should cover. u p p l a n d 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all per Uppland. if any of the people listed above are, indeed, unnotable, resubmit individually with an argument, at the very least number of google or citeseer hits. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm not convinced that all of these deserve Wikipedia entries, but I am convinced that most of these make claims of notability that are sufficiently substanital to deserve individual examination and argument rather than an assault in bulk. Dragons flight 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per Uppland. What know they of Buffy, who only Buffy know?. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all per Dragon's flight, and Uppland. Also, some of these are just ridiculous. For example, John Rohr is a well-known academic. JoshuaZ 13:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Systemic bias, not lack of notability, seems to account for the lack of interest in the articles. After sufficient time has been given to gather sources and verify the content of the relevant articles, individually renominate the above pages which do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, assuming such is the case for any. Encyclopedia articles are more important, not less, for significant but obscure topics, as those are the ones which people are most likely to look up to gain a basic understanding of the topic. -Silence 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all. Another foray in the Wikipedia war against knowledge workers. Monicasdude 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Dragon's flight and Uppland. Postdlf 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all without prejudice to renominating some in the future. Most seem to still need sourcing. All need to be written better for those unfamiliar with the topic. --Rob 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Rkevins82 16:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Silence Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Public administration is a legitimate field, and one I have a faint dream of getting into should I ever become independently wealthy. IMHO, it is more notable than basically any computer game, which are inherently ephemeral. Give the author, and other contributors, time to bring the articles up to full speed. I'd rather see articles that aren't fully ready for prime time be in a nearly walled garden state than linked to from everywhere. GRBerry 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Silence, Uppland, Dbachmann, and others. This mass nomination seems to have missed the mark. Wikipedia's not going anywhere, and these can be renominated once the articles have had sufficient time to develop and once the author has been allowed and helped to climb a bit more of Wikipedia's learning curve. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When someone nominates an entire collection of articles, I'm going to spot check one or two, and then pass judgement on the whole lot. I did that checking and I'm convinced; this is important enough stuff to merit having articles at this level of detail. Further, the arguments of the other keep folk are persuasive. So is this: VP posting. So then... Keep the entire lot and without any aspersion, strongly recommend that Redvers do a bit more research in future before nominating academic articles in wholesale lots this way. Come back in a few months and individually nominate those that have not demostrated notability or haven't been sourced, if you must. ++Lar: t/c 23:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Uppland, and thanks for his principled intervention. "Non-notable" is too easily thrown around here for non-pop culture subjects. Unless you have some standing to assess notability in public administration, you simply aren't credible. Perhaps the articles should have made their claims to notability clearer; that's an argument for improvement, not deletion, especially with such young articles. · rodii · 02:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Academics are all notable IMO, especially since most have published work. If you are claiming they aren't notable, proivde specific examples for each nom, citing WP policy. Mike (T C) 18:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these seems to be related to Star Trek, Star Wars, Battleship Galactica, Final Fantasy, Paris Hilton, Harry Potter, Ashlee Simpson, or any of the other concerns of millions of right-thinking Wikipedia editors. Ergo, non-notable. Terminate! Gosh, what came over me? I forgot for a moment that this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. Keep. But I think I know where the suspicions arise. Take the Waldo article, for example. It sets off with: Perhaps the defining figure in modern public administration and public management and recognized the world over for his contributions to the theory of bureaucratic government, Waldo is only now taking his place as one of the most important political scientists of the last 100 years. That's quite a congeries of claims, and, intended or otherwise, it has a strong reek of PoV. The author may wish to bone up on, say, Ashlee Simpson to see how bio articles are written -- WP being WP, there seems to be an inverse relationship between genuine significance and care evident in the article -- although an article on an academic who's not a hirsute scientist needn't have such elements as a lengthy, photographically illustrated section on "image and personal life". (Score a bonus ten points if you can read all the way through Ashlee Simpson without falling asleep.) -- Hoary 07:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I concur with all arguments made above in favor of keeping this group of articles. --Coolcaesar 05:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep all TheGrappler 11:56, 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 uhhh...no consensus. Mailer Diablo 16:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark Attack films[edit]

prodded by Messedrocker and by Rory096: It doesn't look like this will become a great article. Even with some improvement, I doubt "shark attack movie" is any sort of genre Deprodded and so brought to AfD. The major quality issues concerning the article aside (it is practically unreadable), these are three unnotable made for tv movies. Eusebeus 10:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional weak keep. The article must be "gutted" and moved to Shark Attack (1999 television movie), or something similar. The sequels can be mentioned there. PJM 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - These don't sound very notable, but then again we do have articles on even more obscure stuff. -- Hirudo 13:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Worthwhile addition to wikipedia films. Notability is slightly questionable but considering some films which are far lesser known which are on here, I consider it worthy of having an article.--Cini 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nearly identical to a recently deleted article discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shark_attack_saga. Looks like this current one was created at around the time the first was nominated for deletion. Arguments there apply to this one as well; the article is nearly unsalvagable, and the subject isn't notable enough for a serious cleanup. WarpstarRider 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE as - db-repost - of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shark_attack_saga San Saba 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I am sick of Monicasdude's identical vote-spam --Ajdz 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if that's your only reason, please don't voterecommend. Feel free to disagree with Monicasdude, but base your votes recommendations on the actual article up for Afd. -- Hirudo 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, we're not voting here (as in the former VFD)...we're "recommending". Nontheless, your point is valid. PJM 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks to be three separate films. At least there aren't three separate articles - let's keep it that way. -- infinity0 18:47, 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 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Saxena[edit]

Non-notable. Creator objected to article being userfied. -- RHaworth 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to make "userfied" ? Ashutoshsaxena 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:AUTO. "Userfying" means "copying to your user page on Wikipedia." Open to persuasion that the robot algorithm makes Ashutosh Saxena notable enough to warrant an article; but writing it should be left to others. Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nn bio. --Bachrach44 19:15, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Stars[edit]

Prodded by Skysmith: self-promotions - see the user name, but deprodded. The article itself happily provides grounds for its own deletion: They are currently unsigned, and at this point have released no material other than demos that appear on their Official website and MySpace page. Eusebeus 10:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, another NN myspace band inappropriately deprodded by chronic deprodder Kappa. Kuzaar 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the one sentence that's not there yet to Ross Tregenza per Kappa, then delete -- Hirudo 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. They haven't done a record, they haven't been signed and they don't even have a lineup yet? Someone should explain to Kappa what WP:POINT is all about. Sheesh. RGTraynor 16:22, 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 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not prepared to endorse the term "bad faith" but it should be noted that most (if not all) of Eusebus' recent AfD nominations are articles that were deprodded by Kappa. I certainly don't think Eusebus is putting a lot of thought or consideration into these nominations. Thatcher131 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to bring as many deprodded articles as I can. It is my bad that I have made it look like a targeted or bad faith campaign. I simply started with the swath deprodded by Kappa (and hardly all of them, only those where I felt the prodder made a prima facie case for prodding that warranted fuller discussion). Eusebeus 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond which, the sequence in the deletion chain is that after a prod tag is removed, the article should be sent up for AfD. Is there some reason doing so suddenly has become a problem? It seems to me that if you disagree that such articles be sent up for AfD, the proper venue for discussion is the various Deletion-related Talk pages, not disrupting AfD itself. WP:POINT. RGTraynor 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. "Currently in the process of forming" says it all. Sandstein 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchism web resources[edit]

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links, and not mere collections of internal links except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. -- Jim Bown 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. -- Jim Bown 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete link farm article. Weregerbil 12:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 12:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT. --Terence Ong 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a crib of the anarchist yellow pages [8] frymaster 18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Chairman S. Talk 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main Anarchism article. --Charles 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or find a new home. It's unfortunate that the anarchism page cannot accomodate such a wealth of external links, but I think they're worth keeping somewhere for reference purposes and a more complete range of resources on the topic than can be found on the main page itself. Sarge Baldy 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It's a vast list of resources and can be useful for citations in future articles. In fact, will the closing admin please move it to User:Infinity0/Anarchist links instead of deleting it (and leave a message on my talk page informing me of this). -- infinity0 00:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I prefer the article to exist, since it's a good to have a list of links for this kind of thing, it's in clear contravention of Wikipedia policy. RJII 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not just move this all to the Anarchopedia. [9]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Moon[edit]

A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. ArcherXRin 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote Delete as nominator. ArcherXRin 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They haven't actually even finished translating anything yet, never mind whether translating an obscure H-game is notable. --UsaSatsui 12:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge key facts into the articles on Tsukihime and Fate/stay night; the group is for real, and their acheivements are impressive, but I'm not sure the details can be verified to WP standards, so...
    As far as notability goes, there's no clear precedent on whether groups like this are considered notable for Wikipedia. I know RPGe survived an AfD, though in that case there was the influential Final Fantasy 5 translation to support them. But there are delete precedents too, like the overview of the history of fan translation. — Haeleth Talk 14:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article -- as I stated in my vote in the AfD for Revolve (Translation Group), it strikes me that there do exists separate specialized wikis in which an article like this would not only be appropriate, it would be welcome. However, in the context of Wikipedia, I agree with the original poster that this article fails WP:V and WP:VAIN. Please also note my conflict of interest disclaimer in the AfD for Revolve (Translation Group). --Gp32 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information into Tsukihime or other related articles, but only if it can be established they've completed anything of note. As is, it seems to be more ifs and whens. Barneyboo (Talk) 15:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on V concerns. Kotepho 19:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, group is unrelated to the Tsukihime article so there's nothing to merge (although you could link to their project page at the bottom) Ashibaka tock 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, although not under the articles of WP:V. The group is nearly under beta testing and they've already finished up their rewrite of Tsukihime. That can be seen under their home page. However, under articles WP:VAIN, is a completely different issue all together. However, I do not think, personally, that this is much of a problem. My only reason for voting delete is that the information about the team project is pretty excessive, and a merge is also unnecessary seeing as how both Tsukihime and Fate/stay night pages already have information on their cause anyway. There is no way to infer their works on Kara no Kyoukai due to lack of a Kara no Kyoukai page, but that can easily be solved by making one. Also, no offense but, I do not believe Mirror Moon is notable enough to have their own wiki page... Mirioki 03:34, 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 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolve (translation group)[edit]

A group of hentai fans whose only claim to notability is that they're translating some games into English. Fails WP:V, since the only sources for their claims are their own website and some other fansites; also fails WP:VAIN, since the page seems to have been created by a member of the group. If this information belongs in Wikipedia, it is as a footnote on the pages for the games in question, not as a separate article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Moon. ArcherXRin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote Delete as nominator. ArcherXRin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --UsaSatsui 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge key details into articles on the games, where we have them. Most of the rest probably is unverifiable. On notability, see my comments above on the Mirror Moon AfD: there's no clear precedent that I know of. — Haeleth Talk 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article; there does exist a separate "dating sims and visual novels wiki" out there, and it strikes me that an article like this would very much be welcome at a place like that, but clearly, as the original poster states above, this fails WP:V and WP:VAIN in the context of Wikipedia. I do have a confict of interests to declare -- I am the lead translator of another such group, called "insani". I should like to note, though, that every single one of the edits I have committed to Wikipedia thus far have acted to strike out my group's name where I found the mention to fail WP:V as above. I believe that I am being as impartial as I can be with this vote. --Gp32 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  c 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete V concerns. Kotepho 19:55, 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. -- RHaworth 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimson robotics[edit]

plus Gimsonrobotics

Advertising/unnotable. Article was prodded but tag was removed. —Xezbeth 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Robotics is always interesting, but an online store isn't that notable. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As owner of article, I would like to suggest that you gave me time to extend my article portfolio before you delete the Gimson Robotics entry? I aim to extend detailed entries on the products offered and their uses - I cannot yet find entries for the items I aim to write about - and given time I would ultimately link to other entries from the Gimson Robotics article. Please could you state how this can be considered advertising when my aim is to create a useful free resource eventually. Thank you, Ewan Gimson --Gimsonrobotics 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Would expanding the article make it any less of an advert - of course not. And Gimsonrobotics please read ownership of articles. -- RHaworth 12:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete of both; right now, zero content. RGTraynor 16:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete even before author blanking, these were pure spamvercrutisment. Gwernol 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted How this got through to AfD, I just don't know.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Allen[edit]

troll skx 11:26, 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 speedy delete, per nominator, really. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-editor[edit]

troll skx 11:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the proof of the pudding!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Car and Motors[edit]

Another prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it over to AfD for discussion. The article is largely incoherent, but appears to be some kind of promotional effort of a nn concern. Eusebeus 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold This appears to be an Indian venture of some kind, that most wikipedians are likely to know very little about (see systematic bias). English-language google is likely to be of limited use as well. What I would really like is to be able to tag some problematic articles like this to allow a hold or timeout for a few days, in this case to try and recruit a couple of Indian editors to tell us whether this is a notable venture, and if so, to clean up the article. I have noticed that AfDs for some things get cross-posted to get more attention (webcomics and Australian issues being two areas that come to mind). Is there a similar forum for India-related articles? I guess I have no problem with deletion in its current form but I would prefer someone with more local knowledge to weigh in. Thatcher131 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This company is part of the Mittal Group, which is one of the two or three largest industrial empires in India. The article decidedly needs cleanup, but it certainly meets WP:CORP on the face of it. RGTraynor 16:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a merge to Mittal then so it can get the attention it needs? Eusebeus 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp notable companies, don't merge. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India which doesn't receive as much attention as the Australian or webcomic versions. Other nations such as the UK and Canadians post it to the national page. It takes some work to keep them up to date but in my view it is worth it. I look after Australia, New Zealand and Oceania and other editors look at the Australian articles as well. If Indian editors kept an eye on articles relevant to India, that would be good. I will add this to the Indian list. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:01, 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 no consensus - defaults to keep. No Guru 15:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Collar (album)[edit]

prodded but removed. Album has not yet been released. Eusebeus 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Crystalballism. PJM 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep announced albums on major labels. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:39, 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 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' it doesn't matter if it was released in 1900 or 2010. If it's an announced album that's going to be released, then it deserves it article for recognition. sharpdust 02:57, 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 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative statistics[edit]

prod by Grenavitar (unsourced, doesn't show it has a basis) removed, so bringing it to Afd. The content is nonsense, but potential content is covered at Statistics and related articles. Eusebeus 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. There may be a case for a good article on comparative statistics, if required as an offshoot of Statistics, but this article doesn't satisfy that requirement on any level.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Seems superfluous. PJM 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. There's a potential article if Statistics becomes large enough, but there's nothing here to merge into Statistics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arthur Rubin. Septentrionalis 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --C S (Talk) 10:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Disputed prod's should be brought to AfD, if the prod was in good faith. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see this discussion is already occuring on Eusebeus's and Monicasdude's talk pages, RFC's and other assorted places. I will further add that in this AfD, Eusebeus brought forth a different justification than the prod'er, even though that justfication is adquate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 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 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Onix[edit]

nominating Theory onixienne as well.

Not notable: this author's only book is self-published. See also fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Eddy Onix. _R_ 11:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable author, WP:BIO refers. Book doesn't appear on Amazon.co.uk nor on the British Library integrated catalogue.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept starts to be known. --Pgreenfinch 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion; also, composed so poorly as to almost be unreadable ka1iban 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. J-b 17:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promotion --Markadet fr 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Romary 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unknown among french constitutionnal law theorists/political scientists, in spite of the self-serving introduction. Author with a micro-following on the internet, trying to skew the WP decision-making process. GL 20:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The theory onixienne is a theory specialized in the federalism total. This speciality is not known general public. It is significant to speak about the theorists of the federalism total. Cordially --James08 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwu octuplets[edit]

Is being an octuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk 11:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think their listing in the Multiple birth article is sufficient. PJM 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an octuplet may not be notable for inclusion, but being the first set in which any members survive infancy confers notability on the set. Dsmdgold 23:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This case is very significant. Anthony Appleyard 17:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dsmdgold assuming that that claim can be verified. JoshuaZ 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 CNN references at least. Kotepho 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy_Rue[edit]

The subject (Rue) was a somewhat notorious poster in one single niche usenet group, and a such does not meet the notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) to merit his own Wikipedia entry. Prod removed by author without meaningful objection, so bringing it to AfD. Panzerb0y 12:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possible Speedy per A7 (bio). Kuzaar 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was popular in at least a dozen newsgroups, about a dozen popular forums, and has appeared in local TV and radio, and we're talking about two decades here, he most certainly meets the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. --72.236.44.169 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tim Rue and the VIC are very famous in the Amiga Community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.191.227 (talk • contribs)

  • Weak keep He isn't Kibo, but he was prolific. I would like to know more about the media mentions though. Kotepho 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - delete his entry he is an oxygen thief. Tim Rue is not a programmer (despite his own claims) and he was never a popular figure in the NGs except as a figure of fun. His appearances on his local TV, etc. mean nothing, he self promoted and his claims therein were not critically evaluated. The VIC is merely a set of scripts to automate some tasks - not even innovative since it was actually very similar to a previous Amiga application. He plagued usenet NGs (not just Amiga related) with his rants and was frequently banned by his ISPs. I agree he is well known but noteriety is not notability. The man (by his own admission) is mentally unstable and his claims for the VIC have never been substantiated. He gained his noteriety by abusive and OT posting not by being intelligent and posting worthwhile or interesting comments. If you leave this entry then you only pander to his self delusion that he is some sort of computing guru.

FYI he has also claimed to be a messiah and that the film "The Matrix" is based on his life!). A wacko.

Wikipedia does not have the resources to spend on verifying whether or not the claims others make about me are honest or acts of deception. This goes back to the original article. And simpler things to verify are not being considered, such as how contridictary it is for usent posters and trolls to claim they don't understand and are some sort of authority, yet I can hire a programmer to code the very same thing with no difficulty in communication. The wikipedia entry has been on the side of libel since its beginning and I only ever edited it to provide links to more current references (I said "ok" for a while.) Should I be supprised for it then to evolve to this state? Trolls are easy to manipulate and I did call on them (meat puppets you could claim - there is always a way to twist thing - simple bit flipping abstraction physics.) but not to keep the article. To remove it and it libel bias, if only for its lack of research to uncover honesty. I don't need to vote, the trolls are doing it for me and wikipedia make that possible. And doing it this way, I control it rather than me not know about it, while others use wikipedia to commit libel against me. People want to find me, there is google web, images and groups, and archive.org. Far more coverage than wikipedia could ever allow a single topic. And without the voting control of a few. That's what is real! By its own policies, wikipedia is not allowed to be an authoritive publication, to better cover its butt, perhaps such a statement should be a sub header on articles with potential issues. Even the trolls and bullies of usenet have helped me to establish prior art as in the virtual interaction configuration, by their helping to ingrain my communications about it into the archives.Wikipedia is not an archive, just another of many places I have passed, whether I knew about it or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeseas (talk • contribs)

  • keep and please do not call people a wacko that is very rude Yuckfoo 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As near as I can tell, Rue has not made any serious contribution to the field of computer science. His VIC project page appears febrile. Mostly, I can't understand its purpose; and to the degree I do understand its purpose, it appears non-notable. --Rob 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Individual Usenet posters, much like web-forum users, are rarely notable in an encyclopedic sense. Nothing in the article suggests this guy is any exception to the rule. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is alot of useless junk in usenet, a place where its easy to find those who have nothing better to do than to give others a hard time. But there is also some good stuff. And then there is the usefulness of it regardless of content value, that of multipule generated and integrated time stamps and archiving. The sort of thing that is useful for establishing prior art (re: patents and copyright issues). There are those who claim they don't understand what I'm on about and there are those who do. but the simple fact is, its an identification of unavoidable actions we all, everyone of us, apply in creating and using abstractions. In other words if someone doesn't understand these actions, it can only be due their inability to know what they themselves do. To make these actions available within the environment of computing, as functionality, simple provides the mechanism control points to enable the automation of anything, and by anyone. There is a battle over intellectual property in the form of software patents and this is what is going to break it. But that is "abstraction Physics" where the connection I (Tim Rue) have to it is making damn sure nobody can patent it, due prior art I've established thru usenet, and many other communications. Search google for "Tim rue and abstraction physics" and access the cache of teh wikipedia entry that was deleted under the arguement of it being original research. Why Amiga newsgroups? cause it was teh amiga that had all three primary user interfaces available in a usable and common enough manner that inspired me to toss together a very primitive form of the virtual interaction configuration. Or at least try to only to find there seemed to always be something lacking, but for no good reason. I know plenty enough about computer electronics and programming to know better, as I'm damn well sure others do as well.

A rather small collective of people gave me a hard time on usenet, but in a bigger picture, such as slashdot I have "excellent karma" it goes on and on and still this entry make a faulty claim that my posting style is difficult if not impossible for others to understand. Why? Further more the code to one of the VIC commands "IQ" can be run with a switch (the existance of a filename (see source code) that enable one to watch what the program does when it is run. After some simple editing of the arexx documentation for imageFX (and image process program), using IQ I was able to set in motion teh examples given in the documentation. QAlso see my comment the the discussion link to the article of my name.

As I have said, I'm findable thru google groups, web and images as well as archive.org. I don't need wikipedia, I didn't put myself here, especially if wikipedia is going to be used against its own policies to commit libel against me. I can except "computer specialist" as I am by default the leading authority on abstraction physics, but I don't crank out enough code (regardless of my education) to call myself a programmer in the traditional or old hat sense. T.Rue 03:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Kubik[edit]

Prodded by Quatloo as 802 google results returned for this person -- vanity page. Another deprod by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. This is almost certainly a self-authored page, and while that does not disqualify it for inclusion, the subject lacks notability. Eusebeus 12:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable San Saba 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, pending sourcing of the claim to be a five-time national weightlifting champion. RGTraynor 16:14, 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 14:09, 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 merge into Anchorage School District. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of elementary schools in the Anchorage School District[edit]

Prodded as Wikipedia is not a list repository and Possibly non-noteable, uses only one source (possible copyvio). It is in fact an exact replica of this list [[10]] cited at the bottom of the page. Eusebeus 12:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCaughey septuplets[edit]

Is being a septuplet enough to warrant inclusion? Delete as being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was notable enough to be a national news story in 1997. It was also notable enough to have an entire episode of The Simpsons based on the birth (Eight Misbehavin'). They're also the first set of septuplets where all 7 babies survived. However, that article as itis now is really ugly-looking. It needs improvement, but it should stay. --UsaSatsui 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think their listing in the Multiple birth article is sufficient. PJM 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't paper. It's culturally notable for sure. Would support a merge of this into the septuplet article (which could itself warrant and Afd actually). — Donama 13:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the first surviving set of septuplets is a reasonable claim to notability. As such, Keep. -Colin Kimbrell 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments. - RPIRED 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The delete arguments make sense, but so do the keep ones, but the article needs improvement - as I suspect the other multiple birth family articles do too. The Dilley sextuplets seems like an ad for Pergonal and has really unencyclopedic and WP:PEACOCK bits like "Clearly, the results speak for themselves. At the time of this writing, there is a website available to follow this remarkable family's progress at" Шизомби 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I remember the many, many news stories. Kotepho 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, something with this much news coverage makes it enough to warrant inclusion. How many septuplets are there out there, anyway... 7? 14? Mangojuice 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Made national and global news and appears to be enough relevant content to justify own article.--Cini 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good claim to notability, but I agree the article needs improving. Korinkami 18:15, 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 Speedy keep--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravé dans la roche[edit]

Prodded by Urthogie as Group might be notable, but album isn't. Also, please note that the claim that its been criticized by the French government is uncited. Prod removed by Kappa, so bringing it to AfD. Relevant points could be merged to Sniper Eusebeus 12:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 300,000 copies of this album were sold [11] and one song was discussed by the minister of the interior in the national assembly [12]. That's notable enough for me. David Sneek 13:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up article and include facts about notability, as the article currently does not assert its notability. If the artist is indeed notable (which I cannot find evidence of on AllMusic), this may merit an article of its own, but Kappa's constant removal of prod tags without explanation or addressing any of the underlying problems in the article has got to stop. Kuzaar 13:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to clean up? Also, you don't need to give an explanation when removing a prod tag. David Sneek 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to, but I consider it to be part of etiquette that when you say "I contest this deletion", that as part of that you explain why you think the article has merit. And when I said clean up, I should have more properly said Insert more content, because the article itself is a little sparse as it stands. Kuzaar 14:42, 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 14:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billi Bruno[edit]

According to Imdb, subject has only appeared in one episode. Delete for being non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 12:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that the IMDB listing is incomplete. According to her bio on ABC's page for the show, she's appeared regularly on the show for five seasons. -Colin Kimbrell 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has appeared regularly. Optichan 15:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's on the credited cast of the show, which just one single more keyclick demonstrates. RGTraynor 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the AFD was based on the info from IMDB, and other sources has proved otherwise, I hereby withdraw the AFD. Bjelleklang - talk 10:05, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Khaled[edit]

Prodded by SchmuckyTheCat as non-notable; prod removed so bringing it to AfD. Due to release a single album, but not until later this year. Eusebeus 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He apparently is a member of Terror Squad, which seems notable. Remove any crystalballisms, of course. PJM 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable for his work with the group. Could use cleanup, though, as it's mostly just a big album ad right now. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's got an Allmusic page, though it doesn't have much info beyond production credits for Terror Squad and Fabolous. He's also gotten media coverage in The Village Voice and Vibe, among other places, and while his album isn't out, the first single has apparently already been released. -Colin Kimbrell 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:11, 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 14:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little harsh.-Colin Kimbrell 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 17:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tang[edit]

Not notable enough for inclusion, does not pass WP:BIO in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Holds notable record; media coverage continuing more than a month after the event. [13] Feezo (Talk) 13:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The record makes him notable, and it received a LOT of media coverage. (Caveat: I created the page.) -Colin Kimbrell 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please also note that this is a different Michael Tang than the one who was deleted in March (who was apparently some sort of prank page for a H.S. student). -Colin Kimbrell 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a recognized record holder in a significant sport. There shouldn't be any question of deletion. RGTraynor 16:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Michael Tang is just barely worthy of an entry because of that record. Grandmasterka 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , laughs that's the same thing I thought when I saw the article created. I almost left a note on the talk of "At least he's real." Teke 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable record holder. Staxringold 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one.--blue520 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

That's our Haug![edit]

TV show that appears not to exist. Zero on google and tv.com. Weregerbil 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As a big supporter of this production I feel it is a excellent contribution to the wikipedia database and will be a useful arcticle in the coming months/years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublimefreedom (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Apparently it's a script that's being patented (??) and the article in no way asserts notability or consideration by any significant entity. However, for the record I'd like to say that I love the title of it. That's Our Haug! Kuzaar 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thankyou for the explanation into why the article was considered for removel and (thanks for the complement on the title!)however, is there any way that i can convince you the administrators to allow the article to appear on wikipedia, as it does have a strong fanbase and interests of many tv producers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacko 34 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would be prepared to change my vote if it could be demonstrated that this program actually EXISTS, which is usually a good start for an encyclopaedia entry. I hate the title btw. Should be changed to 'Haugie' or even better, 'Hoogie'. Or maybe 'Hangin' with Mr. Haug'. Badgerpatrol 14:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day ka1iban 14:12, 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 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summit avenue[edit]

Page is vanity/self-promotion for a small-town band. A Google search for "Summit Avenue" confirms the subject does not qualify as "of note" per Wikipedia guidelines ka1iban 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. BTW, it appears the author of the page removed a speedy delete tag on the page about a month ago.--Isotope23 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a candidate for speedy deletion though, since the article does make a limited claim of notability. Feezo (Talk) 06:13, 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 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumbo War[edit]

Describes a game played at a public school in Canada; the article appears to be written for the purpose of promoting an otherwise non-notable phenomenon. No Google hits. Delete. Choess 14:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dewar[edit]

The subject of this page does not seem prominent enough to appear in Wikipedia. Although the article has no references, I found the subject's homepage via Google. Dewar describes himself there as a "choral director, organist and conductor" but he has not held a major position with any well-known orchestra, choir or cathedral. His career as summarized on his homepage is no more distinguished than those of hundreds of other professional musicians working in the churches of England, none of whom appear in Wikipedia. No other Wikipedia pages link to this article. The history of this article shows that most of the content was created by a user "Drjad" who no longer exists. Other content was added by anonymous IPs. Grover cleveland 22:16, 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!
Mailer Diablo 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a brief news article about him performing at a church in Guyana. That's the best I can do for news coverage, and he doesn't have an Allmusic page. As such, I'd lean toward Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 04:55, 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. Thryduulf 16:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Zhi Min[edit]

A 14-year-old from Singapore who is apparently a super-genious of some sort, and also a "Jedeye Knight." This page is vanity, the person isn't notable, and there are certainly some hoax elements to it. Delete —LrdChaos 14:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7, tagged. Lots of hoaxy content, as well. PJM 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per PJM. Mangojuice 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per PJM. AlexTiefling 16:15, 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 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-shop[edit]

Non-notable new web-based company, no claim approaches WP:CORP, no Alexa rank. Prod removed without comment. Weregerbil 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I just checked the site. They barely have anything for sale. --Optichan 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--blue520 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity --Bachrach44 19:19, 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 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepover theory[edit]

Pure original research, unverifiable. No references given, no notability asserted. soUmyaSch 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --mtz206 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article even says it is OR. Accurizer 15:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... per nom.--Isotope23 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, it's OR. Delete.-Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the studio with me tonight I have Anne Elk. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Perceptive for a 14 year old, but ultimately an unremarkable observation. Peter Grey 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Bachrach44 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything above. Plus the spelling's pretty atrocious for a 14-year-old, wouldn't you say? ekedolphin 22:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel children[edit]

Prodded as neologism. Prod removed, so bringing it to AfD. Google returns 168 hits [[14]]. Term is neologistic - and exclusive to the Caribbean - although was used in print in Newsweek. Once. In 1996. Doesn't seem to have caught on and this is not the venue for its promotion. Eusebeus 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It seems like something that should get one line somewhere else, not its own article. --Ajdz 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NEO.--Isotope23 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism --Bachrach44 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ajdz's comments. San Saba 04:09, 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 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sword productions[edit]

nn company/website, contested prod. They seem to have a nice website with obviously homemade video on it; I couldn't find the website on a google search. Probable vanity, created by Jtbelliott (talk · contribs); the chairman of Broken sword productions is Joshua Elliott.

  • Delete as nominator. Mangojuice 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no IMDb credits, and no other significant sources of review or commentary make this unverifiable and rather nn. --Hetar 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.nn company fails WP:CORP--Dakota ~ 07:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per nomination. - Politepunk 10:42, 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 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EG Toons[edit]

nn website/comic, probable vanity, contested prod. Google search on "EG toons" could not come up with anything related to this, and google search for "broken sword productions" didn't yield anything either. (I have also nominated Broken sword productions, created by the same author, for deletion.

  • Delete as nominator. Mangojuice 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be non-notable. Just to nitpick, since this appears to be animation as opposed to sequential art, it generally wouldn't be considered a webcomic. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a spoof, I would have been happy for it to have been speedied WP:CSD - A7 - Politepunk 10:40, 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 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic factor[edit]

Delete Prod tag taken down, so I've brought this to afd. It is a nn 1 month old website and deserves deletion J.J.Sagnella 15:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN. Not even registering on the radar at Alexa, and there are a whopping total of seventeen pictures on this alleged date-match website. RGTraynor 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP, and, based on author's name, WP:VAIN. Fan1967 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. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scyle[edit]

Dicdef and/or neologism. Delete. Andy Saunders 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Normally I would suggest transwiki, but this is completely unsourced and is a blatant neologism. --bainer (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is not a neologism; it is just an obsolete word ([15]). SCHZMO ✍ 14:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, the opening line of the article is an obsolete word; but would you transwiki the rest of the article as well? Andy Saunders 14:38, 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!
Mailer Diablo 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The definition is the only part that should stay; that (and that only) could be transwiki'd. Mangojuice 16:04, 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. Chick Bowen 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norstar Boats[edit]

Non notable company; only 3100 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:49, 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!
Mailer Diablo 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I did some poking around, and I only get 211 ghits, but more importantly, it seems that there are a LOT of small producers of boats out there, and this one is not particularly important. I found a long list of boat manufacturers, and it didn't include Norstar boats [16], on an independent industry-guide page. Mangojuice 16:02, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectVideo[edit]

Non notable Tony Bruguier 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks notable from a Google search. --Allen 20:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not very notable from a google search[17] (451 unique hits). The company's website has an alexa rank of 720,404[18]. However, google news does returns 20 hits [19], and the website makes some fairly notable claims. Nevertheless, I do not believe that articles should remain where their notability is questionable and the article itself fails to assert or verify that notability. When a good article on the company comes along, let's (maybe) keep that.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:10, 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!
Mailer Diablo 15:23, 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. Chick Bowen 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Konundrum[edit]

While elaborate and detailed in its explanation, this article makes no actual claim to notability, and I'm having a hard time imagining one. It seems at best to be a piece of MITiana, but I don't think it's really relevant enough to mention there. I think this is a vanity page for the game's inventor. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created the article, and I'm not the game's inventor. It's one of the signature puzzle types at the MIT Mystery Hunt.--Mike Selinker 22:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to MIT Mystery Hunt. Minor games as part of a lightly less minor hunt don't seem to be article material. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 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!
Mailer Diablo 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; MIT Mystery Hunt already mentions it under "memorable puzzles," and its inclusion even there is dubious. Mangojuice 15:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, redundant to main article. However much this might shock their partisans, NFTMUISOD applies to MIT as well. While this competition seems notable, one of thirty or so individual puzzles within each one is no more worthy of an individual article than the Final Jeopardy question on tonight's Jeopardy show is ... and a lot more people will notice the latter than the former. RGTraynor 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's already mentioned at MIT Mystery Hunt. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twins-Yankees rivalry[edit]

This article is about a fairly non-notable "rivalry," if such a rivalry even really exists at all. As a Yankee fan living in Minnesota, I can honestly say that this "rivalry" probably only exists as part of a larger "everyone wants to beat the Yankees" thing, which was previously mentioned on the New York Yankees page but now seems to be missing. At any rate it doesn't warrant its own article. RPIRED 15:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Huh? A Twins-Yankees rivalry? (This just goes to show up the whole innately POV-haggard nature of sports rivalry sections.) RGTraynor 15:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see anything wrong with this article other than it being a stub. I don't think "non-notable" really applies here; why does a sports rivalry have to be one of the most important ones in order to have an article? I can imagine a perfect article, that would detail penant races and championship series played between the two teams. Just because nominator isn't aware of this as a rivalry doesn't mean the two teams aren't rivals. Mangojuice 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By this standard, again, you could call every baseball team a "rival" of every other team. Playing a couple of playoff series against each other doesn't create a "rivalry" except perhaps in the minds of a few people. It's certainly not widely noted. -Sparklemotion 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't even pretend to be notable or NPOV. At best, it's original research. Nothing has been written about a "rivalry" existing between these two teams. You could create an equally "notable" article on the Yankees and virtually any AL team.Sparklemotion 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-existant. I would not eve rate this in the top 100 rivalries in MLB, if I could even come up with that many. youngamerican (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theoretically, you could create 495 rivalries among the 30 teams, 200 or so if you kept them within each league. Realistically, there are a handful of notable ones: Red Sox-Yanks, Cards-Cubs, Dodgers-Giants, some others. This isn't one of the notable ones. Fan1967 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more of a rivalry here than between most of the other 28 teams and the Yankees. BryanG 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because non-Yankee fans hate the Yankees that doesn't mean it's a notable rivalry, they're not even division rivals. Dspserpico 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Fan1967's math. --Ajdz 05:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is a notable stub. lets let it grow into something more. Interestingstuffadder 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There are a lot of great rivalries in sports. This isn't one of them. --Bachrach44 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yawn. Non-notable fabricated rivalry. Merge anything worthwhile into New York Yankees, which should mention that everyone and his mother outside of the New York area hates them. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 22:04 UTC
  • Delete per Fan-1967. Original research at best. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of theater architects[edit]

Prodded as 1 year old list never expanded beyond 2 entries, one of them a redlink and deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. This classification doesn't really exist, so this list would seem to be effectively spurious. Eusebeus 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a handful of bytes who want to be free. They would like to be part of an important article, and not uphold this listcruft. Delete per nom, that these poor downtrodden bytes be set free to bigger and better magnetising. RGTraynor 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand The "byte argument" is a good one, but I can't help but feel this could still be a useful link page with the addition of more architectural numeraries like Christopher Wren and Inigo Jones or modern ones like I.M. Pei or Dominique Perrault ka1iban 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC) revote Delete - the existence of a "theatre architects" category makes this list superfluous[reply]
  • Delete. There is a more extensive Category:Theater architects. Should someone get a calling to re-create a useful list of theatre architects, this is a better starting point. I wonder though when an architect becomes a "theatre architect" -- I mean it would be strange to read something like "The Indiana University Art Museum was designed by the famous theatre architect I.M. Pei." By the way, I've resolved the redlink. LambiamTalk 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hey, what about Padres-Mariners, an utterly non-existent rivaly invented by MLB a few years ago in the name of spicing up interleague play (and insulting the intelligence of the fans). -- GWO


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer size[edit]

Incoherent. Utterly unencyclopaediac soUmyaSch 15:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a computer buyers' guide. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless and wrong. Probably just a silly joke. --positron 16:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless as a buyer's guide as well as being unencyclopaedic. -- Mithent 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per above. Chairman S. Talk 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 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 merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantia Technologies[edit]

nn Tony Bruguier 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nowhere[edit]

NN, WP:BIO, WP:BAND ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as non-notable vanity bio by author "Brian Nowhere". Mr. Nowhere is not even excited about himself. --Lockley 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:32, 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. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Science of Soulmates[edit]

This is patent self-promotion of a book. (Using three different user IDs but one of them claims pd-self for the book cover image.) Is the book notable? -- RHaworth 06:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Wiki can't end up with articles on a million books. Besides which, books which have a niche market can be notable within that and not have mass appeal. The numbers game is only one yardstick. This book has been given a good accolade in the review of it. The current article is not good, I agree. Tyrenius 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, not truth. Whilst it is true that this book exists, you need to (at least) assert what makes it notable. Batmanand | Talk 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it has recognition within the market that would be interested in the genre, as in the review: "by far the most outstanding piece of work I have read in the genré of soul-mates." Interestingly Notability talks of authors, "who have written books with an audience of 5,000" (as opposed to sales—which are less than "audience" figures). The web site for the book has had 15,955 unique visitors to date, so the author may qualify for an article, even if the book doesn't. Tyrenius 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Audience is usually defined as people who have read the book, or studied it, or in some way has significant interaction with it. Going to a website is not significant interaction. So let us - conservatively - divide the number of website views by ten, and then - liberally - triple the sales (cos people might buy it anyway). Even on that measure, we are not yet up to 5,000. Batmanand | Talk 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Audiences come in all types and some are very inattentive. All we know is that there are as of today's date 16017 "unique" visitors, and 17333 including reloads. The latter figure using your calculations actually comes to 5199. But, hey, let's not get all legalistic about it. The book might even help someone to find their soulmate - that would be useful. Tyrenius 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable; very, very low Amazon sales rating. The Amazon rank would appear to indicate the book rank among present books in print. Overall rank would be much lower. So how is this notable? It's more likely that this is a promotional page. As for the review by a Dr. Maryel McKinlay, I found exactly one link to her name in google. Guess where that linked? :-) — RJH 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it's McKinley, not McKinlay. She seems well enough qualified on her website, and this is Awareness magazine. Notability is not the only, nor a rigid, criterion for inclusion.
Tyrenius 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I still have to agree with the nom. Sorry. — RJH 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. My only reason for wanting to keep this is the review by the good Dr McKinley, who is established in this field, and rates the work:"“The Science of Soulmates” is by far the most outstanding piece of work I have read in the genré of soul-mates. Henderson literally takes off where Redfield’s Celestine Prophecy ended, exploring some of the most challenging studies on life and love I have seen." This evaluation to me makes it notable in a different way to the usual standard. I would like to think Wiki has the flexibility to take each case on its own merits. It is not vanity (any more) as I have copy-edited the article. I expect consensus will be to delete, and, if so, full accept this. However, I have to be honest, that I would like to retain this article. Tyrenius 16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No signs of notability. IrishGuy 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Blatant advertising, no encyclopedic content. Peter Grey 18:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I edited out some of the "vanity" links, so article is just informative. There are some decent reviews. I think notoriaty should not equal popular culture, as this is often served to us ready-made by corporations for our mindless consumption. Do we let corporations control what we put on a "free" encylopedia?Darxsilver

"The web site for the book has had 15,955 unique visitors to date, so the author may qualify for an article, even if the book doesn't. Tyrenius 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)" Perhaps just change the title of the article to the Authors name if this is the case?[reply]

comment 16,000 visitors since 3 June 2003 isn't really that amazing. That's really only about 5,500 hits a year. Not exactly notable. IrishGuy 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable book. Sandstein 05:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per low amazong ranking, and observation by Irishguy, the author could maybe count for an article, the book by itself certainly not. JoshuaZ 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the book's publisher, "BookSurge Publishing", appears to actually be a vanity press. And regarding the 5,500-website-hits-a-year claim above, that's really nothing by modern web standards. My personal website, which also isn't notable, got about 200,000 hits last month alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_American_Lackey[edit]

nn. There is no Alexa ranking. Google gives a couple of hundred hits, many of which are due to this article. I have yet to find any sign of notability and the article itself simply states that it is growing in popularity with nothing to back it up. IrishGuy 08:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, I can't find any related Google non-Wikipedia hits. TimBentley (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability. --Ajdz 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milford Magazine[edit]

Single sentence article about a small non notable regional magazine. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The magazine's own web site claims a circulation of 15,000 and looks to be distributed for no cost. --Lockley 22:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since standard notability requirement for print-related subjects is 5000. Monicasdude 22:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I get a free newspaper every week on my doorstep called the "Penny Saver" which is entirely composed of paid advertisements. No matter how many people get it, it will never be notable. However, this magazine appears from its web site to be a bit more professionally done. I would like the article to be expanded, but in the meantime keep pending expansion is better than delete and recreate. I also notice that the article was a new editor's first contribution, and no one has bothered to add a note to his/her talk page. Thatcher131 20:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lockley, as Monicasdude noted. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:11, 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 17:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Asian Boyz[edit]

non-notable gang with only 19 unique goggle hits [20] mostly Wikipedia related. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 19:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:37, 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 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre chronological reading order[edit]

Fancruft, blatant copyvio and above all, unnecesary, considering we don't apply it to other comic characters. Kusonaga 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Tone 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if there is any way to avoid the list being a copyvio. I'm not familiar with the spectre, but he seem to be a notable comic book character, and a list of this type is useful to anyone interested in the listed comics. --Joelmills 23:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be much more useful to just note significant issues, rather than giving a whole chronological reading order. Better yet, a link to the page it's from would be just as a handy, and wouldn't clutter the wiki. Kusonaga 06:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Useless clutter -- Hirudo 18:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - main article's external links already link to this information elsewhere. No reason to use wikipedia as a mirror. --Ajdz 05:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unnecessary. As Ajdz has stated, the external links on the main article cover this subject fine.--Cini 08:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's either copyvio or original research. It can't be niether. Herostratus 14:54, 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 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skimi[edit]

It sounds like it should be a word, but quick websearches don't give it much support Dangherous 21:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified almost-dicdef, as it stands. I also can't find a single mention of it, at least anywhere I can understand. -- Mithent 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as an unverified dicdec. --Hetar 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verification and for being a mere definition --Ajdz 05:10, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shourov[edit]

Bengali slang term. It's in wrong alphabet for a start Dangherous 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as foreign language dicdef. -- Mithent 02:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 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 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaaa[edit]

A slang interjection. I doubt even Wiktionary want it, although they do have similar articles like aarrgh, rowrbazzle and shazbot Dangherous 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak transwiki or delete. I think it might be good enough for wiktionary (it is used, but it's really just "sure",) definitely not for here. Would never be more than a dicdef. Grandmasterka 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seriously doubt Wiktionary wants it. --Eivindt@c 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it doesn't even have a known spelling. --Ajdz 05:14, 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 no claim to notability/lacked context. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3c student ministries[edit]

Non notable organization soUmyaSch 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: no assertion of notability + a very very short article that only restates the title and includes a link. --Hetar 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great plague of norway[edit]

Prodded as orphan article by anon IP 9 months old, never expanded, no sources. Deprodded by Kappa so bringing it to AfD. In addition to the reasons cited by prod, I would add that this: (1) the term does not exist; (2) the article is factually incorrect (there is no way to measure the highest mortality levels of the Black Death in Europe, but given its deadliness in cities, the highest death rates were recorded in more urbanised areas, such as the various Italian city states. (3) Finally, the plague in Norway should be covered at History_of_Norway. This should not be merged since the information is inaccurate. Eusebeus 15:47, 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 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OUTniagara[edit]

Notability not established; 53 google hits; Special:Whatlinkshere/OUTniagara is empty; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Cutler. Delete Qviri (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn org. dbtfztalk 05:20, 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 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack 9[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Previously prod'ed by Jahiegel; notice removed with no reason or claim to notability given. Possible hoax or exaggeration (born in 1988 and has multiple children... in Surrey, BC?) discospinster 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The page "Mack 9" has been worked on by a couple of people who have close ties to the rapper. Unfortunate for him, not everyone is friends with him and people like to create havoc. Most of the page is correct and those items that are incorrect and being attempted to be corrected ("...father of mandeep..." "...multiple children...") It would be beneficial to allow for his page to be corrected and not deleted due to reasons beyond the rappers control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krack3rdud3 (talk • contribs)
    • See WP:OWN. Verifiable info that may not be flattering to the rapper is allowed. Ardenn 04:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mack 9 released his official debut album, titled "Premature", on Friday, June 17th, 2005, at 11:50am... To date, Premature has sold 39 copies, with the album still available for purchase today." He's no, uh, White Dawg. Delete. Samaritan 03:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordancee with "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" from WP:MUSIC the site is eligable to be kept up. It follow the "...most prominent representative of...the local scene of a city..."


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zimmerman[edit]

Prodded as WP:BIO -- minor political figure, prod removed, welcome to AfD. He ran, he lost, he's doing his Masters. Eusebeus 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable person. When he wins a national job, we'll create him an article.Obina 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because a person runs for political office does not make them notable. Rishodi 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author and person who is discussed in this article. I feel the need to make a few points. WP:BIO is not a Wikipedia policy, just a criteria. The page clearly states that the concept of notability is contentious. The political process that makes Democracy like governments great is the participation of those people who win and lose. To claim that those who lose elections are not important is silly. Anyone seeking to do any research on Congressman Bobby Jindal (a "notable person" by the guidelines listed by those above) should be able to get data on all of his opponents. Wikipedia would be an incomplete reference if it only contained information about the winners and failed to mention those who tried to win the seat but lost. I also was not notified of this potential action taken against the article, as suggested by the Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette| Afd Etiquette DanielZimmerman 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet here you are already, mere hours after the nomination. I also feel the need to make a few points:
  • I checked the page randomly. There are several policy guidelines that where ignored that are listed on the Articles for Deletion page DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO is not a Wikipedia policy, just a criteria. Immediately falling back on legalisms instead of actual arguments is generally a bad sign. Ignoring the guidelines, ignoring the reasoning behind the guidelines, and ignoring the precedents of following the guidelines: these don't help your case.
  • I did not fall back on "legalisms", I merely stated a comment that exists on the WP:BIO page. If I have a policy violation then I expect to be notified and/or to have that violation fixed. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To claim that those who lose elections are not important is silly. Doesn't even rise to the level of argument.
  • I was trying to be brief. The political process relies on people who come forth and discuss the issues. Those who fail to gain the support of the voters still play an important part in the shaping of public policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source. So why would you only include references to the winners of elections? It makes no sense. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.
Having basic standards of notability is what keeps this place from becoming the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information. However, Wikipedia is also supposed to be unbiased. If Wikipedia will only contain information about the winners of election, it can hardly be said to be unbiased. Should every person on the face of the Earth have a wikipedia page? Absolutely not. However, those to take part in the political process, win or lose, play an important part. Obviously Wikipedia agrees that those who run and win are worthy of mention. The Wikipedia 2004 House Results page not only mentions those candidates who ran in all races; it also links to their pages. If Wikipedia did not want pages for people who run for office then why does that page link to each and every candidate? (Not all have pages that have been started. However, all of them have links). DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The losers of national elections are deserving of mention. However, that does not mean that each one deserves an entire article devoted to their person. As far as I'm concerned, the only significant information I'd want to know pertaining to losers of elections who are otherwise non-notable is their political party and the voting results by tally and percentage, which is most easily listed in a collective article such as the one to which you linked. If you could update the article to meet WP:V and WP:BIO by noting references, especially those to "significant media coverage" as has been mentioned, then I would change my vote to keep. On a side note, my high school civics teacher ran for state senate as an independent party candidate. He ran quite a campaign, and received a significant number of votes, but lost (as is usually the case with independent party candidates). All of his students, including myself, thought it was quite a remarkable event given the amount of effort he put into campaigning. Despite my opinion of him, which is that he was a great teacher and person and would have made an excellent state senator, I do not think him notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The same goes for you; it's nothing personal. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the people who participated in Congressional elections are not "deserving" of a Wikipedia page then why does the 2004 Congressional Race section of Wikipedia include links to each and every page belonging to each and every candidate in that race? I could understand your point IF that page was written and only included textual references of the candidates. However, the page includes links to Wikipedia pages of each and every person who ran. Please tell me what "significant media coverage" is and I will endeavor to link to each and every article that is available. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an editor of that page made each person's name a link does not mean that each one of them is notable enough for his or her own article in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:BLP and the other guideline references on this page, and find as many credible sources to cite in your article as possible. The only way this article will not be deleted is if you prove notability using multiple verifiable sources. As the article currently stands, I would guess that there is some media coverage on the election information presented in the first paragraph, but as for the last two paragraphs, if the information presented there cannot be verified, then it is vanity information and should be removed. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the editor of that page make each person's name linked if the editor did not think all where deserving of a Wikipedia page? The page can be created with plain text for the names of candidates and when one of those candidates has a page that is added, the Election page could then be edited. On the verifiable issue, I have just added some pages linking to several different sources verifying certain facts stated on the election. Some of those pages not only mention the races, but they also mention the information in the next paragraphs. (For example, articles referring to the election mention the fact that I am seeking my Masters in Computer Science). DanielZimmerman 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking is a common problem. --Ajdz 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good luck with that political career, but politician wannabe articles are nuked all the time. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. It is also problematic on WP:Vanity grounds. The concensus on political candidates is unsuccessful candidates must be notable on other grounds or attracted significant media attention to establish verifiablity. It would probably be best in Daniel Zimmerman not work on his own article. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "significant media attention"? Who defines it? On who should be creating the page about me, I could have created a Wikipedia name that was not my own and then pretended to be someone else when I make edits to Wikipedia but I have nothing to hide. If you can point out points in the article where I have been "vain" then point them out and i will edit them (or edit them yourself). It seems to be "odd" at the very least to think that had I posted my own article with an ambiguous Wikipedia name and pretended to not be me that this would be an issue. If my honesty is a detrement to my contributions on Wikipedia, then what does that say about Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your "vanity" is evident in the sole fact that you did indeed write a page about yourself. See WP:AUTO. If you are deemed notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then inevitably someone else would write an article about you. This alone is not a reason for deletion, however it certainly does not help your case. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had intended on writing pages on every candidate in the 2004 Race for Louisiana's First Congressional District. Unfortunately many of them had taken their own websites down as sources. I still intend on doing so based on the news reports of the election. Again, the Wikipedia page devoted to the 2004 Election provides for pages that discuss ALL people who ran, not just the winners. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You contend that every losing candidate is notable enough for their own article; however, given the results of this AfD page alone, this is obviously not the consensus of Wikipedia's editors.
  • Delete - WP:AUTO and claim to fame appears to be losing three elections, one of which was a 74 point defeat and the other two were for offices so minor as to lack articles themselves. This is what user pages are for. --Ajdz 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Barely notable and has all the signs of a vanity article. As the above have mentioned, also falls under WP:AUTO and fails to satisfy the necessary conditions for WP:BIO--Cini 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will again point out that if I had been "sneeky" I could have created a user name on Wikipedia that was not my name. Then nobody would have known who created the article. So my honesty is causing the "vanity" issue because I was honest in presenting who I was to the Wikipedia community. If the decision is made to delete because "I" created my own article then all you are doing is forcing people to be dishonest when creating pages where they have something to do with the subject of the article. If I was being vain in the article itself then I would see the point of vanity. DanielZimmerman 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you're completely missing the point. Have you even read WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO? It does not exist to encourage users to be dishonest, it exists to discourage users from including information about themselves that cannot be verified, is not notable, or is not written in neutral point of view. Had you been "sneaky", you probably still would have been discovered eventually. I imagine that the personal information you have included in the last two paragraphs is very difficult to verify, and that clue alone suggests that the editor who provided that information was someone personally connected to the article's subject. The issue is not your honesty, it's the fact that you wrote an article about yourself, regardless of the means you used to do so. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed articles that verify information in all of the paragraphs, not just the candidate paragraph. Some facts are verified on Wikipedia itself (the fact that I am an alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute is verified on Wikipedia. Other facts, like me seeking my Masters Degree in Computer Science are verified in the articles pertaining to my running for office. Everything that I have put up there should already be verified by the information that I just linked to. If there are small bits of information that are not verifiable then I understand removing those small pieces but not the whole article. But the vast majority of information in all paragraphs has been verified and none of the information has "POV" issues. Those two issues are Wikipedia policy and I HAVE followed them. Notability is NOT Wikipedia policy. However, someone thought I was notable enough to be listed under the Notable Alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is not a valid vote. A speedy keep can never be called for if other users have voted to delete. I would also point out that Monicasdude is systematically following Eusebeus around and pasting this exact same comment to any AFD he nominated today. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. It is a valid vote per speedy keep criterion 4, which expressly authorizes such a vote on grounds of disruption/bad faith/WP:POINT violation unless those claims have been rejected by prior delete votes. Read the policy more carefully. Monicasdude 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Physician, heal thyself. Kuzaar 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Irrespective of the spirit in which the nomination was brought, other delete "votes" resting on adequate, independent grounds had been cast, so "speedy keep" is likely inappropriate, even in view of criterion four. If the argument is to be that, where a nomination is thought to be brought in bad faith, any deletes that espouse the same position as the nomination ought to be discarded under criterion four (or ought not to be recognized for the purposes of closing a debate as "speedy keep"), we are left then with the prospective situation in which a nomination, evidently brought in bad faith yet nevertheless justified on other grounds enumerated by the nominator, is to be closed as "speedy keep" even where our guidelines, generally, would seem to militate in favor of "delete". Joe 02:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ran, lost, forgotten. -- GWO
  • Delete: Had he won his run for the House of Reps he'd be notable, but until he does, nn. Kuzaar 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- JamesTeterenko 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see my comment on the discussion page of WP:BIO about the addition and deletion of political candidates. In breif, if holding a certain office is enough to gain notability then running for that office should be enough to gain notability. Otherwise, wikipedia will be seen as biased towards certain candidates in a race. Either, we cover all candidates in a race or we cover none. It is that simple. DanielZimmerman 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wanted to provide some interesting links that I have found on Wikipedia wondering why these are deserving of articles while political candidates for major offices are not.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be a place where people can do research. I find it much more plausible that someone would want to get information about former congressional candidates than about an Inanimate Carbon Rod. DanielZimmerman 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as self-promotion. Information on Daniel Zimmerman could only belong in the article on Bobby Jindal, who won the election, in a section that talked about the 2004 congressional election. I can hardly imagine it would read more than "Bobby Jindal won the election handily, with more than 78% of the vote. His opponents were Roy Armstrong (D), M. V. Mendoza (D), Daniel Zimmerman (D), Jerry Watts (D), and Mike Rogers (R), none of whom earned more than 7% of the vote." Mangojuicetalk 14:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its no wonder why so few people run for office or even have an interest in politics. The way you people trivialize those who take part in a major election is really disgusting. What % do you think makes a candidate "notable" enough to qualify for your approval? I was PROUD of my campaign, not necessarily because of the results but because I was able to help victims of Hurricane Ivan by collecting goods to be donated to them. The ONLY reason I dont have that information on the page currently is because there was no news coverage of that event so under Wikipedias policy it would not be verifiable. But people are willing to let campaigns for national office to be forgotten because of some %. I also want to state, yet again, that if Wikipedia allows for one candidate to be listed then it should allow for all candidates to be listed otherwise it will be seen as biased towards certain candidates and against others. DanielZimmerman 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: People who sell 5000 copies of a book are somehow notable enough to get listed on Wikipedia but someone who got over 12000 votes for a national political office is not notable enough? What sense does that make? If selling 5000 books (not a large number of books to be sold) is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia then someone who received more than 5000 votes in an election should also be notable enough to have an article. Ill stop editing my own page and allow others to remove all that is not verifiable from the articles listed to stop the idea of self promotion. DanielZimmerman 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious Autobiography of a basically non-notable erstwhile politican, borders on a Vanity Page--WilliamThweatt 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that this "vote" be overlooked because of a current disagreement between myself and William on the topic of Sean Hannity. DanielZimmerman 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Disagreements" are common on WP, if fact, "disagreement" are probably par for the course here. It is only through mutual, logical dialogue and constructive debate that meaningful articles will be created. If we all were constantly in agreement, there would be no need for "talk pages", "AfDs", "RfCs", etc. I submit that a "disagreement" at another article is not a valid reason to discount my opinion regarding this one. I constantly monitor the AfD page, nominate AfDs and vote in AfDs in my areas of expertise often. Please, per the WP guidelines Mr. Zimerman, assume good faith concerning my ability to be objective.--WilliamThweatt 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not assume good faith in my edit of the Sean Hannity page, describing the change as "petty". Your entrance into this discussion was made only after you made that comment. Had you assumed good faith towards me perhaps I would have been able to assume good faith on your part. You have also stated that you will go back and revise the Sean Hannity article tomorrow based on nothing but your own opinion and not based on any attempt to reach a consensus FIRST and have shown that you will not be acting in good faith in that discussion. You have shown that when it comes to the Sean Hannity article you will not be attempting any "mutual, logical dialogue" or any "constructive debate" and that you will unilaterally remove my addition to the Sean Hannity article when I have provided multiple, verifiable, sources that show Sean Hannity incorrectly representing the Preamble. Why would I beleive that you would act in good faith in this discussion as well? DanielZimmerman 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Again, you are obfuscating the facts. I described the incident you wished to include as "petty", not your efforts themselves. I have made every effort on that talk page to present logical arguments and rebuttals but you refuse to engage in discussion and simply state the same thing over and over. I haven't reverted your POV because I refuse (good faith) to engage in an edit war. As for "unilaterally", I offered to submit (good faith) to mediation, you have not responded and therefore leave me no other choice.--WilliamThweatt 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment on this topic: This is my final comment on this issue. If this issue was merely about WP:BLP then I would simply appologize for being ignorant of that specific Wikipedia policy. I pledge from now on to follow the guideline about not writing about myself and would hope that others would also follow the same suggestions that are presented about dealing with newbies like myself.

This conversation is about more than just WP:BLP, it is also about notability. Perhaps it seems vain that I am making a stand on the notability issue on the article that I wrote about myself. However, I personally do not care if I have a Wikipedia page about me. My life will go on just fine without it and if it is the opinion that my page should be deleted then so be it. That does not change the fact that I strongly disagree with those who wish to delete ANY article just because the topic of the article is not deemed "notable" by that user's standards. My proposed compromise would be that someone else should go through the article and delete all of the information that is not verifiable, and making sure that the remaining information is follows the NPOV policy. And i will only stick my head in to the page in the manner deemed appropriate by the BLP polcy. We can then go to the other places like WP:BIO and WP:AfD and start the discussion over there as to what political races and candidates should qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.DanielZimmerman 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn person. Does not pass WP:BIO. Also a little comment: Even if other less-notable people or subjects have articles here on Wikipedia, it does not mean that they set the lower limit for notability. Wikipedia has more than one million users, and as I see it the only person who can set a definitive notability requirement would be Jimbo himself! Thus we are likely to find some articles being kept even if the subject is less notable than others being deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lest malign motive should be imputed to my vote, as it has been to others', I should say that I've been a Bobby Jindal critic since before The Weekly Standard and National Review fell in love with him. Notwithstanding that, though, the subject is non-notable; it is clear that, of the sundry details of his bio, only his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives might confer notability, but unsuccessful candidates for the U.S. House are not notable exclusively in view of their candidacies (recognizing WP:NBD, I would nevertheless observe that we've arrived at the conclusion that unsuccesful candidates are not de facto notable on several AfDs of late). There are candidates who, as a result of events during a given campaign, become notable, but solely standing for election, even as the nominee of a major party, does not a notable bio make. DZ's position that, where verifiable and neutrally constructed, all articles, irrespective of the notability of their subjects, ought to be kept is often essayed, but there is surely not a consensus for that view (neither, further, do I think ever there will be nor do I think ever there should be). Joe 02:54, 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 no consensus. Default to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar of the Hill People[edit]

Prodded as This is a very minor (i.e., non-notable) SNL skit, prod removed, bringing to AfD. Reiterate reason from the prod: More Cowbell this is not. Eusebeus 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NN minor character/sketch. Also, article doesn't verify its information and contains speculation, but even if verified: still too minor. Шизомби 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who prodded it. Brian G. Crawford 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the time, Lothar of the Hill People was an amusing sketch that was spoken of between my peers. Will More Cowbell be as popular as it is now 10 years from now? If sketches are to be included the Lothar of the Hill People which, I believe was a repeated sketch, should also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into a page of minor SNL sketches. Failing that, Delete. Kuzaar 17:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge if you can find something appropriate to merge it into, otherwise delete. --Bachrach44 19:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either keep and expand, or merge it and other "non-notable" (it's one of the few I DO know) sketches into a page of minor sketches Plutoniumboss 04:34, 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. Mailer Diablo 05:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical comparison of economy cars 2006[edit]

Prodded by R3m0t, deprodded, so brought to AfD. This looks more like something from Consumer Reports than an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 16:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without setting precedent that all such comparisons will be kept - I think comparisons can be encyclopedic. I do think we need some sort of standard for what comparisons are notable enough to be included. I'm tempted to list some that we should not have, but that would violate WP:BEANS. Johntex\talk 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, what is the long term usefulness of this information? In 2010, who is going to care how 3 arbitrarily selected vehicles stacked up? Why just these 3 vehicles? Where is the 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid? I imagine there are at least a few other cars that meet this criteria. Beyond that, where did this definition of "economy car" come from? What is to stop me from arbitrarily deciding that "economy cars" only need to get 30 mpg and add another 20 vehicles to the list... or decide that hybrids are not included and remove the 3 cars currently listed? This concept is just not in any way maintainable.--Isotope23 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. This isn't Consumer Reports.--Isotope23 21:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, helps users to understand the variety of economy cars in existence circa 2006. Kappa 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, information that may be valuable to interested users. I would like to see some kind of standard for the inclusion of this kind of material in the future, though. Kuzaar 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean US-specific, arbitarily defined, time-limited data? That's not the standard I'd care to see. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. On consideration, you're probably right, there's no real way to make a standard for this subject without including arbitrarily large amounts of information, which Wikipedia is not. On consideration, delete unless there's an appropriate place found for this information. Kuzaar 03:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Oh man, what's right with this? US-centric, completely subjective criteria for inclusion, only three cars on the list, arbitrary subject matter, etc. Let Consumer Reports do this. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm the original author. It helps people research what alternatives people had with concern to global warming and smog. Initial cars chosen are best in class. For example Honda Fit was rated best by "Car and Driver". I'm expecting more cars will be added. All cars chosen are sold on a global basis. Daniel.Cardenas 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just can't see how this would become a complete list, which is certainly what it should aspire to. No need to invite readers to use WP to make their own original comparisons, ala the consumer reports case made above. Great idea, wrong place. Comment from author "Initial cars chosen are best in class" shows subjective nature of lists of this type. Deizio 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an absolutely ridiculous reason to vote keep. If you are going to vote keep at least do it on the merits of the article. Base it on whether or not articles based on arbitrary comparisions are encyclopedic or not.--Isotope23 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, a comment like this is tantamount to a personal attack on the nominator. Kuzaar 14:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This cannot be speedy kept, as there are already other votes to delete. Please assume good faith. I agree with Kuzaar and Isotope23. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very subjective criteria and arbitrary selection of cars for comparison Barneyboo (Talk) 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Criteria constitute original research, US-centric, bad precendent, unencyclopedic. Yuck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's just a duplicate of Comparison of economical cars, created after I put it up for deletion on the same grounds. — AKADriver ☎ 06:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (and yes, I realize that Comparison of economical cars was edited to be just a redirect to this article.)[reply]
  • Delete per deletion reasonings above. DVD+ R/W 06:20, 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 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phrenicea[edit]

Non-notable website - original research. Deprodded.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity article pointing to pure original research. Gwernol 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Ajdz 05:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following two votes have been moved from the first nomation, since they were added there by mistake. --lightdarkness (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website - original research. Dlyons493 Talk 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Something went wrong with the AfD.[reply]
  • I see no sources. Delete unless the article can be made verifiable by reputable sources. Friday (talk) 19:38, 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) 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gray (sculptor)[edit]

Contested prod by RHaworth who noted vanity - author is Bruce Gray so bringing it to AfD. Clearly a self-authored page, although on its own that is simply distasteful, not actual grounds for deletion. Eusebeus 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even though vanity articles are not good form, it seems to meet WP:BIO "...sculptors... whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". Clean up and expand.--blue520 17:00, 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 14:01, 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 Keep with strong recommendation to merge to Races in the Warcraft universe as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal (Warcraft)[edit]

Prodded by Nifboy as minor warcraft monster and then deprodded, so here it is at AfD for a full airing of views. Eusebeus 16:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Proto as a nn group (CSD A7). --Hetar 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bepop[edit]

Prodded by Bruce1ee as Non-notable band - no information provided to satisfy WP:MUSIC and then deprodded so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Grandmasterka 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And deleted - this needs closing. -- Mithent 20:30, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me to Your Leader (Hawkwind album)[edit]

Prodded as No indication that WP:BAND is met (which is patently false) and then deprodded. Album's notability, however, is not yet established, as the content and style of the article make rather clear, since it has attracted no cleanup. Eusebeus 16:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very notable band and their first studio album in five years. Needs a cleanup but should be kept. Keresaspa 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Keresaspa — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable band that's been around for the better part of forty years. RGTraynor 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like Hawkwind, but they totally meet and exceed WP:BAND and and album from them is notable. Should be moved to Take Me to Your Leader (album) though for consistancy. --Isotope23 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for sure but should be put into standard album entry format as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums Ac@osr 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is now in proper format.Ac@osr 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No evidence of bad faith nomination here. Please render opinions on the basis of the merits of the article, not the nomination. Besides, calling the nomination into question here borders on WP:POINT since the opinions already rendered make it blatently obvious this will be kept.--Isotope23 15:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept with merge tag. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket broker[edit]

Prodded by JSIN as unverifiable, seems to be pushing a POV, unencyclopaedic, reads more like a guide, covered at Ticket resale, deprodded, and so bringing it to AfD. Eusebeus 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Point of view. Or better still boldly redirect to Ticket resale. Obina 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Sad that after all this time there are no links to/from this article, such as the above mentioned Ticket scalping (redirects to Ticket resale). Apart from all the already deleted link spam, what this documents is another category of ticket vending. There must be somewhere to put this. Shenme 20:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to Ticket resale.San Saba 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect --Ajdz 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see for instance [21] (search "ticket broker"). Perfectly reasonable information. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this information is reasonable Yuckfoo 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ticket resale; that article should probably have more information about legal scalpers "brokers," but without the POV of this one. --phh (t/c) 19:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to ticket resale. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Llama[edit]

Internet drama neologism, non-encyclopedic, dictionary definition. Christopherlin 17:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a dicdef of a unsourced neologism. --Eivindt@c 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Decent number of googles, but that doesn't impress me. Kotepho 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep all as per the closes of fuddlemark and Sushigeek to the related discussions. In particular, endorsement by the proposer for deletion of the essay Wikipedia:Fancruft is not an adequate reason to give for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I suggest that those who believe that these articles are on minor subjects not worthy of their own articles consult the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and consider the recommendations there--to wit, to consider merging them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, GAT-X105 Strike Gundam, GAT-X105E Strike Noir, GAT-X131 Calamity Gundam, GAT-X207 Blitz Gundam, GAT-X303 Aegis Gundam, ZGMF-X88S Gaia Gundam, GFAS-X1 Destroy, TS-MA2 Moebius[edit]

More giant robots from the Gundam series, WP:CRUFT. I propose allowing editors till the end of this deletion discussion to transwiki to the Gundam wiki, and then deleting. Brian G. Crawford 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are several other debates currently on groups of Gundam robot articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X102 Duel Gundam.

What is the point of deleting all these articles? What would that acheive? Absolutely nothing at all.

  • Delete all, Yikes. Okay, I definitely think all this cruft needs to get removed from Wikipedia, I just want to make sure the editors are given fair warning, and I hope the closing admin will be willing to temporarily undelete these articles in order to assist transwiki'ing. Not that I think Gundam wiki is a project I want to help, it's just clear someone spent a lot of time on these. Mangojuice 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm at it, let me point out that none of these articles have sources. However, the amount of specific detail on all of these robots makes me think a specific published source exists, which actually is WORSE: this might be massive copyright infringement. Mangojuice 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, process objection. I've changed my mind. These articles are not sufficiently similar to warrant bundling them together in this group while others get bundled together in a different group. I still don't like all this Gundam cruft, but these small-group AfDs are a bad way to decide the question. Mangojuice 19:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew somebody would accuse me of bad process, it was just a matter of time. I followed the precedent of the mass deletion of Polynesian mythology articles to avoid the problems that those faced. Hey, I tried to do this right. Brian G. Crawford
Comment Are you kidding? You collect a hefty bundle of related articles, and then divide the entries from said bundle through no resonably discernable criteria into multiple AfD projects. The thing is, the articles you've split up have no reason being split up, and if even one of these AfDs pulls through, we can readily await your attempting to delete still more material (rather, previously kept material...) while citing your one success as precedent. Would anyone realy be surprised?--KefkaTheClown 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: as the person who brought those Polynesian myth articles here, I can tell you that it's a bad move. It was a lot of work, and they all had to later be re-submitted individually. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I strongly oppose Mr. Crawford's attempt at a one-man purge of everything Gundam. The fact that somebody's created their own Wiki for Gundam doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If anything, that should be taken as more evidence of the notability of Gundam. And let me note, Mangojuice, that you need something more than "there's a lot of detail, I think it might be a copyvio!" before you can make credible accusations. Redxiv 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep At least you should have to wait and see result of other page's nomination. Keep made AfD to several page daily make it very nuisance. And you never put AfD template in any Star Wars's or Star Trek's machine article, yet them and Gundam are all from sci-fi fictions. Not that I want to see them all got delete, but at least there should be standard. Anime is a form of art, just like movie. L-Zwei 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "If X is kept, unrelated Y must be kept, too" argument, being a false dichotomy, is not very convincing to me. The fact-free mindreading of "Nominator is singling out X", even less so. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see any obvious reason why these should be deleted. If I had my way (I'm a deletionist), none of the articles would be around, but as the standards of wikipedia are, they should stay. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying you love my argument, but you can't stand the way I make it. That's very odd. Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other debate as well. Worht keeping as good Gundam info. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this stuff's already on the Gundam wiki, there's absolutely no reason to have it here. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangojuice. RGTraynor 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki articles to wikia:c:Gundam as it appears from comments above that the articles currently at wikia:c:Gundam are not complete (missing pics, etc). I'd also support a Merge to Weapons in Gundam universe if there is a strong interest level in keeping some mention of this in Wikipedia. A link to wikia:c:Gundam would be wholly appropriate there. No good, logical reason for keeping separate articles for all these things has been put forth. For the record, this would be my preferred treatment for Star Wars vehicle, weapon, et al articles; Pokemon; and virtually every other fictional world that spawns this level of minutae. Just a note... I cut & paste my response from the earlier nom dealing with Gundam. Since it appears there are multiple noms for this material, solution should be globally consistant for all of these articles.--Isotope23 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki even though there are already there. GFDL issues, they were copy/paste moved. I agree that Brian should probably hold off on more noms though, I don't really want to debate in 50 different places. Also, what is this "transwiki before it gets deleted or we just delete it" nonsense? If you want them gone so bad why don't you transwiki them? Kotepho 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get snippy. I was just making a proposal, and I didn't expect it to be carried out blindly. Calm down! Brian G. Crawford 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that it is hard to AGF when you say things like that. Kotepho 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE there is a related mass deletion today. 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT the correct merge target is Cosmic Era Mobile Units 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 132.205.45.110 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: AfD is for registered users. Redxiv 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should read the rules for AfD before antagonizing anonymous users. 132.205.45.148 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is highly unlikely that a vote with no comment from an IP user will be considered. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was originally borderline about the encyclopedic value of these pages, but Mangojuice has a valid point, these articles are very likely a massive copyvio. --Hetar 20:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and you need more than "I think they're copyvio" to declare them as such. Space Pirate Minagi 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user has fourteen edits, four to AfD. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user's edits are almost entirely AfD nominations and PROD tags. He has few actual edits of article content than the user whose position he's trying to undermine. Redxiv 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make personal attacks. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check under User:BrianGCrawfordMA, another username I used to use, if you doubt my credentials. I've written articles on real-world subjects, so forgive me if I find giant cartoon robots unencyclopedic. Brian G. Crawford 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you have TWO Usernames? Isn't that going against policy of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? It's extra amusing to see person who break policy to try delete stuff that going against essay L-Zwei 06:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having multiple accounts is not against WP:SOCK unless the accounts are being used in an abusive way (for example, if he were to vote with both on the same AfD). The policy is somewhat hard to understand, you might want to look at the proposed revision linked from the talk page, which explains it in a more lucid way without significantly changing the basic idea. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but "donkey punch" and "Dirty Sanchez" don't seem any more notable than giant cartoon robots in my eyes. Redxiv 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you overlooked Dartmouth College and Appalachian English -- though perhaps you were hoping no one would notice. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see those two articles deleted, and I nominated them myself. If you want to personally attack me and question and second-guess everything in my edit history, take it to my talk page. I'm sorry you don't like it that I'm taking all your favorite cartoon articles to AfD, but that's no reason to be a dick. Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insult people by called him a dick rather than actual arguments is a worst sign in any discussion.L-Zwei 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This might not actually be an insult. See WP:DICK. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COOL kids... everyone needs to take a deep breath.--Isotope23 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons listed. No need to remove them from the site that I can see. Calaschysm 23:40, 24 April 2006
  • Keep as perfectly valid articles. WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy, and certainly not a reason for deleting articles. Think of "cruft" as articles on subjects you yourself are not particularly interested in, but other people are. Turnstep 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. Leaning on legalism rather than actual arguments is a bad sign in any discussion. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, we shouldn't rely on the actual policies of Wikipedia, and instead on Mr Crawford's personal opinion of what the policy should be? Redxiv 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but there is a huge difference between a mere essay, and official Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:V), which is usually given as a rational for deletion. I don't agree that making such an important distinction is "leaning on legalism."Turnstep 14:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: These are good articles and they shouldn't be deleted compeletly. Besides although Gundam Wikicities is progressing it is not that well developed due to a shortage of contributors. Adv193 00:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then let all the editors singing Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" song go over there and contribute. --Calton | Talk 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki. Go to wikicities and have at it. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia is, in case you missed it, an encyclopdeia, which is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field". It isn't simply a dictionary wherein one gives quick little definitions and moves on; it's MEANT to go into depth. All these accusations of cruft just seem like a cheap excuse to remove something that the Mr. Crawford here dislikes. If we're using his logic for deletion, then we ought to go and subsidize all movie and video game sequels onto a single page, and smash everything together into homogenous articles, because cruft is cruft, right? --AmuroNT1 02:21 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Don't delete. This is part of Gundam SEED's mobile suits that appeared in the tv show. This needs some editing and proofreading.Ominae 03:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anything, you're being too specific with your delete requests... By that logic, you'd have to delete every Gundam article on Wikipedia, along with most other Anime articles - in fact, there are several more obscure series that should have been targeted first. And I'm not in favor of that - I enjoy having the information on this and other series all available in one place. Furthermore, varying amounts of data on the subject (Gundam) are found on the Japanese, French, Spanish, Italian, and German Wikipedias shows, in my opinion, that at least the general subject deserves coverage here. Golux Ex Machina 04:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as previously stated, there is no policy on Wikipedia that forbids fancruft present in articles, it would be best not to insist that such a policy exists while linking to undeniable proof that it isn't... Gather up all the related articles that you want to see taken down, and present them as a whole, rather than dividing them up for no reason. And for goodness sake dude, don't be such a prick about it. --KefkaTheClown 05:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you only have 3 edits KefkaTheClown I'll assume you don't know better... but read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA... then follow it.--Isotope23 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, and duely noted. While attempting to draw attention language I interpreted as being condescending, I ultimately disregarded the criteria of decorum outlined by Wikipedia as well as my own personal standards. For that, I am sorry, but none the less, I stand by my assertion that dividing these articles into multiple AfDs is unessesary, and only serves to hinder the overall process.--KefkaTheClown 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If these articles are deleted you would have to delete about every single anime character plus Star Wars and Star Trek articles. - Plau 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on grounds of irregular process as well as the notability of the content of the articles. See my votes on all of the other Gundam deletions. Just because the topic of the article might seem silly to you doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. NoIdeaNick 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is fancruft not even about a major character. Wikipedia's Minor Character policy stipulates stuff like this is meant to be collected on one page. A Mech is not a character it is a vehicle used by character in an Anime. Please be objective here and read teh wikipedia policies. Tis essentially fancruft. People here argue that you'd have to delete every single anime character. WRONG. Read the policy. This isn't even a minor character. Make a single page full of triva and silly thumbnails and get over it. --206.191.28.13 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actualy, some of the articles in question pertain to the vehicles of the series' primary protagonists, in particular, the Strike and Aegis are prolific elements of the series in question.--KefkaTheClown 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep and Weak Merge to "List of Faction Gundams", unless it can be shown that the Gundam is a major player in the associated anime series (such as the above anon's comments on the Strike and Aegis Gundams. Then nominate all Star Trek USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THEM these articles are used by people, i use them, they dont have any effect on any of the other articles on Wikipedia. to those who want to put them on Gundam Wiki, its to hard to find that area, not to mention that that area is still incomplete and lacks most of the articles in the main area. Star Wars character articles, under your ideas, should be deleted as well. Not only that but to delete something because you dont like the subject is a taking the article personaly which Wikipedia's rules say not to do.
  • Delete, useless cartoon triva. incog 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP' as explained above Lone Jobber 06:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - for the reasons described above, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is a vertiable Hitchiker's Guide to Earth - 'Cruft' or no, Wikipedia is to inform. Just because it's not important to you does not automatically make it useless. For example, in the early Middle Ages, no one in Western Europe could read, save those outside monestaries... and even then, reading was still a rarity. Said monestaries were full of old parchments and books - some dating back to when Aristotle and Socrates were philosophising about reality. The church could easily have tossed it all out - because all they needed was the Bible, and the rest was basically 'cruft' to them. Yet they kept the knowledge, because they knew it'd be important to someone some day. What is being done here may just be with pop culture - but it is still information to be noted, logged and provided for everyone in this Hitchiker's Guide to Earth. Aside from all this, the only reason the Gundamwiki exists is to hold these articles that are being nominated for deletion (in such a way that abuses Wikipedia's regulations, might I add) in case they actually are deleted - not because someone made their own Wiki. (Posted in other topics)--NewtypeS3 10:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- If you delete all this, you'll have to delete many (or perhaps even ALL) of the Star Trek and Star Wars articles, claiming they too should just get their own little Wiki like the rest of the, "FanCruft", I believe is the word? Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to be a treasure trove of knowledge on almost ANY subject that anyone can add to and enhance, these Wikis are nothing more than the culmination of hard work from various fans. And finally, just because someone else made their own Wiki doesn't mean that any and all articles on the subject of the Fan-Wiki should be deleted from the real Wikipedia, this is a strawman arguement. If I created a Wiki that chronicled the works of Jules Verne, does that mean you'd delete any and all info Wikipedia has on Mr. Verne's fine works? Did not think so. --71.12.221.109 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- To me, the idea of removing these articles seems absurd. Mobile Suit Gundam contains many, vast universes, and needs all of these pages, now, Wikipedia is meant to be the online encyclopedia, in which you can find just about anything, now, if you were to take out one of these things, then it is just one less thing that wiki is good for. Now, as another user mentioned, if this is deleted, then you will also have to delete almost everything from other TV shows. If you are going to delete MS Gundam, while letting so many other shows have their articles remain intact, then I am to assume that you are doing this out of simple hatred of a show that you know almost nothing about. If you are to delete everything, or even, anything, Gundam, then I would also suggest that you delete everything that is Star Trek, Star Wars, related to copyrighted video games, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Cowboy Bebop, Space Runaway Ideon, the Simpsons, Lost, 24, American Idol, and every other show that has ever aired on any TV on earth. Simply put, if having Mobile Suit Gundam on Wikipedia breaks any rules, then so do all of these shows.--AEUG16:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But these things need to satisfy WP:V, and don't. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Fan yes, "cruft" no. all of the information in the articles is a compilation of information that can be found elsewhere. one thing that people have forgotten is that if these articles should be deleted, then all X-Men, Superman and the rest of the American comic book characted should also be deleted. to those that say that the Gundams/Mobile Suits that have been put up for deletion are not major people are basicaly saying that any articles about Klingons, Stromtroopers, and other such things should be deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
Adding comments that are similar to previous comments as an IP editor will most likely cause you to be suspected as a sock puppet. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki, per Mango. None of these appear to be verifiable (WP:V), and there are no sources listed. However, the nomination was done poorly. All of these should have been listed on one AfD. --Philosophus 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep The source is MAHQ.net for all these "Giant fender colored robots" or whatever bull this guy's spewing. I'm not the creator but I'm positive that that's a source. (unsigned comment by Rappapa 10:25, 28 April 2006
  • Very Strong Keep MarineCorps 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with their drivers. This is all fascinating stuff, but not worthy on its own. Rather than only keeping the more important of this selection I'd sooner see them ALL be moved to "CharacterName#Mechs driven by CharacterName" (or whatever the proper terms are). And yes it was a big lot to do at once, but on the other hand if you've seen one you've basically seen them all. I've done more than that previously... ah, fun times... :) Awesome stuff for a Gundam-specific wiki though. Does one exist we could transwiki these to? Because not everything will be kept even with a merge... GarrettTalk 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the characters have piloted a lot of suits, so their pages would be huge and take up more room than their biographies. Unless there's huge bandwidth problems, it seems like it'd be simpler to leave things as they are, though having these pages seems to really bother people so whatever. Calaschysm 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of machines which were only piloted by minor or nameless characters, such as the standard model GINN. While I think that merging the machines with the appropriate pilot would be a good alternative, there are some that just can't be done with such a play. AmuroNT1 21:14 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The bigger problem with such a solution is that we would then have multiple instances of repeating data... or rather, multiple identical articles describing a mobile suit on the page of anyone whose piloted one over the course of the series. What happens then when someone decides to edit said article? Correct something, is it then the user's responsibility to make the same change to every single article? Wasteful! If the articles continue to exist, they should remain in a singular form. A better method (if a mandate to do so becomes more convincing that the one presented here...) would be to create large articles labled 'Mobile weapons of the Earth Aliance,' and 'Mobile weapons of the ZAFT forces' that sport the article's contents in a more compact format, organized based on which faction produced the weapon in question...--KefkaTheClown 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP, and an abuse of the AfD policy from a person whose primary "contribution" to Wikipedia is to delete other people's contributions. Iceberg3k 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you leave proper comments????

-I,am a fan and I just came upon this article by refereal most of these facts can be confirmed if you go to the official gundam web page-http://www.gundamofficial.com/ as for some of the newer ones they can be confirmed at http://www.seed-stargazer.net/ the new O.N.A serias starring some time in june. Uhm....i dont know much about wiki but from what i gathered you can put them all in 1 fan section??? which would make it much easier to navigate and it would save space = )!!!!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chen-Benson Theorem[edit]

  • Delete - Gets no hits on Google, may be Original Research, or a hoax (I have advanced calculus skills and I'm not even sure what the article is saying). It may be valid, but I don't think so. I didn't know where else to put this.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like patent nonsense to me, and my 4 years of calculus didn't mention anything nearly as exciting as wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. --MUSpud2 18:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like nonsense to me too. And as a game physics developer, I've had to do way too much calculus. I would have tagged this for speedy deletion. --John Nagle 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly Speedy. (Is it patent nonsense if the individual words, and some phrases, make sense, but not as much as a single sentence?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random calc II student learns about integration by parts, more at 11. (note that the main contributor is KBenson33) Kotepho 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup - This method of solving integrals is especially useful in beginner Calculus and is likely to aid others in the future. If needed (as the author) I can update the article with examples so it is easier to follow. I don't see how it is patent nonsense considering that it makes sense in the Calculus world. I feel that rather than all the trolls biting my head off (re: Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers ), perhaps I could have a chance to revise my article before deleting the work I have put into it? (And no, my username does not have to do with the name of the page, though it is an interesting observation) KBenson33 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33[reply]
Please do; one or two well-chosen examples might do wonders. If you can also clarify and document the name of this method (Who is Chen? Who is this Benson? Why is this a "theorem" and not a "method"? Has it been published?) it might lead to a "wham-bam-keep-this-theoram" victory in this debate. Or not. LambiamTalk 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is the original contributor of the article in question.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wrote that I was the author, there's no need to reiterate. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33[reply]
  • Comment - Also, KBenson33, I'm not trying to be argumentative, so please don't take this the wrong way, but here's a nickle's worth of free advice: the phrase "my article" could be taken to mean one has "ownership issues". It's usually better to avoid such usage here on WP.--WilliamThweatt 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By "my article" I simply meant that I was the one who originally contributed the majority of the information to the site, I did not mean to imply ownership. And it's hard to believe you're not trying to be argumentative when shortly after contributing my first entry to Wikipedia I have several people jumping down my back trying to get it deleted, rather than helping it become better or more significant. It's a shame, I'd assume such a vast community would be a bit nicer to newcomers. KBenson33 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)KBenson33[reply]
  • Comment - K, please don't take things so personal because it's not meant as such. I'm sorry your first experience hasn't been so pleasant. I sincerely hope you have better results next time. We're all just trying to make WP relevant, encyclopedic and the best it can be. It's not about not being "nice", it's just that there are criteria to be met for articles on WP. This is the process.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of this term being used, while the principle itself just appears to be 'if you can't do u-substitution, do integration by parts', which isn't especially interesting. -- Mithent 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this isn't a theorem in the first place - it's a heuristic for evaluating integrals, and a rather straightforward one at that. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No theorem is stated. The method is not different from ordinary substitutions; the author seems to think that a separate article is warranted merely because the conventional substitution method is used twice rather than once in a single example. Michael Hardy 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry to the author for all the effort to produce an example, but now at least I understand. This is clearly based on the author's misconception that a substitution must be uniform throughout the term, which may be due to the fact that in teaching mathematics the notions of "bound variable" and "variable scope" are usually not introduced and substitution is only taught by example. This "method" does not deserve to be named. I'm still clueless as to who Chen and Benson are or were. LambiamTalk 05:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it is useful within a limited scope, it still needs to be verifiable. I agree it's OR. No citations.In1984 22:59, 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. Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advancement Resources, LLC[edit]

nn company Hirudo 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is an advertisement. Links to nothing. Nothing links there. Shenme 20:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sppeedy Delete copyvio from their website at [22]. Less than 48 hours old. Fan1967 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Superpowers—Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

This is obviously the opinion of a single individual, not even getting anywhere close as being widely believed Warniats 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Sounds unlikely and no sources. Obviously not a widely held view. Article doesn't seem confident either. --Tombom23 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Polaron 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. RGTraynor 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Otherwise every country on Earth, and countless imaginary ones, would have to have a similar article. With the right combination of climate change, asteroid impacts, plagues, wars, and carnivorous houseplants, even Antarctica could be a superpower. --Ajdz 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yep, just wait for when Lichtenstein or Bhutan get those Orbital Mind Control Lasers from the aliens and take over the world, you'll see!!! RGTraynor 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. — mark ✎ 10:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Aldux 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR and ridiculous
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number1hater[edit]

This is possibly a job for cleanup but it appears to be vanity. After numerous edits it still has horrible grammar/spelling and claims seem exaggerated Tombom23 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup - somewhat notable, but NPOV article necessary. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as spurious NN vanity. "Somewhat notable?" Upon what grounds? His personal webpage (of which he claims gets two million hits a month) has an Alexa rank of 597,000 [23]. His moniker turns up 114 unique G-hits [24]; the overwhelming number of those are from his personal Yahoo group and his Myspace page, and the lead hit of which is this Wikipedia article. He does not, contrary to assertions, appear in the May issue of Blender Magazine. No hits come off the alleged MTV connection. RGTraynor 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot verify any of the big claims in this article. This seems very problematic. Not the MTV Made (outside of his sites,) not the number of MySpace friends (it doesn't show that on his profile,) NOTHING. Grandmasterka 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Would be notable if any of it were true, but this is another kid with a MySpace account.--Isotope23 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Very Strong delete"- There is absolutely no proof whatsoever about any of his claims. This page was obviously written by him, and based on these facts, I would suggest that makes a case for vanity.
  • Delete. I also agree that this page is a vanity and is in need of sources for the claims. If they cannot be provided (and it seems as if others have looked) the page should be deleted. TaraLyn 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crap. porges 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I never agreed to it being written in the first place, but fixed it up originally so it'd look nicer. But anyways, completely not notable. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:23, 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) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Christian Apologetics[edit]

Article is non-notable, original material, no sources, and possible vanity. It has no importance. The users to add to it/created it only make edits relating to the person who is claimed to be the founder. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, original material. While I think nom's gone over the top in his anti-Christian crusade, this article has all of five G-hits, the lead one of which is this article. Any time a Wikipedia article is the lead hit on a subject, it's suspect as hell. RGTraynor 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting concept. Needs expanding. --Keith Hernandez 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
  • Comment This is a sock puppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich for details. Arbusto 05:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while the topic interests me, unfortunately this article is nothing more than OR based on the work of a single person. --Hetar 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true. Look up "integrated apologetics", too. This concept is very well known. Books have been written on it. --Keith Hernandez 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
And unfortunately, none of those books have contributed to this article, or have been cited in any way. --Hetar 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, you rather just delete the article because it isn't as good as it could be? You must be a hardcore deletionist. If the topic truly interests you, as you say, then develop the entry. --Keith Hernandez 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence that this is more than oin man's name for a thing. And the notability of that one man is open to question. Just zis Guy you know? 09:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. --kingboyk 10:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JzG, and someone should really explain to Gastrich that the more he sockpuppets, the less likely we are to accept Jesus since Jason sets such a bad example. JoshuaZ 17:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spent plenty of time in both apologetics and seminary, never heard of it. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. - WarriorScribe 04:53, 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) 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertex/Face/Edge relation in a convex polyhedron[edit]

Apparently the same thing as Euler characteristic (i don't understand a word, so I can't vouch for that). An anon removed the prod with the edit summary of "(This should go to AfD not PROD)." Rory096(block) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is entirely correct that this is Euler's formula applied to (the graph corresponding to) a polyhedron, and it is what Euler characteristic starts off with. I did not check if the proof given is among the "Nineteen Proofs of Euler's Formula"[25]. --LambiamTalk 19:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see anything worth merging. Kotepho 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I proded the article. A few days ago someone suggested that this article be merged to Euler characteristic, the discussion there seems to be that nothing was savagable or not already covered. Not 100% convinced by the proof, maybe missing assuming too much. Anyway un-cited. --Salix alba (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons as above. Joshua Davis 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a particularly rigorous proof, and WP:NOT a mathematical journal anyway. Prod was removed by an anon who appears to have been going around removing PRODs at random. Grr. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly written information already expressed much better elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbuckley (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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do the 'Ronaldinho'[edit]

Fancruft, dicdef, fork from the soccer player, unlikely search term, there's just too much wrong. Delete; perhaps transwiki if it's not too much of a WP:NEO violation.Alba 18:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The person it is named after seems somewhat notable, but the actual subject of the article isn't. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not transwiki as would fail Wiktionary's attribution criteria I would think. Could be made into a cheap redirect to Ronaldinho but I doubt this would have any real utility.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to transwiki this protologism. -- Mithent 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE the definition does not stand to talk about Ronaldinho directly but is about the phrase 'to do the ronaldinho', something very different. This has been widely used in many countries since 2000. The idea behind this when thought about is very logical. so again I state DO NOT DELETE --Blacdize 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree with blacdize 100%. Wikipedia has many phrase defintions for instance 'the gadget show' taking this phrase off simply shows that wikipedia is not as up to date with common terms as it would think. i myself and many of my colleagues have used this phrase on a day to day basis so i say keep this definition --freeofchange 22:20 , 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment The preceeding comment was left by 84.66.198.59, there is no user called "freeofchange". It might be worth running a CheckUser on Blacdize, as 84.66.198.59 might be the same account. Gwernol 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO and it is too much of a neologism for a transwiki. 1 person and his colleagues using the term daily doesn't quite cut it. If that were the threshold for inclusion there would be an Isotope23's Idioms article already.--Isotope23 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, as the article itself admits. Completely unsourced, so violates WP:V as well as WP:NEO. Do not transwiki. Gwernol 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Do the Roy Keane huge fan, never heard the expression, neologism. --Eivindt@c 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the delete -- Hirudo 03:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a dicdef of a neologism. The Google hits for the phrase do not clearly indicate the meaning of the phrase as described in the article. Ronaldinho as the incumbent FIFA World Player of the Year is extremely notable, but that doesn't mean that a phrase containing his name is worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a neologism but I've seen some amazing videos on Google Video and know exactly what the authors of the article mean. Therefore Merge into Ronaldinho. GT 07:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AbSynthe[edit]

Despite the fact that this article has been here for a while, I cannot find a real assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC in the article. Sure, they were invited to play at some festival, but that doesn't count. Unless someone proves that these guys really are notable, this should be deleted. Grandmasterka 19:00, 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. Sango123 (e) 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Gear[edit]

This appears to be more of an OR essay than an encyclopedia article. I tried to find a suitable subject to redirect to, but couldn't come up with anything. Prod removed by anonymous editor without comment, so I am bringing it here for community discussion. --Hetar 19:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If not candidate for copyvio per statements below, then delete as an OR essay per nom. --Fuhghettaboutit 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. copyvio. No discussion needed Comment. See RangerMade website article. Grrr, the author is new and currently trying to resolve how to post own material from company website to WP.
We thought it might be advantageous to grant info access on our materials.
There is education/misunderstanding/negotiation ongoing, involving permissions, etc. See User_talk:Military Tactical Gear The Military Tactical Gear article was deleted for copyvio. Does reviewing the ongoing discussion change the need for same for this article? Shenme 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The user has also been spamming every article remotely related to military equipment, see [26] -- Mwanner | Talk 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is a really badly written, the material this article is attempting to cover is already covered under camoflage, I see no case for this article to be here. Pete.Hurd 21:12, 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 05:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Web[edit]

One-line mention of The Holy See's website. If it had any content, I'd say it should be merged into The Holy See, but there's nothing to merge. Also, "Vatican Web" doesn't seem to be an official name. Following WP:WEB guidelines, "Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization." AKADriver 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with nominator. -- Mithent 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. All it is is a def with external link. A link also found on the Holy See page. Change to a redirect to Holy See where there is much other information including this. Shenme 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ecumenize (i.e., merge) or excommunicate (delete) --Bucketsofg 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Coren 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The web site isn't even named "Vatican Web." --Metropolitan90 05:05, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article GODDESSY. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was merge and redirect to Stephanie Adams. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issa-Salwe, A.M.[edit]

Not notable at all. 14 hits for the title, only 192 if you take off the "A.M." Rory096(block) 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable Somali-born academic and specialist in the field of Horn of Africa, who lectures at a British university. Issa-Salwe has written two books which gain significant G-hits [27] and [28] and show academic references on both Google Scholar and J-Stor. I have renamed the page to fit Wikipedia's naming conventions and expanded some of the info. Humansdorpie 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Humansdorpie -- Hirudo 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Humansdorpie. — mark ✎ 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough scholar--Aldux 15:41, 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. Sango123 (e) 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TPC at The Woodlands[edit]

Nothing notable. Nv8200p talk 20:50, 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) 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebcamCash[edit]

Spamvertisement that fails both WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 58,223. --Hetar 21:02, 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 no consensus, discounting two anons whose first and only edits are to this page; even if just registered voters are counted it's no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Hall (2nd nomination)[edit]

Previously deleted here: [29]. There is no substantially new claim from the deleted version that would meet WP:MUSIC. Really this hinges on one thing: Do you consider the "2004 BMI John Lennon Scholarship Competition" win and "Grand Prize Winners for Session II of the 2005 John Lennon Songwriting Contest" to meet Has won or placed in a major music competition? I don't personally see the John Lennon Songwriting/Scholarship competitions as "major music competitions", but this could be open to interpretation so I brought it here instead of PROD. One could also consider the Albino Blacksheep claim, but at least in my opinion, that falls short of WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination.--Isotope23 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my nomination. Admittedly, Tally Hall doesn't fully qualify for any of the criteria listed on WP:MUSIC. However, and this is indeed opinion/feel, the combination of events concerning the band make it a qualifier in my mind. It takes some notability to sell out two shows (800 spots/show) at a location in one night. They did produce a full album (under a minor indy label), and from what I know, have signed on to a bigger label for the future. They're producing enough for the sustenence of the band members' lives, to the degree that two or three have chosen to not finish university degrees. Finally, this is not a band that has stagnated; in all likelyhood it will produce multiple new albums (they've started performing some of their songs for the next album), again, probably under a more significant label. Thus, it is my opinion that it is a waste of time to delete this article, as it's somewhat notable now, and WILL qualify as notable in the not so distant future. Gertlex 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.41.236 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Once and if they actually become notable, feel free to recreate. -- Hirudo 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my nomination. I live in Connecticut and I heard about these guys from word of mouth. They're incredibly talented. If it hadn't been for this very Wikipedia entry, I'm not sure that I would have given them a chance. I've relied on this entry for almost everything I know about this band. Please don't take it away.
  • Delete Not a major band. At this stage, this page seems self promotional
  • Keep. I'd definitely say that the John Lennon Songwriting Contest is a major award, and the band is the most prominent part of the Ann Arbor music scene, which is saying something in a city with a college as large as the University of Michigan. They've been featured in The O.C. and The Real World, giving them some national exposure. They've also signed with new management, the same people that represent They Might Be Giants. Considering the fact that they've got an album that's now being nationally distributed (Borders and Tower Records), I'd say that all of those factors combine to make the group notable. Imdwalrus 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Retail Edge[edit]

An internal (supplier-retailer) promotion or incentive system lies to far beyond WP:CORP it's not even funny anymore. I very much doubt the article could be meaningfuly salvaged even if the promotion was notable at all (which it isn't). Coren 21:11, 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 and cleanup. Mailer Diablo 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirela Roznoveanu[edit]

This article was created by user MirelaR, presumably the subject of the article. Speedy delete tage was removed once by author before anonymous user 128.122.190.238 applied {hangon} with no explanation (as of yet) on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. MirelaR then blanked the page. I've attempted to explain to the author that her article might violate WP:VAIN, and that she should move all the relevant information to her user page.

  • Let me just say that Mirela Roznoveanu may actually merit a wiki article, as she has a few books at Amazon and 464 Google hits for "Mirela Roznoveanu". I just don't think she should be the one writing it (as I stated on her talk page)--especially in the formatless eyesore that so-recently existed. -- Scientizzle 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, she appears to meet WP:BIO. The only reason I'm not saying keep yet is that the original author blanked the content, so right now we have an AfD of a blank page. If someone writes an article I'll go keep on it.--Isotope23 21:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The author blanking the article after having been called vain for writing it is a reaction to the speedy deletion request, and should not be assumed to be an expression of a genuine wish to have it removed. u p p l a n d 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per above. --MaNeMeBasat 13:10, 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) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Share the road midsouth[edit]

A worthy cause, but not a WP:WEB candidate. Buh bye. Alba 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sign of notability, no useful information. --Ajdz 05:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. --Bachrach44 19:36, 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) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carz unlimited[edit]

This is an advertisement for a used car lot. Charles 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmonkeys[edit]

a neologism developed "primarily online." Delete per WP:NOT --Hetar 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why a neologism developing online in any way diminishes its existance? 204080 21:51, 24 April 2006
Please take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on neologisms. Its also worth noting that the policy on verifiability clearly states that Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are verifiability not truth. Good luck, Gwernol 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the entry removing any references to online speculation, and have cited a source which links to a heated discussion between so called 'chipmonkeys' and genuine musicians. I believe the article should remain as the it is the most plausable explanation of the term, and its deletion could mean less mature articles are posted in its place. 204080 22:51, 24 April 2006

A link to a forum discussion is hardly a reliable source. --Hetar 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's as reliable as is possible to link to, as it is a term which has been coined by people during discussions, some online, some not. I still believe the term requires some form of explanation. 204080 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT, WP:NEO and WP:V. When a term developed "primarily on line" has so few hits on google, most of which don't seem to match this definition at all, it's pretty clearly an obscure usage. Fan1967 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: wikipedia is not a dictionary, and any entry must be verifiable. This one fails on both points. Bucketsofg 00:17, 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 Keep. The subject is a popular gravure model and User:Rankler's edit answers any questions of verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi[edit]

Prodded by Miljoshi on 6 Apr, but prod was removed by 132.205.45.110 for no particularly good reason ("AfD it if you want to delete it"). Author proceeded to blank the page on the 14th, where it's stood since. This would have gone through as a prod if the anon hadn't de-prodded it (as they have done to a number of other articles), and it would probably have been a speedy G7 (author request) if various authors hadn't modified it since. As it stands, there's little choice but to AFD this. Per Miljoshi's prod, the article doesn't assert notability and doesn't cite references.

  • Delete. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ajdz 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article even in its current state is a very acceptable stub, it just needs a little more work. As for notability, even a cursory search shows at least 10 DVD releases and 11 photobooks on Amazon.jp, and her name in kanji gets close to one million Google hits. This article needs improvement, not deletion. (Edit: looks like those Amazon search links expire after a time, you'll have to do it yourself if you don't believe me) --Rankler 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I don't particularly like the attitude displayed in the nomination. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion. If someone feels that the article should go for AfD instead, if the nominator still desires deletion, because the article has some value, then that's a good reason to unPROD it. Nominator's nomination delcaration is antagonistic. 132.205.45.148 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. I'm open to change if the article is properly referenced. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several external links and some extra information to the body. There's little more I can do with my meagre understanding of Japanese, but at the very least I think it meakes the information available here verifiable. Basic biographical information is available at her talent agency/groups profile, including lists of appearances and product releases (the latter of which are available at the Amazon links).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Ultima IX per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima IX: Redemption[edit]

I prodded this one back on the 21st as a non-notable fan project, but 132.205.45.110 removed the prod on this one as well (see the AFD on Mao Kabayashi above), stating that "This should go to AfD not PROD". So it's here. It's still a non-notable fan project which doesn't appear to have publicly released anything yet - so let's delete it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fan prodject still in production. --Eivindt@c 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable fan project that doesn't seem to have much influence on the Ultima series in general, nor is the article particuarly constructive.--Cini 08:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with chainsaw-trimming) into Ultima IX for now, as much as I hate saying that, being a big fan of their work. I originally added mentions of this to Ultima (and, I think, Ultima IX). Just mentions. I believe completed Ultima fan projects are notable (Lazarus, for example), but there's been a lot of just-gone-belly-up Ultima fan projects... not that I'd believe Redemption is in any danger. =) I don't think upcoming projects are worth discussing for more than a short section. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am one of the composers and creative consultants on the project, and I mainly wrote the article to let more people know about it. However, I fully understand the vanity rules, and agree. However, in terms of notability, our project was mentioned in Computer Games Magazine a few years ago along with some other remakes in an article. I would need to check my issue at home to give you the details. However, if you choose to delete the article I will completely understand, and am not offended at all. Thanks.

Chlorthos Dragon 20:11, 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) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Springett[edit]

Apparent autobiography, non-notable, article claims "published works" but only google hits are from his personal web site and Wikipedia. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Accurizer 22:02, 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. Sango123 (e) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jungalist[edit]

Non-notable blog. Alexa rank of 4,396,110. Delete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn website started in Feb this year. --Eivindt@c 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Bachrach44 19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. Peter S. 20:06, 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 Speedy deleted per WP:NOT. If the original authors would like the text of the article retrieved for them I would be happy to oblige per WP:BITE. --Cyde Weys 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial High School Memories (Hedwig Village, Texas)[edit]

Unencyclopedic: "This page is designed to highlight the various memories students have from high school." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a publisher of original thought, a free webhost, or for things made up in school one day. Delete (or maybe userfy,) merging anything suitable into Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas) -- AJR | Talk 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.


  • comment This article does not and will not include "things made up in school one day". Everything in the article is a real event that actually occurred at the school. Memorial is the most notable high school in the Houston-metro area, in the same vein as Laguna Beach High School is to Orange County. The Wikipedia community seems content with having content regarding the California high school; why are other areas not afforded the same privilege? 137.113.14.172 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and 137.113.171.9 -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment My issue with this article is whether it is encyclopedic - I have no problem with articles about schools, but that is not what this is, it is a collection of high-school students' memories, and explicitly stats that it "should not be used as a reference source for factual information regarding Memorial High School". With regard to "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day", maybe I shouldn't have cited that policy, but in my view Wikipedia is also not for thing that happened in school one day unless those events are notable. If you want to have a website for your high school memories, there are many places that will host such content, often for free, but Wikipedia is not one of them. If there are other "hish school memories" articles like this one then in my view those should also be deleted, I nominated this after seeing it in recent changes. -- AJR | Talk 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete there's nothing encyclopedic about this article. --Eivindt@c 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentAs an avid wikipedia user, i do not think that this article should be deleted. It is the chronicles of the 2005 graduating class at memorial high school, and includes real information and events. I know of many previous and current students at memorial high school who find this page to be an interesting, informative, ENCYCLOPEDIC, read. I find it insulting that editors at Wikipedia find this harmless and INFORMATIVE content delete-worthy, but find it in their hearts to host hundreds of articles chronicling different Pornography stars and the different types of current porn. If Milf Hunter can have an article on Wikipedia, why can't Memorial High Schools 2005 graduating class? - hawkril324 (talk • contribs)
Hawkril only edits are to the article in debate on nomination day -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expel, I mean Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic. Sad as it is, hundreds of thousands of people care about milf hunter. Nothing remotely close to that can be said about the 2005 graduating class of any high school. This belongs in a yearbook or myspace. Wikipedia is neither. Please read WP:NOT. - Fan1967 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Stance Memorial High School is reputed to be one of the best public high schools in the country. The school is prominant in its community because it promotes the idea of original thought. This article does nothing other then attempt to show the true culture inside a memorial high school classroom, the experiences inside a class as it relates to the high school, and memories therein. I feel that if i was looking for a high school for my children, a site like this would be greatly benificial. Oftentimes, it is hard to find the nature of a community, especially if you are on the outside coming in. If someone were looking whether or not to enroll their students in a high school, magazine rankings and other national highschool rankings are too broad to suit the specific needs of that individual. The job of wiki-pedia is to allow the exchange of information to happen silmutaniously inside this network of fact finding individuals. If the comments included in this article were in fact false, and not condusive to a fact finding mission, it will be immediately edited by others, as such is the nature of wiki-pedia. I dont see any reason this article should not be included, and i dont see that it poses any threat whatsoever to the general wiki-pedia community as a whole. Many who come and look here will find the website to be very helpful, nastoglic, and often times amusing. There is nothing wrong with merging fact and fun, it can be done in a responsible manner that will endorse the community of Memorial, wiki-pedia, and all parties affected by it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.52.96 (talk • contribs)
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice. Now how is this encyclopedic again? BTW, another vote for Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The editors of MHS pages have shown to be malicious, inflammatory and uninterested in the conventions of the Wikipedia (see 1;2; the whole page in question). WARNING: editors of this page have been known to challenge other editors to boxing matches and duals. I appreciate the moving of most of the schoolcruft into this memories page. However, the whole concept of a memories page does not belong on the Wikipedia. I encourage the editors that have been involved in this to place your content into a Myspace group, Livejournal community or your very own website (you can even make it in the Wiki-fashion!). I encourage the vote counter to be wary of pack-voting on this AfD. &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to MHS users *looks at links and clicks tongue* You can't do that! Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So unencyclopedic it gives me scurvy. Choess 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve it Collections of notable goings-on at educational institutions help define the culture of said institutions. Considering the noteworthy qualities of this particular high school, a living history of sorts is more than justified in this catalogue of knowledge.137.113.14.4 02:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It This page should not be deleted because some people think it treads on the reputation of Memorial High School. The page should be for the students and graduates who MADE the reputation for Memorial High School, especially for the 2005 graduates who set MHS in the spotlight through its achievements in all aspects of the school, especially through Athletics and Academics. Keep this page and the achievements that the students and graduates have made for MHS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.33.103 (talk • contribs)
This user has never edited outside this AFD -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it stay!!!
    Despite the personal vendetta that Mr. Pinkham seems to have against memorial wikipedia pages(he has tried to get two shut down)[citation needed], this page is without a doubt encyclopedic; it gives information regarding events and characteristics of Memorial High School. Shutting it down would go agianst everything Wikipedia stands for, regardless of the ideas of a few misguided individuals(see above). Even if it only services a few hundred people a year, i doubt that a wikipedia page on the Pornography star Brittney Skye services more. (I'm not going to make the obvious joke...). The page should definitely stay....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkril324 (talk • contribs)
Hawkril only edits are to the article in debate on nomination day -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a complete re-work of the main high school page in the works at the moment, so please avoid personal attacks or accusations of bias, . &#149;&#149;\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\&#149;&#149; 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong delete This is absolutely not what Wikipedia is for. -- Hirudo 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think you guys have any idea what Wikipedia stands for. Danny Lilithborne 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki .... to their own MediaWiki. Cyde Weys 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a secret "delete", no? Kimchi.sg | talk 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, merge any useful content into Memorial High School (Hedwig Village, Texas). This is indeed NOT what Wikipedia is about, instead put it on a separate website and link to it from the high school's main article. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment And if this article by some miracle stays, I'm starting an article about memories from MY high school days, including Mr. Hector (who swore a lot, but was a nice guy), Mrs. Weiselberg (total bitch), and one of my classmates, Brandon, whose seemed to only say "DON'T YOU WORRY ABOUT IT!!!" for our whole senior year. Seriously, none of this is notable. There is a place for this kind of stuff, but not here. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial for some high schooler's memories. Trust me, in five years you won't want to remember any of this anyway. ;) -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT a diary for school memories. There is myspace and livejournal if you so desire to record memories online. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Virtually zero notability and huge doubts as to how it is verifiable. --Cini 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a high school yearbook. Please review WP:VANITY if you still think this is an appropriate article. --Metropolitan90 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: It saddens me that none of you went to a particularly outstanding high school. Yet at the same time, I fail to see why your envy warrants raining on everyone else's parade... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.113.14.172 (talk • contribs)
    It has nothing to do with envy. I loved my high school, great teachers for the most part, great people, great times, etc. That's not the point though, it's simply about how notable and verifiable this information is. The fact that a student often yells out "Penis!" in class is not notable in any way, unless it's someone who him or herself is notable (in which case it could be mentioned in said person's own article, if it's somehow relevant). The best thing to do is make your own website, even your own wiki. You can make your own rules there, but this page doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules.-- SonicAD (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic --Ajdz 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, as repost, deleted several times. — xaosflux Talk 02:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 4[edit]

Delete crystal ball article that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man 4) and has now been recreated. _-M o P-_ 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete {{db-repost}}. Suggest we protect the page from recreation, at least until the film gets made. Gwernol 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Sango123 (e) 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody Episodes[edit]

There is already a page with a more complete list of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episodes Jesussaves 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, duplicate article. _-M o P-_ 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete The two lists differ in content. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect The listed article does not follow our capitilization rules, the other does. Dsmdgold 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as Redirect, as someone already did the job. GT 07:51, 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) 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Roentgen[edit]

If you get down to the bottom it turns out he's involved with a television program of some sort. This is still not sufficiently encyclopedic, and 99% of the information in the article is unverifiable (see the relevant policy). Chick Bowen 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pure, 100% vanity. _-M o P-_ 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, but does have an imdb entry. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity autobiography; no sources cited (imdb linked in previous entry seems to be someone else?) Bucketsofg 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, that link is definitely him. another imdb link - very similar material to this here article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too similar. Even if Rui submitted that bio to IMDB himself, I don't think it can be licensed under the GFDL, since IMDB holds the copyright, and too much of the wording is in common. I'm coming closer to speedying this thing. Chick Bowen 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 05:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - IMDB entry not enough for an article. Not notability and big concerns in regards to how verifiable it is.--Cini 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Even given every word in the article as perfect truth, none of it is sufficient to establish notability. Maybe if the show it says he's been picked to host becomes notable, he would deserve mention in its article, but he's not notable by himself for anything. — Saxifrage ✎ 11:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. porges 06:20, 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 with a recommendation to merge to Mexican Revolution. Deletion is not really necessary and in general it's bad practise, while keeping the history ensures compliance with the site license. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Sources for Mexican Revolution[edit]

This should probably be speedied, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I say we merge what is salvageable back into Mexican Revolution and delete this. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Nom changed per Stifle)[reply]

  • Merge and delete as per nom & Eivind.Bridesmill 00:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but please note that three of the first five links don't even work if you aren't accessing them from the University of Toronto. They don't really work as "online" sources, but could be useful if you're adding them into a books and journals list. --Ajdz 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can't really "merge and delete" because we then lose contributor history as required by the GFDL. A merge needs to be followed by a redirect, even if it's useless. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Triunal Motivation[edit]

Fails WP:NOR entierly; google reports all of 1(!) hit, on Wikipedia itself. Coren 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massively Lacerated Face[edit]

nn band M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, nn (1 ghit & that's on a guestbook.php). Vanity would be my guess.Bridesmill 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to nom, "Official website coming soon"? Even a non-notable band would have a website. --Ajdz 06:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Genuine band. Hilarious gig last thurday. Why on earth should a non-notable band have a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzine (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - So what if we dont have a web site yet? We only just got a computer. Tosser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.73.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Ajdz. However, I would urge the nominator to please use a more informative reason for nominating a page for deletion than "nn". See User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Spearhead 21:11, 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. Sango123 (e) 22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSA local councils and districts[edit]

  • delete as defunct and unWiki list keeps being recreated by a user who does not understand that the lists which that list directs to have long since been renamed and made into statewide articles as per WikiProject Scouting --Chris 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is in the State articles. These are accessed from a template that is on several pages. This list is not needed and is confusing. --Bduke 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this information is now dispersed (since Jan 2006) into the state articles (Scouting in Texas, etc) and this article is now obsolete. Rlevse 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant --Ajdz 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obsolete --Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the fact that it all redirects to the proper state articles. KC9CQJ 04:50, 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_24&oldid=1081094064"