Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

Purge server cache

April 25[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per ... who am I kidding? --Cyde Weys 06:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title starts and ends with the same letter[edit]

Listcruft. Could go on forever. Furthermore, it is absolutely useless information. If needs be, could be done with a category, but I doubt it would serve any purpose Midnighttonight 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no point in it. Tyrenius 02:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to BJAODN. Friday (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please - will grow too darn big to fit on BJAODN servers....Bridesmill 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. And here I thought I had seen useless lists. This is the most useless of useless lists. Grandmasterka 02:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of the cruftiest articles I've ever seen... --Deville (Talk) 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Morgan Wick 03:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no point. Ginkgo100 03:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point in this list. DarthVader 03:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm pretty tolerant toward lists if they're interesting and limited in potential size, but this is neither. dbtfztalk 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable at best, and not particularly useful.--SirNuke 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 Keep (No consensus). --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew[edit]

Seems to be an article attacking the concept of the Synoptic Problem, and the prevailing academic consensus about Markan Priority and the possibility (or not) of Aramaic Primacy. It was created by a new user in one of their first edits, and seems to be designed to advertise the very non-mainstream theories of one "George Howard". It probably should be mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew article that there are a few Hebrew versions of Matthew lying around, and where they come from (they are actually derived from the Greek version), but I don't really think that the highly abnormal theory that they prove that Matthew was originally in Hebrew (not Aramaic or Greek) should deserve its own article. Clinkophonist 18:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how Matthew being in Hebrew has any real bearing on Markan priority. So what if Matthew’s author translated into Hebrew or didn’t when he was copying from Mark, if that’s what people want to assume. I don’t find any reference in the article as to where in the authorship order the Gospel falls. I know I didn’t put in any reference to it. User: Shaunckennedy
  • Weak keep. I noticed this article when it was first created. It seems to cover two topics. The hypothetical notion of an 'original' version of Matthew that was in a Hebrew language. And the actual fact that there are some medieval manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew. I tried to expand the content and neutralize some POV [1]. I believe that this article may still be salvaged. Perhaps the hypothetical early hebrew Matthew portions can be removed or merged with Aramaic primacy. Then this article would focus on the existing hebrew manuscripts, and then perhaps more sources than just George Howard could be brought in to expand and neutralize content? Alternatively, I wouldn't be hurt if it was deleted either.--Andrew c 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean something like Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew ? I think they should really only be mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew article; there doesn't seem to be that much being said about them in the article, except to try to advance the theories of Mr Howard. Clinkophonist 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote for now (although probebly delete). Anyone who doesn't know should be aware we've had major problems with Matthean POV pushing in the past. Particularly of the theory of a Hebrew Authentic Matthew. It took three major AfD battles to rid us of that original research, as it was defended by a host of sockpuppets. And a user appears from nowhere and creates an article like this....--Doc ask? 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, need to evaluate sources, esp. George Howard. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. I found the article interesting and I made a few minor edits which is why this is on my watchlist. If there is a reasonable, verifiable source that claims the existence of a "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew", then this article should be kept. Who is George Howard? Does he have academic credentials? Has he published in a scholarly journal? His theory may not be "mainstream" and the "mainstream" arguments against his theory should be presented but, in general, NPOV argues that verifiable non-mainstream theories should be documented with appropriate skeptical caveats. Richard 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Can you point us at the debates on the previous articles that were deleted? Why do you want this article deleted? Because you are certain there is no such thing as a "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew"? Or because you are certain that there is no verifiable source that claims there is such a thing?
If there is a verifiable source that claims such a thing (and George Howard would seem to be one) then Wikipedia should recognize this fact and other people can refute Howard's claim with other verifiable sources. Richard 02:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Dr. George Howard got many of his ideas from a Dr. Marvin Arnold, but I haven’t read anything about or by Arnold, and he isn’t mentioned that I remember in Howard’s book. I could dig it out and look again. George Howard himself is a published authority, with publications in I believe Mercer University Press, and I know that the University of Georgia was involved in the publishing of his book on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.User: Shaunckennedy
  • No vote for now: my preference would be to have a page for the Shem-Tob Matthew, a page for the Munster Matthew, and a page for the DuTillet Matthew. If these are all on the same page, perhaps have it titled "The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew" for less confusion. There is a so-called Gospel of the Hebrews, but the term "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" belongs to George Howard, who publicized a reconstructed text based on the comments of the 14th century Jewish author Shem Tob in the polemical work Evan Bohan. There is no need to exclude these materials from the Wiki (the text underlying Shem Tob's comments and the other two); only to have them properly placed and accurately described. --Peter Kirby 09:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote no for deletion. I may be an avid critic of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew, but it does need a place for discussion. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is a valid concept thought up by, among others, George Howard. The idea that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew is by no means original to him though, and yet it is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew as we know it. I say keep it separate.
Looking at the article in question, I could easily support every single place where it has "citation needed". Chris Weimer 09:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for a conditional keep. I've tried to clean up some of the references. I was half tempted to delete the second paragraph of the intro that is so heavily set with citations needed, since I don't personally agree with that, but I replaced a redirect to the Gospel of the Hebrews, so someone surely has references for those statements. If not, go ahead and delete that paragraph. I don't think this article should be rolled into the Matthew page. It gives it too high of a visibility and makes it look like mainstream critics give it a lot of thought. Maybe roll it into the Augustinian Hypothesis. I added one citation needed because I know I’ve read that some people can’t see the Greek Matthew as coming from a Hebrew original based on linguistics, but I couldn’t find the reference and can’t remember if they mentioned what linguistic evidence made them think the Greek was original.User: Shaunckennedy 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sez who?: What are you trying to say?
Wikipedia is not a democracy? WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
That we should discuss rather than vote? m:Don't vote on everything
We're discussing and building a consensus (sort of) as to whether this article meets the criteria for deletion WP:DEL. True, these kinds of discussions often wind up being majority votes but that's an endemic problem with Wikipedia. Better that than an automated vote without discussion.
Richard 23:55, 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!
Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is, was it translated into Hebrew, or was it translated into Greek? Some answer that it was originally Greek, and translated into Hebrew, others like Howard that it was originally Hebrew and translated into Greek. Choosing one is by definition POV as long as there are scholars on both sides. User: Shaunckennedy

Comments:

How is this article OR? There's a guy out there (George Howard) who has published a book pushing this theory. Now admittedly, it may be the case, as some editors above assert, that this theory is "very non-mainstream". If so, where are the sources that say so? Is there nobody out there who has published an opinion critical of George Howard's theory? I don't have a problem with an article (or a section in the Gospel of Matthew article) that lays out a popular but kooky theory and then explains why all the pre-eminent scholars of the day think it's off-the-wall. What isn't clear to me is how "non-mainstream" this theory is. Let's see some sources to prove the assertion that it is "non-mainstream".

--Richard 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only even read about one criticism. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html The same site also hosts Howard’s rebuttal to the critic. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html There should be enough information there to show anyone who is not willing to check the book out of their local library that it is not, as has been claimed, original research. User: Shaunckennedy
  • No vote, leaning on keep, as it appears that the article has been rewritten since nomination. -- Simon Cursitor 06:58, April 25, 2006 (UTC)
May I draw to the administrators' attention that the above vote is not as I remember editing it, and has, I believe been edited, at 06:58 this morning -- Simon Cursitor 07:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Following Andrew c I've reshuffled[2] the text so as to reduce the prominence of the "Hebrew primacy" hypothesis and thereby make it more neutral. It needs more work, such as citations and perhaps a bit more neutrality, but so do many articles and such weaknesses are not by themselves a ground for deletion; my feeling is that the article is acceptable in its present state. LambiamTalk 07:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. An apparent re-writing.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not original research, but dependent on the published work cited, which was published by Mercer University Press, which is a minor university press but a university press nonetheless, thereby establishing notability. Bucketsofg 20:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The three manuscripts are notable as is Howard's book. Though, in my POV, it has been effectively debunked. Most of the material on Aramaic primacy should probably go in the Synoptic Problem or Date and Authroship of the Gospel of Matthew. Eluchil404 01:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still have access to the research that you feel debunks Howard? If you do, I think it would be great to add that to the article.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaunckennedy (talk • contribs) 13:12, April 27, 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete and merge. Worth covering in an article dedicated to Matthew or Hebrew gospel in general, but appears to be a lot of OR and a POV-fork per WP:NPOV.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by In1984 (talk • contribs) 23:34, April 29, 2006 (UTC).


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship and date of the synoptic Gospels and of Acts[edit]

Created by a new user (I thought new users couldn't create articles? - this new user must have been waiting around just to create it - its one of their first edits). It seems to be an attempt at introducing a particular bias. It fails to mention any of the Q Gospel, Synoptic Problem, or Markan Priority, suggesting a complete unfamiliarity with the topics and/or an attempt to circumvent mentioning the academic consensus. The authorship/date of the synoptics is extensively discussed in the Q Gospel, Synoptic Problem, and Markan Priority articles, as well as the articles for the Synoptic Gospels themselves - Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, and Gospel of Luke, so this just seems like an attempt to fork the content and bias it. Clinkophonist 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. POV Fork, OR. I don't think the author's unfamiliar with the topic; the "attempt to circumvent mentioning the academic consensus" is clearly what's going on here. If there's anything supportable here, it needs to be part of the existing articles. Fan1967 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. POV risk Tony Bruguier 19:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't think there'd be anything wrong with having an article on this subject, but the current material is virtually unsalvageable, and it'd probably have to be rewritten from the ground up. The main author of the page seems to be determined, as Clinkophonist says, to ignore the scholarly consensus, and has adamantly refused several requests for specific citations which I've made on the talk page. As I noted there, he seems to be determined to present the debate as though it is one between fundamentalists and radical Jesus-myth type theorists, ignoring (or at least downplaying) the academic mainstream consensus - note the statement that the Gospels could have been written any time between the crucifixion and Irenaeus, for instance. john k 19:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment: Someone's persistantly removing the multitudes of {{fact}} templates. 68.39.174.238 21:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the consensus you folks seem to. The topic is heatedly debated, with a lot of conservative scholarship placing the Synoptics between 40 and 70, while more liberal scholarship tends to put them somewhere between 65 and 130. I've heard people declare that the so-called consensus is 65-70, as if the overlap of the two camps gave us the actual dates. The Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, tells us Mark was written c. 50-67 AD. Earlychristianwritings.com, a secular site, gives c. 65-80. With Matthew and Luke the differences are often quite a bit more marked. I don't see any consensus at all, just a jumble of hypotheses and speculation. --hurtstotalktoyou
On the other hand, I agree the article could use some improvement. I would appreciate some help in that, but instead it gets defaced by citation needed tags after nearly every sentence, including those which already have a citation! The talk page is decorated with the ever-constructive "this article is bollocks," and then it gets put up for deletion, with reasons wiki standards indicate require merely revision. --hurtstotalktoyou
Wikipedia needs an article that discusses Synoptic authorship in detail. I understand some of your objections, and I've already re-written it (nearly from the ground up) once, which seemed to be a step in the right direction. I'd love to work on it some more, to the point where most reasonable people can agree on its content, and the disputed tags can be removed. More than that, I'd love some help, which, with few exceptions, is the exact opposite of what I've been getting so far. --hurtstotalktoyou
It already has articles that discuss Synoptic authorship in detail: Synoptic Problem, Two-source hypothesis, Markan Priority, Aramaic Primacy, and Q document. What you are doing is creating an extremely biased fork. This is forbidden - see Wikipedia:Content Forking. Clinkophonist 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but none of those articles discusses the dates of authorship--they don't even mention them in passing! That's not surprising, since none of them need to do so in order to investigate their respective topics. See, the reason I began this article is because I was curious about what wikipedia had to say about dates and authorship. Much to my surprise, the only mention of dates I could find were on the individual Gospel pages themselves, and not in great detail. I also noticed two articles on Johannine authorship and Pauline authorship. So, thought I, I'll write up a little piece of Synoptic authorship. It's a widely discussed topic, I mused, so I'm sure I'll get lots of help and input. At first I did get some help, albeit very little. Now I'm fighting off vandalism from the guy who wants the article deleted. Fantastic. --hurtstotalktoyou
Don't AFDs normally get more votes than this? At any rate, I kind of agree that there's no particular reason not to have an article on this topic. None of the articles Clinkophonist cites deals explicitly with this issue, and it seems plausible to have an article with that title. That said, the current article is completely inadequate. Clinkophonist, why don't you work with me to try to make the article decent and have it cite mainstream scholarship, instead of trying (fruitlessly, it would appear) to get it deleted? john k 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Heck, we could turn it into a stub and build off that, if you folks are so unsatisfied with its current state. I'm honestly not working off any bias or OR, here. I'm just interested in the topic, and I thought it would be fun to work on a page that seems needed in the wiki world. --hurtstotalktoyou
It would be better to put the material in Synoptic Problem, which is entirely about their authorship, which dates they have etc. The Synoptic Problem is completely affected by the order of the dates, what circumstances they could have been written under (i.e. the issues during the time they were written), and who could have written them - if they were actually written by Matthew-the-apostle and Mark-assistant-to-Simon-Peter then an interdependence would be unlikely, bar what would be expected for reporting the same events, so they are clearly issues that belong in that article. Clinkophonist 22:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve Reviewing the edit history shows that there is general improvement over the less than two weeks this article has been in existence. It would be helpful if more users were contributing (not reverting). While the Synoptic Problem could discuss the dating issue, it does not do so at all, and need not do so. The subject matter is of sufficient significance to have an article in Wikipedia. Specific discussion about how to improve the article is better left to the talk page for the article. GRBerry 22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete The fact that the title and focus of the article has changed is, in my view, strong evidence that it is poorly concieved and unnecessary. This topic is, and should, be covered in the entries for the seperate books. There is not enough commonality to justify a sumary article. While there has been improvement in quality, the basic redundancy of the article makes it a prime candidate for deletion. Any important information or references can be merged into the appropriate articles. Eluchil404 21:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not true. The article began as a personal essay on Synoptic authorship. I worked in some material for John just before I submitted it as a wiki article, forgetting it was already covered in the Johannine article. I was in the process of removing references to GJohn when I realized I should probably include Acts, since it is so closely related to the Synoptics. Throughout it all, the focus has remained on the Synoptics. In any case, the individual Synoptic entries don't cover authorship with much depth, nor should they. This article is a collection of hypotheses and theories regarding the composition of four works which are extremely closely related. Inserting those discussions into every one of the Synoptic entries would be extremely redundant and somewhat distracting, in my opinion. --hurtstotalktoyou
Questions of relationships between the synoptics are and should be covered in the Synoptic problem. There are no issues of authorship common to them (and not common to the rest of the Biblical corpus) not best covered there. There dates are also not necessarily closely linked. The order of composition is covered in the Synoptic problem while manuscript and patristic evidence is unique to each book. The real issue here, in my mind is WP:NOR and WP:V. The article seems designed to synthesize the actual evidence fo the dates of the Gospels rather than simply record what previous scholars have published. That's not what wikipedia is and on such controversial subjects is guarunteed to lead to edit wars as people fight about what 'facts' are true.Eluchil404 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wouldn't worry about edit wars. That's common with a lot of wiki pages, but it's never any reason to delete an article. Moreover, it usually seems to result in a better article. Most importantly, though, I cannot stress enough I am not trying to advance original research. I know better than to think my opinion trumps an entire field of scholarship. All I'm trying to do, here, is document the gamut of scholarly opinion, from the minority Christian fundamentalists to the extremist secular scholars. I do believe that's appropriate for wikipedia. --hurtsotalktoyou
  • Keep. The nominator says "It fails to mention any of the Q Gospel, Synoptic Problem, or Markan Priority, suggesting a complete unfamiliarity. . ." But the article does now mention the Synoptic Problem and Markan Priority, and doesn't mention Q because that's outside of the scope. It needs citations, but it has lots of good information that, if true, should be kept. Sarah crane 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Change it, tweak it, improve it, merge it; do whatever you'd like to bring it up to standards. WP should have an in-depth discussion of Synoptic composition. It's a rich and interesting subject with a long history of investigation. It deserves an entry. --hurtstotalktoyou


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!
Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it doesn't seem like a POV fork to me but it needs serious work. No real sources, it doesn't tell me why I care, completely inaccessible to an outsider. Kotepho 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete OR - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, as well as above. Morgan Wick 03:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 04:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still reads like OR. Will change my vote if it's written more like Wikipedia and less like Wikibooks. Fagstein 05:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's original research. It doesn't matter how well written or poorly written an article is, Wikipedia is not a primary source. Proto||type 09:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there is plenty of scholarship on this issue, which we ought to report. A good, verifiable, NPOV article is certainly possible. But it is probably best done on the articles on the books themselves. A general dating article on the gospels would also be fine, but no need to limmit it to the synoptics. --Doc ask? 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, per WP:NOR. Most of the content of this topic is better covered at the specific articles for the synoptic gospels. Assuming that someone wanted to collected WP:V information about this in one central article I can't see a real justifiable reason for rehashing what is already in other articles.--Isotope23 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep capable of becoming a good article. AfD is not the place for content disputes. -Mask 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. I have no clue or opinion about the substance of the issue, but "no original research" is non-negotionable. Sandstein 05:50, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eversince[edit]

This article is about a form of Newspeak which appears to have been created by the uploader, note the article's creator and the name mentioned on the linked website are the same. Our official policy on such articles is: "If you invent the word "frindle" or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it"; I can find no secondary sources. Rje 00:15, 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 Merge and Redirect to Carl Barks. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only A Poor Old Man[edit]

Non notable story by a notable author. 766 Ghits. Rory096(block) 17:00, 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!
Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Carl Barks. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious merge I don't think you needed AfD for that. Just be bold next time. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect seems to be the best coarse of action. SorryGuy 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge, very notable person. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The person already has a good, long article. The article up for deletion is for a single story he wrote, not for the article about the man himself. --Icarus 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Carl Barks -- there's nothing to merge. dbtfztalk 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no purpose in redirecting this, as the only article that links to it is the author's own article. All a redirect would accomplish would be to create a link in that article that redirected right back to that same article. If it had other articles linking to it I'd vote to redirect, but in this case it's pointless and would only waste the time of anyone reading the author's article who wished to see what this article had to say. --Icarus 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carl Barks. All Carl Barks stories are notable, but there must be something to actually say about them. JIP | Talk 17:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and use this page as a redirect to Carl Banks. Obviously mentions of Only a Poor Old Man in Carl Banks article should not be wikinlinked, and it would be a good idea to state this on the talk page for Carl Banks. If anyone wants to turn Only a Poor Old Man into a proper article, then that would be a different matter, but it doesn't seem as though anyone does. Tyrenius 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMC - Comic Forums[edit]

vanity and unencyclopedic M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:40, 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. It's a biography even if it ain't a person. Chick Bowen 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocko the Jack Russell Terrier[edit]

  • Seems to be a self-promotion of a new user who is the same user who made a bad move of Film. Delete. Georgia guy 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I was about to db-bio this page.  :-) Coren 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lol you can't CSD A7 a dog!! It's only for people :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a dog-owner, I certainly consider them people, and therefore this one is eligible for an A7. Fan1967 01:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh I really, really want to delete this, but I am intrigued by the notion that more might be written about this as the author notes! Kotepho 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per Coren. No assertion of notability. Fan1967 01:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or else rename it "The blog of stories by the owner of the dog named Rocko the Jack Russell Terrier" Shenme 01:50, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Galactic Republic[edit]

Star Wars fancruft. It looks like an original synthesis on the history of the fictional Star Wars universe. Brian G. Crawford 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after reading the first 7 words of the article... LOL - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "Play Knights of the old Republic 1 to find out what happens next!!!" If it's not copyvio from a video-game box, it's original research. Delete, no need to merge or redirect to a Star Wars history article. Barno 01:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CrazyRussian --Deville (Talk) 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and BJAODN per Barno and CrazyRussian, WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, and WP:CRUFT is the least of its problems. Morgan Wick 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a poorly written attempt at describing the events leading up to Knights of the Old Republic that's explained far better in various KOTOR-releated articles. BryanG 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't deserve it's own page. A lot of this stuff is covered in other pages. Badly written too (i know that is not a valid reason though). Geedubber 03:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Morgan Wick. DarthVader 03:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Morgan Wick. Dspserpico 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Morgan Wick. SorryGuy 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Morgan Wick. --Terence Ong 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BryanG --Icarus 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Morgan Wick. Delete Changing vote after reviewing what constitues a BJAODN Aeon 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't send it to BJAODN, as it's not funny. Proto||type 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment er...I think this is covered in some other article already M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Info is already elsewhere on Wikipedia. Pat Payne 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft, advertising. Not funny enough for BJAODN. JIP | Talk 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also factually and temporally incorrect. Tokakeke 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think I really need to state a reason explicitly. Kotepho 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Galactic Republic. Redxiv 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and please do not put it on BJAODN. Absolutely nothing funny,just rubbish -- Heptor talk 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this sort of thing would be better if properly formatted and inserted in Galactic Republic--KefkaTheClown 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should not be merged to Galactic Republic. This information is completely incorrect. Tokakeke 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anyway to have this deleted it looks like we have a solid conseus Aeon 13:39, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marduk in popular culture[edit]

A random list of fictional people, places, and things named "Marduk". Every single one of these things is unrelated to Marduk, and they seem to be more or less unrelated except in name, making this an indiscriminate collection of trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep nominator for some reason didn't mention the article just got off AfD. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator misread the old nomination, and thought it was a year old, not a few weeks old. As may be, my reasoning above still applies, and the previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. An 'X in pop culture' page should give instances of X being used as a reference in pop culture, or of books, movies, or games erected around the historical fact of X. This article is a list of Things Named X in Games. That will not do. Hornplease 06:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just survived AfD.... shouldn't be a change of consensus this early. -Mask 06:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous AFD was contaminated by a poorly-argued and belligerent nomination. Mine, well, isn't. Would you care to address the arguments I've made? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; articles should not be nominated to AfD over and over again. All the reasons given a week ago are still true.--Prosfilaes 07:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the previous AFD was screwed up by a lousy nomination and an unrelated grudge against the nominator. Will my arguments be more valid in a month after the old AFD is a bit older? Will they be more valid in six months? A year? When does "This is just a list of random things named Marduk" get addressed? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every previous AfD was screwed up by something if you disagree with it. It takes time and effort to handle pages on AfD, and if it made it past one AfD, it's not an awful page that just must be deleted. Backing off reduces stress on people and the number of pages on AfD.--Prosfilaes 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read the last AFD. It degenerates into an argument about the nominator's motives, and begins with a "this isn't my pop culture, get it off my wiki!" argument. Heck, I may have voted keep if I had seen that last AFD first. Why is a precedent set because of a bad nomination more important than the merits of the article? Are you planning to address the merits (or lack thereof) of this article?
          • Because the precedent means we hashed through already, and not asking people to argue over an article over and over is more important than deleting a marginal article. I addressed the merits of this article a week ago; why shouldn't that be enough.
          • As for this article, half of Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of trivia. This article was probably created by someone wanting people to stop adding it to Marduk, which probably worked pretty well. Having this article lets a few new editors add something to an article and not get immediately reverted, and it saves the experienced editors sheperding Marduk some trouble. At the cost of letting a moderately unencyclopedic and moderately interesting and frequently read article stick around. What a deal.--Prosfilaes 03:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bad decision is a bad decision -- how is this NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia? --Calton | Talk 08:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hornplease. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was on AFD just a week or so ago, and kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or turn into disambig. Indiscriminate it stands and not warranting a main space article. Marskell 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no connection between these things except the spelling of their names. Putting it all together is just OR. Kevin 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article. Could be strengthened with more information on why usage is popular. Kukini 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I take on board A Man In Black's (somewhat vociferous) comments re the previous AfD, but it is still an (inadvertent) abuse of process to renominate so soon. This issue of speedy renoms is something we really ought to take a look at in general. Badgerpatrol 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Marduk. Spearhead 17:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unrelated to marduk except by name. --Mmx1 17:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per calton, without regard to the previous AfD. Article appears to fail Wikipedia:Importance and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Since none of the listed items has any relevance to the Mesopotamian god Marduk beyond a name, perhaps I should write John in popular culture, add a picture of King John I, and list every movie and TV series with a "John" character. Barno 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While your point with WP:NOT is well taken, Importence is an essay, not policy or guideline, so while it is interesting, it is not applicable. -Mask 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno -- Hirudo 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty POV reason... --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge into Marduk. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. This was on AfD less than a month ago, and was a CONSENSUS KEEP. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails Wikipedia:Importance Aeon 03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aeon. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like a disambiguation page gone bad. Arguments from previous AfD leave me unswayed. Fagstein 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect with Marduk. It was originally part of that article, but was spilt from it here. --Tydaj 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to References to Marduk in popular culture to match other similar articles. Do not merge; the myth and legend articles get bogged down in modernfictioncruft unless that stuff gets split off like this. -Sean Curtin 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But are these all references to one Marduk, or are they just characters coincidentally named the same? Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated previously, the article itself was only recently nominated for the same reasons, and the conclusion at that time was that the 'keep' arguments were sufficient to save the article. It is, imo, unfair of you to nominate the same article again, for what essentialy amount to the same reasons behind the previous AFD, albiet written in a more eloquent fasion.
While the discussion seems a bit too fargone by now, I will none the less add my two cents: For unrelated reasons, I had become aware of the name 'Marduke' as a curiously repeating name in fiction. Namely, I noted at the time that he was a summon in Seiken Densetsu 3, was somehow related to the selection of the Evangelion pilots, and simultaneously lent his name to a dual-wielding demigod and a race of singing space warlords. In the end, my experience tells me that this information is significant, as it led me to seek out information on the character to whome the name originaly belonged, is that the sort of scenario wikipedia should strive to avoid? is the accumulation of knowledge so undesirable? --KefkaTheClown 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what's called original research. It's prohibited on Wikipedia for the reasons described on that page. Fagstein 07:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article you've linked to states quite explicitly that Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages. And since my statement was testimony, rather than an unverifiable theory, I stand by it.--KefkaTheClown 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll even cite my source on that for you... --KefkaTheClown 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Marduk in popular culture is neither a Talk page nor a Project page. Fagstein 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And duely, it would be wrong of me to drop my testimony into the article itself. However, AFDs are projects, rather than articles. --KefkaTheClown 00:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indenting) Comment: To summarise here, and to (try) clear up the confusion, Kefka's just stating his reasons why the article should be kept.
To Kefka: however, for the article to be kept, this claim would have to be in the article, and with a source (as indicated in the NOR policy you have cited). It is not enough for you to mention it here. Kimchi.sg 08:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The basis for the article is original research. Unless this can be shown to be not true, the article will have to go. Fagstein 22:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my intention was to provide an example of how the page in question (and truly, any 'x in popular culture' page out there...) would be put to service, and not to imply that this would be the sole excuse to keep the article around, which seems to be the way it was interpreted. An another note, does the material not count as a source? I mean, if we're going to rely on a published work to verify that say... Marduk is referenced in Septerra Core, can't we cite the game itself as a source? Anyway, I'm too sick to argue the point, I still think that the article should stay, but uppon reflection, I don't see a reason for it not to be merged with the Marduk article proper.--KefkaTheClown 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using the game itself can't be used as a source. The only thing is we'd have to show that the name "Marduk" is actually a reference to Marduk and not a coincidentally chosen name. Fagstein 18:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just followed the link and found it interesting. Why delete it?
  • Keep, same as before. What's changed about Marduk's notability since last time? Jimpartame 07:18, 17 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) 05:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Yurgens[edit]

Delete This is an NN Vice-President of an NN Russian employer-side labor union. Here's his bio [3], which indicates that he had been a minor government official in the trade ministries, and worked in quasi-gov't organizations. Apparently he's been interviewed by the BBC [4] and mentioned in Business Week [5] on Russian industry issues. While that's terrific, that doesn't make him notable. He was not the subject of the coverage, and he's not a significant player by any means in Russian industry. For those who can read Russian, here's the largely Russian, largely useless website of his employer [6], on which he is apparently not mentioned. My thanks to User:Monicasdude, who contested prod here, found some of these links, and who makes my Wikilife interesting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Crz's perspicacious nom (which properly concludes that, though he is mentioned in the articles that Mdude nobly adduces toward notability, he is mentioned only tangentially and less-than-substantively). Concur also in his sentiment that Mdude surely makes Wikilife interesting, for which one is, on the whole, grateful. Joe 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crz. Doesn't look all that notable, as the union he represents only has 1000 members who probably don't read this Wiki... if he is notable in Russia he needs an article in the Russian Wikipedia.--Tollwutig 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One-sentence article and unlikely anything will be added. NN person anyway. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Since he's treated as notable/authoritative by news media like the BBC and Business Week, he's presumptively notable. Russian economic issues aren't exactly well-covered by web-based news media, but he turns up relatively regularly in articles that do appear [7]. Whether the BBC or other should treat him as notable is a different issue; once he's been treated as notable in major media, and mentioned with some frequency in news articles, whatever the sources, he's someone who a reader might quite reasonably want more information about, and therefore notable for Wikipedia purposes. If the article in inadequate, expand it. Monicasdude 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so you know, MD, I've been mentioned in a half-dozen newspaper articles as well. Tangentially, of course, like IY here. Interviewed even once. I am starting to think I might be presumptively notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's interesting. Do you actually have any real claim to notability? (other than being a crazy Russian of course, I presume this is hardly exclusive :) -- Heptor talk 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, only presumptive notability per User:Monicasdude - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you in charge of some significant country-wide organization, or did you make research that was published in a serious publication more than a few times? I am quite serious, I have actually met editors here who have articles about themselves. -- Heptor talk 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only thing the article mentions him is that he's a vice-president of a union, and even the union itself doesn't have an article. How is this encyclopedic? JIP | Talk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he's still being mentioned in the media. One of the very useful things I have found with Wiki is information of this type which wasn't available, or at least easily available, through other sources. I feel that it contributes to Wiki's comprehensiveness and gives it an edge over competitors. Tyrenius 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the organization is more notable but doesn't even have an article --Ajdz 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for starting an article on the organization, not for deleting what minimal information exists about it via the article under discussion. If the labor union article existed, then this one could be merged with it perhaps. Tyrenius 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. What, it's not like we are running out of space here. -- Heptor talk 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but in order for the reader to consider WP a creditble credible source of information, all our articles need to be about worthy subjects. Every time a reader encounters an unworthy inclusion, s/he will put less value on the properly included articles as well, and the perception will be that WP contains a buncha crap w/o quality control. Imagine yourself a judge who is doing research on a technical issue. Would you cite WP in your judicial opinion? I want to see WP reach that kind of quality. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see how stating that "Igor Yurgens is vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists" (which totals the content of this article) can be understood as discrediting for Wikipedia. -- Heptor talk 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This page is accessible to any member of the public and I think that a level of argument which describes the mention of an organisation's official as "a buncha crap" is far more likely to discredit it, as are spelling mistakes such as "creditble". I share the same goal of wanting to make Wikipedia respected. However, if we are to achieve this, then it is necessary to address the arguments, and my previous points have been ignored, not answered. Tyrenius 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. For the record, I wasn't referring to IY as "a buncha crap", but to a theoretical unworthy article. Misspelling has been corrected. This is in the project namespace. It's ok to say "buncha crap" here. Doesn't discredit WP. And as for creating an article for the Union, upon further review, I could go for it. We can then extend a redirect from IY. Go ahead! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Following the suggestion there is now an article (stub) Russian Union of Industrialists which contains all the info from Igor Yurgens which can now be used as a redirect, if everyone is in agreement. The Union is more important than has been suggested, becauses the 1,000 members aren't individual employees: they are 1,000 businesses, factories etc. Tyrenius 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources provided imply that this fellow doesn't meet the professor test either, so I must concur with the Crazy Russian. Kuzaar 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrazyRussian's well reasoned arguments └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Heptor. Zeq 12:09, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidan Game[edit]

Non-notable; I can't find any reference on this game anywhere. J.reed 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete much as I love banana-collecting side-scrolling games - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ConDemTalk 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search on the phrase "Rapidan Game" returns exactly one result... a Wikipedia page. A search for Rapidan and the phrase "Lightning Round" returns 5 results. Definitely fails WP:SOFTWARE. WP:NOT may also apply. Morgan Wick 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aeon 06:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of not referenced, which is a requirement. Tyrenius 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick&Matt[edit]

Non-notable comic strip. prod and prod2 tags removed.

I hope you ment Nom Aeon 01:06, 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 delete, obvious hoax

Slovandia and Quakertown (Slovandia)[edit]

joke article Doctor Whom 01:40, 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 all as per other recent deletion nominations related to this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-X252 Forbidden Gundam, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAT1-X_Hyperion_Gundam_series and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GAT-X102_Duel_Gundam for detailed analysis of arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TS-MA4F Exass, TS-MB1B Euclid, TSX-MA717/ZD Pergrande, YMAF-X6BD Zamza-Zah, YMAG-X7F Gells-Ghe[edit]

More Gundamcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information, unencyclopedic, appeals to a niche audience, original research. Please keep the personal comments out of this discussion. If you need to attack me, second-guess me or otherwise question my motives, leave a message on my talk page. Mangojuice's objection to small group nominations is noted, however, I don't see an alternative. Brian G. Crawford 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki Seriously, I haven't heard a reasonable argument to keep these articles on Wikipedia. They're on the Gundam Wiki. What's the point? Danny Lilithborne 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, we don't need to have any Gundam content at all. Or Star Wars or Star Trek, for that matter, since they've got Wikis too. For that matter, nearly everything on Wikipedia can be found somewhere else on the Internet (though not necessarily on a Wiki). If information being available somewhere else is in and of itself a reason for deletion, then Wikipedia serves no purpose. Also, the fact that people went to the trouble of creating a Wiki solely to contain these articles certainly can't make them less notable. Redxiv 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete übercruft. Transwiki to what? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a Gundam wiki. And most of these articles are there already, but arguments for transfering the articles wholesale, history and all, have some validity IMO. Danny Lilithborne 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the countless other Gundam AfDs from today. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it would be nice to keep these articles. Adv193 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. See other AFDs. Kotepho 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki --Yannick 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per others. --Arnzy (Talk) 04:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Some interesting stuff here but doesn't belong here.--Cini 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once again, a group nomination. I brought the alternative to the nominator's attention on his talk page: either make one big group nomination, or nominate individual articles. All this small group business does is fragment the debate. For those who don't know what I'm referring to, see the other three nominations of groups of Gundam robots, all currently active. Mangojuice 05:35, 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. (Posted in other pages too...) Golux Ex Machina 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikia:c:Gundam. Aeon 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I see no reason for them to be deleted, they're not harming anything or against Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. I really wish you would stop nominating this stuff, but that's obviously not going to happen. Calaschysm 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calaschysm most here want to see it transwikied not deleted per say Aeon 06:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was responding to it being on "articles for deletion" though I guess that covers transwiki...ing as well. Calaschysm 07:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per my reasoning in the other Gundam AfDs. Redxiv 09:48, 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. Just because the subject of the article is fictional does not mean that article should be deleted. NoIdeaNick 12:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per my reasons in the other Gundam AfDs. L-Zwei 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Star Wars comparison is worthless, because Star Wars is well known, and this isn't. GWO
  • Comment That's why sales of Gundam model kits have made billions and billions of dollars, right? Calaschysm 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki & merge per my comments on earlier AfD's... this should all be handles as one big AfD or each individually though... really this small group stuff is getting tedious.--Isotope23 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As outlined already, I object to the creation of multiple AfDs for small groups of articles without outlining the criteria by which they are divided. It only serves to complicate the debating process and comes accross as obnoxiousness rather than a legitimate concearn regarding the articles in question. Argument about the subject matter should be postponed untill all these AfDs are concatinated approrpriately. --KefkaTheClown 18:29, 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. Then nominate all USS Enterprise articles for deletion per nomination. -- Saberwyn 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it these articles violate none of wikipedia's article rules, there is no reason why they should be deleted. Fact that someone can argue that Star Wars is different is completely selfish, you may not like the subject of the article, but that gives someone no right to delete it because of that fact. Star Wars and Star Treck should both be on the choping block to if these articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.148.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as other users above have explained. Lone Jobber 06:37, 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 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the church did have a reason to keep all the old stuff around: Classical education was important for the churchmen, who had to know the historical context of the scriptures they were reading, even if the historical context was seen in a light that glorified the Christian church above competing schools of thought. 'Bible only' is a relatively modern invention in the history of Christianity. Iceberg3k 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE there are related mass deletion requests in recent days 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT correct merge target is : Cosmic Era Mobile Units
  • DELETE 132.205.45.148 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)

STRONG KEEP MarineCorps 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Space Pirate Minagi 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Most of the information is actually translated directly from various sources, including direct references in the show, books, magazines, and model boxes and instructions. However, there are too many sources to actually list. This entire thing seems rather random and pointless, really.--DNAlpha 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none the less, it would be a good idea to find a source that verifies the technical statistics...--KefkaTheClown 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply MAHQ.com its all there
  • Transwiki to the Gundam section of Wikia. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimina collection of information. Stifle (talk) 01:51, 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 21:48, 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 the current form and make a true redirect to Lord Voldemort. (There seems nothing to merge, as pointed out below). While the intention of spoiler prevention is a good one, this case really seems to be stretching things. It's quite common knowledge and hard to avoid at this point: anyone searching Google for Tom Riddle is going to see the WP article Lord Voldemort as the first hit. Search for Tom Marvolo Riddle and it is the second hit. This soft redirect seems like far too much trouble for the very unlikely case that someone comes across the term "Tom Marvolo Riddle", and decides to jump to that page on Wikipedia, without consulting any other sources, without searching Wikipedia, and without looking at any other Harry Potter pages on Wikipedia. Once they do hit this page, all they find out is that Tom Riddle is a character in the book, one short sentence of content about him, and that he is important enough to warrant some sort of spoiler (which is a type of spoiler itself). If they follow the spoiler link, then the soft redirect was not needed. If they don't follow the link, it begs the question as to what they were hoping to find, if not information about the character that they might not know yet. Finally, arguments for a soft redirect might have more weight for a more recent spoiler, but the book revealing the connection was released in 1998. - Turnstep 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Marvolo Riddle[edit]

Orginal merged into Lord Voldemort, This article provides little in the way of information (To put it mildly) and the series has been around for some time (in both book and Movie form) that a stub of Tom Riddle with a redirect is not needed has this plot detail is not much of a secret - Delete Aeon 02:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure... having this soft redirect sure looks silly, but I can imagine someone, in the middle of reading Chamber of Secrets, looking up Tom Riddle on Wikipedia without expecting to have such a major plot point spoiled for them. Is there a precedent for anti-spoiler redirects like this? --Allen 02:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is the first one I've seen and I agree it is pretty silly. Aeon 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The only other example I can think of is Scabbers (talk page) and Peter Pettigrew (talk page): more from Harry Potter universe. The PP page was originally created to contain spoiler information, but the information was rapidly returned to the Scabbers article as well. Subsequently I merged them. Telsa (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kids love this Harry Potter stuff, but I don't see the need for all this fandom in an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is part of the second book, many many later plot details are revealed in the main article. This is really ridiculous. Grandmasterka 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lord Voldemort & delete Bridesmill 02:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want us to delete Bridesmill? He's a perfectly good user :) --LambiamTalk 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i shall nominate him for deletion. ;) --M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can AfD users?--Tollwutig 14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case this was a serious question, no, you cannot. Turnstep 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brian G. Crawford. DarthVader 03:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act per any prior precedent per Amcbride. If there isn't one, keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm generally more of a deletionist, or at least a mergist, but my abhorrence toward undesired spoilers trumps those right now. It's an odd little article, but it has some value. I'm going to make this a weak keep, however, as I remember the dispute over whether or not certain characters should have a heading titled "Death" in their articles, lest the article's very table of contents contain a spoiler. I agreed in those cases that after a reasonable amount of time, certain information changes from "spoiler" into "common knowledge". In those cases a quirky soft redirect like this wouldn't be possible, so it's not a perfect comparison. So in consideration of these factors, I'm making this a weak keep vote. --Icarus 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Huh? What does that have to do with this? I still just don't see why a piece of the plot of a series should be arbitrarily taken out and put in a separate article like this. It would make for an impassible encyclopedia if we chopped up a plot into ten different articles to avoid spoilers, and this is clearly not the precedent... This makes no sense to me. Grandmasterka 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, This IS an encyclopedia. Small little and very useless redirects like this should be deleted. Aeon 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. What that has to do with this is that this article exists primarily as a way of avoiding the inherent spoiler that would come from redirecting it to Lord Voldemort. That's why I was talking about spoilers. --Icarus 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lord Voldemort & delete. I would expect this sort of thing on a Harry Potter reference site but on Wikipedia as an abuse of redirects. WP does just exist to pander to those Harry Potter fans who don't know about these plot developments. This would set a ridiculous precendent if novels and television series were to have their story arcs explained in separate articles.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As this is a perfectly valid name for a major character, I think that even if the consensus is that this article has no place here, it should be turned into a redirect (or deleted and recreated as a redirect, if there's any reason do to so) to the main Lord Voldemort article rather than being totally deleted. If nothing else, this might serve to protect against re-creation by someone who discovered that there was no article of this name, but who did not know that there had once been. --Icarus 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per aeropagitica. Seriously, nobody would ever bother to learn about Lord Voldemort on Wikipedia first before reading the books, and to purport otherwise is dumb. Common Wikipedia practice should not be subverted at the whims of Harry Potter fandom. Proto||type 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - this should just be a straightforward (ie, not soft) redirect. This was tried with Anakin Skywalker being a soft redirect to Darth Vader, but was eventually overturned and the Anakin Skywalker just states what happens (following a spoiler warning). This is different, though, as this article is two lines, not a lengthy article, and it may as well just be a redirect. Proto||type 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this very example when deciding how to vote, but decided that it's different because the Star Wars spoiler is over 20 years old at this point. I don't know where I'd draw the line, and made my vote weak because a case could be made for this spoiler being too old to be a real spoiler too, but for what it's worth, I thought I'd just mention the huge difference between a 20+ year old spoiler for a trilogy that was finished 20 years ago and a more recent spoiler for a series that isn't done yet. (Hm, maybe that's where I'd draw the line... Except for serieses that have no set ending point, of course.) --Icarus 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Unlike Grandmasterka, I don't think this is a "plot detail". If you read Lord Voldemort front to end you expect to encounter possible plot spoilers, but if you innocently just look for "Tom Riddle", it is potentially a major spoiler to be redirected to You-Know-Who. The article should be rewritten a bit, making it more like a typical article, and I think it is safe enough after a plot spoiler warning to say something like: "More about his identity is revealed in the article on Lord Voldemort." --LambiamTalk 09:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't understand some of the recommendations. "Merge"? There is nothing to be merged. Have those recommending this even looked at the situation? "Delete"? So do these users propose that the next user looking for "Tom Riddle" gets to stare at a page stating: "Wikipedia does not have a page with this exact name. *Start the Tom Riddle page or add a request for it."? I can assure you that such a page would be started in essentially zero time. LambiamTalk 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never seen a "soft redirect" before, and it's a little fishy, but for someone as culturally big as Lord Voldemort I think this is a reasonable use. This should not be construed as an invitation to create soft redirects for every minor character in every fantasy series; I would reserve this sort of thing for only the biggest exceptions. bikeable (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't see why having this soft redirect hurts anything. Certainly don't delete, we need it as a hard redirect if nothing else. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lord Voldemort. It says in the Wikipedia FAQs that Wikipedia contains spoilers, so there's no point in keeping this as a separate article just to avoid spoiling the second book. Anyway, most Harry Potter fanatics have already read it almost immediately after it came out, and most Harry Potter non-fanatics won't care anyway. JIP | Talk 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it hurts to have this redirect, given that we do acknowledge spoilers by having spoiler warnings. Vashti 18:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's currently not a redirect, it's a separate article whose only reason for existence as a separate article is to avoid spoiling a plot point. If it were to be changed to a real redirect then that would be fine by me. JIP | Talk 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a "soft" redirect with a little additional commentary. I just checked that guideline page, and it actually does explicitly state that it can be used in cases where a spoiler would be inherent, such as when a character has an alter ego. --Icarus 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Woot. In that case, I'd say that for something as big as Harry Potter, which new people are discovering all the time, the soft redirect can be justified. Vashti 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This is silly. We are an encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain information, not pander to people who whine about spoilers. I you don't wish for spoilers, then have the common sense not to go to Wikipedia. Simple as that. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a soft redirect with so little information is pointless, and it in a way gives away the alter ego of Riddle....why even bother. Aeon 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Icarus and Wikipedia:Soft_redirect. --Allen 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep per this being a perfect example of Soft redirects for spoilers. Shadowoftime 02:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If having extra information on Tom Riddle is the reason that people think this article is somehow hurting Wikipedia, the info can always be deleted as long as the spoiler and soft redirect stay. A soft direct is better in this instance because it doesn't spoil an important part of the story while there is no reason for a hard redirect over a soft one here. Shadowoftime 02:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this soft redirect. The fact is to simply redirect Tom Riddle to Voldemort would reveal a spoiler to someone who is simply asking for information on Tom Riddle. Suppose someone hears the name from a friend or is in the middle of reading the Chamber of Secrets. They could possibly believe that Tom Riddle is a minor character and is not any more complicated then what they were reading at the time. It is simply safer to include the soft redirect, then not too. The Filmaker 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is about the article Tom Marvolo Riddle, specifically. I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to recall that "Marvolo" is introduced as his middle name, like, three sentences before he's revealed to be Lord Voldemort, so the chances that anyone who knows enough to search for all three names wouldn't already know his true identity is extremely small. It might be more justifiable to move this soft redirect to Tom Riddle, and have Tom Marvolo Riddle go ahead and redirect to Lord Voldemort (although personally I think that anyone who uses Wikipedia to look up stuff about an eight-year-old book while reading it deserves what they get). --phh (t/c) 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lord Voldemort. Stifle (talk) 01:51, 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 all articles. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 1 (CityRail)[edit]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion

The notable information from the above nominated pages are in the CityRail article, thus all pages are redundant. So Delete All --Arnzy (Talk) 02:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - With great respect to everyone, I wish Americans and Canadians would keep out of debates like this. I don't think you guys know much about CityRail (if you do I am very sorry), but I wouldn't just jump on US and Canadian votes and randomly vote for their deletion for reasons that I may not know anything about. Anyway, the train types which the Sectors determine are listed on CityRail's webpage and the sectors are not obscure as people have suggested. However, I will agree that the five articles don't warrant their own page each - one page will suffice when the CityRail article is improved and that information doesn't need to be on the front page. I have merged all the information in the articles onto the front page so you are now welcome to delete them.
That's a Delete all from me. (JROBBO 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I spent almost an hour trying to find out what this topic was about, and came to the conclusion that if CityRail didn't think it was that important, Wikipedia probably didn't need it. Peter Grey 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then - I did note that you at least gave reasons for the deletion - so thank you. Some people on WP don't give any and if they don't know anything about the subject and can't give a good reason from their own research, they shouldn't be voting. You have made a good effort, so thanks - I appreciate it. (JROBBO 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Not a vote, but the info in these is very redundant. Adding more would be a good idea. M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that the arguments put forward are persuasive and no one has put any counter points. Tyrenius 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this not-particularly-useful soft redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly useless page. -- Heptor talk 23:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JROBBO. JPD (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all for railcruft, but this is too much. Ambi 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete un-necessary stubs.--cj | talk 06:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with question Information exists in cityrail as per nom. (Is this a merge and delete? Would that be GFDL compatible?) Andjam 07:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete non-notable bio. — xaosflux Talk 02:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel_H_Parkins[edit]

Not a prominent person, has been vandalizing the St. Thomas, Ontario page. StumpyRaccoon 02:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest moon of Endor[edit]

Fancruft, original research, speculation on a supposed Ewok holocaust, niche interest. From what I've heard, there are already two Star Wars wikis, so Wikipedia isn't the place for this. I'll apologize in advance to all the teenage boys, video store employees, and comic book collectors that this nomination offends and insist that this isn't anything personal. I don't expect this to get deleted, but it would be such a happy, joyous day if it did. Direct personal comments to my talk page, please. Brian G. Crawford 02:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Question. About the Endor Holocaust stuff, that originally had its own page, but I nominated it for AfD, and it got deleted. Since it was deleted, the stub on the Endor Holocaust in the Endor page has grown from people merging stuff from deleted page back in. Your reason for deletion seems to stem entirely from that section though, so instead of deleting the entire Endor page, why not just delete that section? The topic of the Endor Holocaust has already been deemed unworthy of being included in wikipedia, so the Endor page could be fixed quickly and easily by removing the offending info. I do believe that the Endor page deserves to be Kept though Geedubber 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The moon is one of the central locations of Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. It's clearly significant and notable within the Star Wars universe. The wiki is not paper, so we can cover areas traditional encyclopedias do not. Probably could use some more sources, but so could half the articles on Wikipedia. Certainly some Star Wars-related stuff is too obscure for Wikipedia, but this isn't one of them. BryanG 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep you seem to be confused. Endor is a moon not a planer. The Endor seen in Episode VI is the Forest moon of Endor which orbits Endor. The Planet of Endor itself is not seen in Star Wars Episode VI. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough to be here even if it also exists on another Wiki; hopefully we are building a holistic encyclopaedia. Certainly rm guff re Ewok holocaust unless it can be verified. Why would it be a joyous day to see this deleted? Articles like this are an important part of Wikipedia's distinctiveness. I think BGC may be on something of a crusade. Sadly my days of being a teenage boy and collecting comic books are long behind me, although I'm still interested in the video store job if the hours are good. Badgerpatrol 02:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This 25 year old guy who doesn't read comic books or work in a video store says keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems notable enough if we're keeping any Star Wars stuff. That being said, the section on the "holocaust" needs to go. That's OR, and it's OR about stuff that ain't even true, which strikes me as the worst kind of OR. --Deville (Talk) 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very important Star Wars location. Carioca 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup per nom. Morgan Wick 03:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crazy rabid Ewok keep. --maru (talk) contribs 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Endor is a very notable location in the Return of the Jedi and passes WP:FICT, "Endor Holocaust" is fanon and does not belong. Dspserpico 03:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Star Wars location. Might need a cleanup. DarthVader 03:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep setting of three different things? Kotepho 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Wookiee Ewok Keep per the Darth Vader. Rise. _-M o P-_ 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Relevant to the series, plenty of sources for constructive article and notable. Plenty enough reasons for its own article.--Cini 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Star Wars has a very strong cultural presence, and the forest moon of Endor (even if many people think it's the planet Endor itself) is one of the three planets (or moon, in this case) that are unquestionably integral and well-known (the other two being Tatooine and Hoth). This isn't a little-known location like, say, Blenjeel, which rightfully has only a tiny entry in a list of minor planets. --Icarus 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable enough since we do have Star wars related stuff Aeon 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is not Starwarscruft as this is a notable place in the Star Wars galaxy. --Terence Ong 06:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, reasonably well-sourced, informative, notable, highly important to popular culture. There may be some Star Wars wikis, but that does not mean that this is not part of "the sum of human knowledge." Nominations like this are why it's vital that people participate in AfD- deletionists seem to abound.Captainktainer 09:17, 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 Move to Wikipedia namespace, delete main namespace redirect I'll refactor internal links to this page as external links (this will ensure that they will work on mirrors only contain the main namespace). --19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

List of largest wikis[edit]

The meat of the article seems to have moved to Metawiki a while back; what's left seems rather useless. Hirudo 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wikipedia namespace and soft redirect as partial self-reference. We don't hard-redirect users to meta. Morgan Wick 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We can't, in fact; it's not implemented in mediawiki. Stifle (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect per Morgan Wick. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unuseful soft redirect. Stifle (talk) 01:50, 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 keep, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curzon Dax[edit]

Fancruft, i.e., ridiculously specific information on a fictional world, of interest to a very narrow audience. Memory Alpha already has an article. Sorry, Trekkies, it's nothing personal, I just don't think this is useful to anyone but hardcore Trek fans. Brian G. Crawford 02:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Colour me confused, but I see no reason why this entry ought to be deleted. It's no worse (or better) than any entry on any other Star Trek character. Fluit 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd rate Curzon Dax at about the same level as importance in ST as Noonien Soong and considerably more than Hugh (Star Trek). If you want to go on a crusade to nominate all the minor Star Trek character articles, be my guest, but you're probably not going to accomplish much. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Badgerpatrol 02:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the precedent on these characters was set long ago - if this goes, dozens of others would have to as well.Bridesmill 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per precedent. Obviously notable and well-known Star Trek character. Carioca 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Curzon is referneced in numerous episode of DS9. Would be interesting to anyone who even casually watched the show Geedubber 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. BryanG 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm starting to suspect a WP:POINT at work, but I will continue to try to assume good faith for now. Not every article on every fictional character is cruft. Morgan Wick 03:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, Curzon Dax is a minor character and needs to be placed in a list per WP:FICT. Dspserpico 03:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to merge, might I suggest Dax (Star Trek) instead? Just drop it into the Curzon Dax section that lists Curzon Dax as the "main article" right now. BryanG 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. DarthVader 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dax (Star Trek) and redirect. Relatively small amount of content, no reason for a spin-off. --Ajdz 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. Any discussion of merge can take place on the relevant talk page. --Rob 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment merging is a valid vote per WP:AFD. Dspserpico 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is a valid vote. At the same time, a vote of keep doesn't preclude a merge, if there's future agreement for a merge. I just personally find it more productive if the actual editors working on the articles discuss it. I see AFDs being for the purpose of deciding whether a topic belongs in the encyclopedia at all, not for details of placement/presentation. A reason for me making my comment, is sometimes, some peope cite the AFD "keep" result, as a way of preculding any merge. I just wanted to be clear my keep vote isn't expressing an opinion, one way or the other, on the matter of amerge. --Rob 06:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would agree the Curzon Dax character isn't sufficiently notable by itself to merit an independent article, but this is simply an extension of Dax (Star Trek). (The articles are deliberately organized to avoid duplication.) Peter Grey 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Been Mentioned several times on DS9 however the a merge might work Aeon 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 08:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, highly notable by WP:FICT. Curzon Dax is mentioned in almost every single episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, to the point that he rivals the principals in importance. The number of topics related to Curzon Dax that matter in relation to that Star Trek series and other topics are enough to warrant a separate article.Captainktainer 09:05, 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. Turnstep 14:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Esposito[edit]

I brought this to AfD for deletion because the guy lives in my neighborhood, and I've waved at him a few times, so I guess this could be considered a controversial deletion. I don't know him personally, but I do know what he got his press coverage for. In short, he was mayor of Logan, West Virginia (appox. pop. 3000) for sixteen years and was used by the FBI to ferret out political corruption in that town during his run for the W.Va. House of Delegates. I don't think he's of any national importance, and I'm pretty sure he's not going to do anything more to achieve notoriety, since he's now a convicted felon and can't run for office again. Brian G. Crawford 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable attempt to diss a non-notable figure.Bridesmill 02:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like quite an interesting article to me, and revealing of what goes on "behind the scenes". Tyrenius 02:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to meet WP:BIO anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an attack to call him a criminal since pleaded guilty. Fails WP:BIO for sure. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you claim he fails to meet WP:BIO. He's a major local political figure who recieved significant press coverage (second line item), and he recieved notoriety for his newsworthy actions (final line item). --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mayor of a town of 1600, convicted of something. Lotsa murderers get newspaper coverage. 2% of them are notable for WP purposes. Same idea. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thomas Esposito is an American criminal" is still a POV way to begin an article. However, I'm neutral pending cleanup. Morgan Wick 03:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CrazyRussian. DarthVader 03:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Thomas Esposito is a "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" meets WP:BIO. Dspserpico 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor. Very minor. To the nominator: after this gets closed for no-consensus, do renominate it, this time addressing directly the WP:BIO concerns and the scope of the press coverage right off the bat. Tends to produce cleaner voting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm thinking that he's minor (very minor) at a national scale but major on a local scale. It would be a big sotry on any locality if a state legislature candidate helped the FBI expose corruption scandal that involved the local sherriff and police chief. So in the end Esposito is a local politician who gets major press and fulfills WP:BIO. Dspserpico 04:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep newsworthy, but not really national Kotepho 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO appears to be within "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and in the apparent absence of an article on the sting itself which received national news coverage --Ajdz 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO --Rob 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's a badly written article but an interesting story and I think he meets WP:BIO. --kingboyk 06:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO as stated above. Really, what is the argument against inclusion? This undeniably received significant national news coverage and was a noteworthy event. --Cheapestcostavoider 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO Aeon 06:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles about such minor figures lower the quality of Wikipedia. Bhoeble 09:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cheapestcostavoider. NoIdeaNick 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO, seems interesting, even. Mangojuice 14:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of him. I also live 3600 miles away from Logan. This implies that he is notable, does it not? — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's notable. Redxiv 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough, and verifiable. -- Heptor talk 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, no need to disrupt things to make a WP:POINT. There's no way this is getting deleted, so we may as well end the discussion. Proto||type 09:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noonien Soong[edit]

Another minor Star Trek character like Curzon Dax above. Brian G. Crawford 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Good info -Nv8200p talk 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the precedent on these characters was set long ago - if this goes, dozens of others would have to as well.Bridesmill 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, owrthwhile article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per precedent. Obviously notable and very important Star Trek character. Carioca 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the above. Badgerpatrol 03:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the above. Very notable. Dude, he created Data.Geedubber 03:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not cruft, should be merged into a yet to be created list of minor TNG characters. Dspserpico 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. DarthVader 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridesmill and Geedubber. BryanG 04:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no huge fan of Star Trek, but as non-mains go, he's a pretty important character. Danny Lilithborne 04:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. SorryGuy 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character. More then enough content to keep a stand-alone article. --Rob 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is an appropriate article to merge into. --Ajdz 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable, plenty of sources to verify, and plenty of content for own article.--Cini 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment although Soong is an important part of several TNG storylines he's still a minor character, like Grand Nagus Zek in DS9. Dspserpico 04:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, if there's sufficient content for an article, why merge? List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_characters is an example of what's wrong with such "List of character" articles. It places unrelated characters next to each other, for alphabetical reasons. Merging is appropriate when there's not enough content to sustain an article, or when everything said about one character applies to another character, or applies to a single episode, where its better located. In this case, I can't see what utility is served by a List of Star Trek: The Next Generation characters. --Rob 05:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OMG that list is messed up. So many of those character deserve their own page. Geedubber 05:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment "sufficient material" is not the barometer of whether or not a fictional character (or anything else) deserves a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, notability is. Minor characters should be places on a list per WP:FICT. Dspserpico 05:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, do you think it's ok to take multiple full-length articles and make super-long composite articles? That seems to be a downright lousy system of presenting information. WP:FICT is an out-of-the-way guideline, that reflects the "consensus" of a limited number, and doesn't reflect long standing consensus expressed on AFD results, for a long time. --Rob 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment you may be right on Soong, I was staring at the article seeing if there was any good way to pare down the article, there really isn't. Perhaps there's a better way to fit WP:FICT into this, espeically when dealing with a long running TV series. But there is still plenty of stubs of truly minor characters that need to be merged into a TNG list. I guess I just found myself a project. Dspserpico 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I tried starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). I'm not anti-merge per se. But, we need to think up some better criteria for them. I do agree with you, that there probably are some other TNG stubs that need merging. But, the question to ask, is where to merge them to. I'm not sure another "List of loosely related characters" is the way to go. --Rob 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is with the sudden cause to delete Fictional stuff? Aeon 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Soong is vital to a complete understanding of Star Trek, which has so much of a presence in popular culture that it deserves integration of principals such as this character.Captainktainer 09:19, 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 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Den[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 02:49, 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. Kimchi.sg | talk 04:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar Moradi[edit]

Contested speedy, was originally for a7 (nn bio) Tawker 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tanbur?. J.reed 03:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a copyvio (linked source) and should be deleted for that reason, but is probably notable in his genre and this is very clearly not an nn-bio case, as the article contains assertions of notability: "He has won many awards including two honorary diplomas at major music festivals in Iran. Moradi has performed as a soloist and with ensembles in festivals throughout the world." u p p l a n d 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, CSD A8 copyvio under 48 hours from Kurdistan encyclopedia [8], no note of fair use and under 48 hours. Tagged as such -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pbnation[edit]

Advert for non-notable business jmd 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations 2001 Volunteer Service Medal[edit]

The latest edit describes this as a hoax Yannick 03:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete except if shown not to be a hoax. Looks like a hoax, but if someone can provide a source that shows this medal to be true, I will change my vote. DarthVader 04:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except if shown not to be a hoax as above - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment here is a page that describes HRH Prince Michael of Albany as receiving the award (scroll down to "Saturday August 24th, 2002"). There is also a photo that matches the description that was given on an earlier version of this page. The problem is that the site itself looks an awful lot like a hoax. Google makes HRH Prince Michael of Albany look like a real person, though. Also, this is the only reference to the award that I could find, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Maybe it was a one-shot deal? ergot 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I'm changing my vote pending more information. That picture of Prince Michael's medal is intrigueing. It does bear the logo of the United Nations 2001 International Year of Volunteers, (and I think that's what it says around the edge,) but the ribbon does not have the correct shade of UN blue. I found a page that says that independent parties have borrowed the IYV logo for medals. Maybe this is one such medal - not quite a hoax, but not a UN decoration either.--Yannick 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, unless verified. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEZZO[edit]

Appears to be either a hoax or a non-notable website. Google search [9] seems to only bring up other uses of the word/term. No link to site in current version. A link in a previous revision of the article [10] links to a site on freewebs - doubtful this small handled 15,000,000 visitors! --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's not enough, it was previously prodded [11] --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Digital Liquidity[edit]

WP:NEO Neologism WP:NOR Original research. John Nagle 04:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copied from a blog article at [12]. --John Nagle 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 04:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rishodi 06:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dunstan 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE!The Entry is not a position, yet defined as an ability, and it was not copied, but rewritten and then posted on a blog by the creator of the subject, me! You boys need to do you own original research before you write off everyone's real work!Keep it! I wrote the blog people!If you read the entry note that it says created by Nicholas McGill-and is it wrong to post my own work on my own blog? -Note the owner of the blog is the very same Nicholas McGill. The saga continues. It IS MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH! I have worked on this and used this term for the past 10 years! There are other forms of evidence than just the web, if you are going to challenge this entry, find something solid to base it on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo34350 (talk • contribs) 01:10, April 26, 2006.
Comment You just dug your own grave by stating that your article is original research, which is not admissible on Wikipedia. Read this policy page: WP:NOR. Rishodi 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - wait for someone else to pick up on your original research before you create an article about it. --james °o 16:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Do Not Delete- it, as it is my creation, how does wiki define the THEORY of general relativity- it never ceases to amaze me that arrogance in the tech world-"dug your own grave"-that kind of arrogance does not belong on wikipedia. Furthermore as personal digital liquidity is not a theory and is in fact an ability that anyone can have and if you know an inkling about economics, you know what liquidity is. There are other writers who comment about this quality without coining it, I have a specific definition it is spoken about in PC MAG and other major publications. They speak of the value in flexibility etc. with regard to software hardware. They do not create an all encompassing phrase or go into as much detail about what it encompasses, I thought wikipedia was all about this to include what others dfo not and to stay on the cutting edge, perhaps I am mistaken. Do I really have to have my clients comment on PDL for you to accept it- so far, as it is not a position, and is based on fact, and simply locks in to a definition that others have been working with in terms of the technical world. I do not see any reason to delete this submission. Do I really need a technical .com address to be able to submit- do I really need to have others write about it-just because you have a hard time googling it-doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Comment Read WP:V. Then read WP:NOR. Your original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. And the answer to your question is yes, others have to pick up on the term and write about it before it is considered encyclopedic. Rishodi 16:57, 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. If anyone wants the info for another site, please contact me or another administrator. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond R. York[edit]

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial Delete Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a copyvio. BUT: what if we had WikiProject:9/11 victims, and profiles for all 3000? I bet then it'd be cool, no? Any takers? No vote from this (Greater) New Yorker - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: IIRC, we had a Wikimedia wiki dedicated for 9/11 victims which has since been closed. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. -AED 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, MemoryWiki is far more suited for this. Apart from the method of his death, this chap is unfortunately generally non-notable. No offense meant to the family, it's just that this is not the proper place for this article. --Golbez 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Conrad Devonshire 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am publicly calling on the nominator to follow procedure, especially in this extra-sensistive case, and write a note on the creator's talk page. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should probably go on sep11.wikipedia.org. Fagstein 07:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete --wkpdia mistaken for a memorial website? -- max rspct leave a message 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to sep11.wikipedia.org M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have broader concerns about how Wikipedia handles notability when it comes to crime victims (versus criminals). We have many articles on Wikipedia about notable criminals. If not for the criminal act or incident that gave them notability, they are not notable. This is the case for each of the 19 hijackers. But, somehow Wikipedia judges them notable because of their criminal act is highly notable. Under the very same standard, the victims of these notorious criminals/incidents are also notable. I disagree with the double-standard applied to criminals of notorous crimes versus their victims. If we delete this article, then perhaps the hijacker articles should also go, except maybe Mohammed Atta which is more a familiar name than the others. And in some cases, Wikipedia has allowed articles on crime victims. For example, we have an article on both Laci Peterson (and Scott Peterson), as well as Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and others going back to the victims of Jack the Ripper. None were notable until their murders. I disagree with the double-standard applied here, with these crime victims versus 9/11 victims. If we delete this article, then the articles about Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, JonBenét Ramsey, and other crime victims need to be deleted. In all we need more uniformity in how we apply WP:BIO to both criminals and crime victims, as well as among victims of various notorious crimes. Of course Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any crime victim articles on Wikipedia need to be handled in an encyclopedic manner, be properly cited, verifiable, and NPOV. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have been working on Wikipedia since 2003 and I seem to recall that we had a huge problem with memorial sites created for 9/11 victims. Also I must register my disagreement with Kmf164: we cannot reasonably list every victim of Pearl Harbor or other incidents on multiple pages. Contrastingly, many, many criminals are highly notable for their crimes and do deserve their own articles. - Abscissa 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In that case, lets delete Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings#Fatalities. I am against such double standards. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. What you linked to was a list, that's OK IMHO... but if each of those people had personal articles I would say delete. - Abscissa 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nominate it and I'll vote delete. Criminals are notable for their crimes, victims are not notable for being victims. - Abscissa 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. So, should we nominate Laci Peterson for deletion, as an example? I don't necessarily want to nominate, per WP:POINT, but disagree with this double-standard. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I don't see why she has her own article. I would merge it with Scott Peterson. -Abscissa 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bizarre! Bytes are cheap, people. Person is notable, clearly. EVERY 9/11 victim got individual media coverage ad nauseam. Don't wanna write articles for all 3000? Fine. Let there be a list, or inconsistency, but once someone goes through and actually writes one, I am not aware of a WP policy that requires deletion. WP:BIO is met. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then it should be easy to find "ad nauseam" articles on this victim. Once we have that, the subject becomes verifiable and will be kept. Fagstein 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lists of the dead not great. Understandable that folk want to remember. Notable? First hand info/original research..? May, lead to en.wikipedia's canonisation (IMHO) of first world english speakers (and in a time of U.S imperial Iraq-wrecking/instigation). Why extend USTV coverage of 9/11?...folk keep putting these up with personal content... What about all passengers in corporate train crashes? There are already plenty of kidnap victims on here. More than an encyclopedia.. and where do we control the development.. proper style. Try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead People Server . -- max rspct leave a message 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is, quite simply, this: individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources for each victim. If your train crash meets that - include. Iraq was doesn't - except for that kid who went to London for a new arm. Isn't he on here? {Dunno name.) How about that 12 year old Palestinian kid caught in a crossfire Mohammed Al-Durra? How about the sniped on the playground Israeli toddler Shalhevet Pass? Individual in-depth coverage in multiple media sources meets WP:BIO. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Barneyboo (Talk) 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki sep11.wikipedia.org It is an interesting article and there should be room for it somewhere, stills needs wikifying, better tone, and referencing though. There are several of these around e.g. Canal Hotel bombing rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the September 11 wiki. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A 45-year-old New York City Firefighter, two weeks from retirement, who risked his life at the World Trade Center after the planes hit, heading towards the site when all others were running for their lives and entering the North Tower minutes before it collapsed. Sounds notable to me. Very few of the 3,000 victims reach the level of the sacrifice made by Raymond R. York. Needs work, but it belongs where it is. Alansohn 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heroism does not by itself confer notability. If he got some sort of important award for herosim posthumously or something then we'd have some sources with which to build an article. But we don't. Fagstein 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to all who supported my entry to wikipedia. I just dissovered this page and now realize why my uncle's page was removed. I along with my father created it. Raymond was my dads brother and best friend. Although this website is not specificly a memorial site, I believe that his heroism belongs in history. The deffinition for encyclopedia is "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Key words "A wide range of subjects" He was part of many subjects that also specificly includ September 11th, 2001. I felt heart broken and partically enraged when I discovered his page was removed. I honor his life and legacy everyway I can because he made an heroic desicion that hundreds of thousands of people could not make. Every victom deffinetly deserves a page, but my uncle along with many other first responders made heroic sacrifice's. They were told they may evacuate because the buildings were not stable. However these brave human beings could not leave with innocent lives left behind. I request my uncles page be reposted. Thank you. YORK899 10/4/2010
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MYMUN[edit]

This is a conference for a school. Do we really need a page for every school's version of Model UN competitions? --Hetar 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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.


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Debate Network[edit]

This website has an Alexa rank above 2,000,000. The {{prod}} tag was removed by another user, so I am nominating the article for deletion here. NatusRoma | Talk 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete. It is a fun as well as intelectually stimulating site.
  • Delete, nn website. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of any real people's names is a dead giveaway (as is the list of moderators). Fagstein 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Cini 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is having a certain Alexa ranking an official Wikipedia policy? 2 million seems arbitrary. What is the basis of that cut off point? I think the site is certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, despite not being referred to in a published source. In my experience with debate sites over the years, I have found that ODN is a unique phenomenon. It is a well-moderated site which manages to keep a good balance between a friendly atmosphere and disallowing excessive spam. I have found no other broad topic debate sites with a comparable consistent membership and member satisfaction. All other comparably popular and professional debate sites I have found are focused on specific areas, such as religion only or politics only. It is also notable for being founded as a private individual venture, rather than by a large company. Since the disputed NPOV sentence has been removed, and the article has been expanded and reformatted, I believe the current Online Debate Network entry is an acceptable one for Wikipedia. However, if it's decided that it should be removed, I will not argue further, as I respect the Wikipedia project and its organizers. Thanks for considering allowing it to remain. Kevinbrowning 19:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a high Alexa ranking is not necessary, however it is a guideline when it comes to popularity. If the site is not popular and nobody (in the media) has heard of it, how can we find sufficient reliable, third-party sources to write an article about it? Fagstein 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the site is relatively very popular, for the type of site it is. Although it is being edited mostly by site members rather than a third party, I believe all NPOV sentences have been removed, and the general tone has been made more neutral. As long as it is written sufficiently impartially, I think it should not matter who writes it. To demand a certain person write it, even if the current writers have written truthfully, seems like the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for your following up on this. Kevinbrowning 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're right that it doesn't matter who writes the article, as long as it is written from a neutral point of view. We're discussing whether the site merits a Wikipedia article at all. In theory, the content of the article on this subject shouldn't matter, because even if this article were not neutral, it could be changed into a neutral article if the result of the discuss were to keep the article. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the Alexa ranking is clearly over the limit, I'm poised to ask, since it's not an official rule regarding Wikiarticles, doesn't that seem a tad arbitrary? Because something isn't as popular as you feel it should be, does that really mean it should be deleted? I'm sure there's a lot of unpopular events, places, or people out there that deserve an article about them. If Wikipedia only hosted the "popular" things, it would be less worthy to come to than Google. Why come here if you're only going to find popular things? What happened to it being a "Free ENCYCLOPEDIA"? An encyclopedia houses unpopular information WITH the popular. Why not let it stay for a little while, allow it to be further revised, and then if it doesn't work out, remove it?Whitestone

User has 2 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that the Alexa ranking doesn't violate a specific guideline. However, the fact that the Alexa ranking is over 2,000,000 means that this really is not a very popular website. Other evidence for this is that many of the top Google hits for "Online Debate Network" -wikipedia ([13]) are mirrors of the Wikipedia article debate, which contains a link to the forum. Furthermore, this search reveals only 40 unique hits, which is very few. There are many Wikipedia users who believe, like you, that what sort of splash a person, event, or entity has created shouldn't matter for whether Wikipedia has an article about it. There are also many Wikipedia users who believe, like me, that the amount of fame or notability that something has generated is important in determining whether there should be a Wikipedia article about it. NatusRoma | Talk 05:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well (NatusRoma), if this article doesn't "violate any specific guideline", then it shouldn't be deleted...period. After admitting that it doesn't violate any rules, you then went on to complain that the site isn't very popular, but this shouldn't matter as this appears to be a matter of your personal bias/opinion, not of Wiki policy. You said it yourself, there are many Wikipedia users who don't care if there is an article about an unpopular site...but there are some who do. Personal preference shouldn't determine deletions, Wiki rules should and you have admitted that this article doesn't violate any such rules. nickmanderson
User has 10 edits. Kimchi.sg 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do all Wikipedia entries have detailed notability guidelines, or only Web sites? It seems to me that what's notable to one person may be of very little import to another, and vice versa. I must raise the objection of a double standard applied to Web sites but not other content, if the latter. Thanks again. Kevinbrowning 17:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability. The notability criteria pages for the most common content (books, companies and music, among others) are linked to on that page, on the right sidebar. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete is my final vote after reading and considering the arguments of those who believe the Online Debate Network article should be deleted. After reading the notability guidelines, I have decided that it is really quite vague and arbitrary, and in fact many topics other than Web sites are not submitted to nearly as stringent notability requirements, or sometimes none at all. Through personal experience I believe that ODN is a unique and important part of the subculture of online debating, and I think an article explaining what it is and why it has become popular is a credible topic for an online encyclopedia which attempts to cover all areas of knowledge and relevance. I will not argue the point further, as I think there is nothing left to say, and leave the final decision up to the longtime editors and moderators of this resource. However, I will say that several new members have joined since ODN was added as a related site on the main Debate entry in Wikipedia, and the evaluations have been uniformly positive. I leave you with this quote from a recent new member, "paintist," who found ODN after trying and being dissatisfied with several other online debating sites, and then found ODN through Wikipedia's Debate article: "It'd be pretty unfortunate to see this get deleted. As far as I can tell, this is the strongest forum available for online intellectual debate/argumentation on the internet... granted I've only been a member only a few hours. And if that's true (is there anywhere else?), then it seems like good enough information to be rooted into wikipedia." Thanks one final time for actually considering this entry's legitimacy, rather than taking immediate elitist action and removing the entry, as so many inferior Internet communities tend to do. - Kevin Browning, devoted user of both ODN and Wikipedia Kevinbrowning 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: My verdict after reading over and considering the arguments here. The Online Debate Network is a type of site of which there are very few and and given that it is a not for profit site, its Wikipedia article can hardly be considered advertisement. The entry seems fine to me. Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one. Further, the popularity of the site seems irrelevant to Wikipedia's giving information about it. Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well? - Starcreator Starcreator 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only 3 edits are to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Or do those who oppose this article think that Wikipedia should not give information about unpopular books, movies, shows, places, games and products as well?" Yes, of course. Please read our notability guidelines. "Arguments against it seem very vague and ambiguous, setting double standards that don't seem to apply to any article here except this one." Please give WP:WEB a long, hard read before repeating this claim. Kimchi.sg 06:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete is my vote. I don't understand WHY this article should be up for deletion if it hasn't broken any rules, this is supposed to be a site about open information. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with this at all, many things in history aren't popular to look up, many can even be considered irrelevant to history, but it's in there for our use. Keep the article up I say, there is nothing wrong with it. "ShadowKnight 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Congratulations! How'd you find this AfD so quickly on your very first edit? Kimchi.sg 06:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: its not about popularity, its about notability. Please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 06:55, 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 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Holquist[edit]

Failed prod. Non-notable writer. Her first book hasn't even been published yet, so there is no way to know if she'll go on to be notable or not. Icarus 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn author. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO.--blue520 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let's wait until it's published please. -- Hirudo 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments re non notability. Colonel Tom 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. First book set to appear from major publisher (Time/Warner) with promotion in progress, in line which regularly reaches audiences well over the 5K audience standard. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it's not an ostrich with its head in the sand, either. Monicasdude 01:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a crystalball. No evidence this author will meet [[WP:BIO].--Isotope23 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal balling - author does not yet meet standards.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystalballism. JoshuaZ 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as future prediction. Also, article is practically devoid of content; might as well delete it, we're not losing anything. Mangojuicetalk 14:54, 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 Delete. kingboyk 05:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClassicSciFi.com[edit]

Delete advert, WP:WEB - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a link repository nor advertiser of websites Maustrauser 22:45, 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!
kingboyk 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar women[edit]

Verifiability is shaky; probably merits a Wiktionary entry (like MILF), but most of this article is POV and unencyclopedic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. 95% of this is deletable as unverifiable and POV. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bhoeble 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Biased article. POV is there.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, heavily biased and POVed. --soUmyaSch 10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A simple definition would suffice, if proprely sourced, and that's not enough to warrant an article. PJM 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV article, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unverifiable, POV article. JIP | Talk 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has POV and original research issues that have to be fixed, but the topic itself is worthy of an article. Arctic Gnome 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article documents a significant (some might say alarming) social trend. The premise of the article is verifiable. davidzuccaro 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:V. No prejudice against a proper article replacing it. Stifle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a neologism - Richardcavell 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well of course a new and emerging social trend is going to need a new combination of words to describe it.davidzuccaro 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being unverified. *drew 04:52, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hart[edit]

PROD tag removed. Appears to be a vanity bio for a non-notable academic. Has some publications and minor awards, but would not qualify under the professor test as being other than a relatively average academic. Delete. MCB 20:52, 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!
MCB 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would it have been that hard to do a simple proofread and fix the formatting after a cut and paste job? Looks to me like our professor's kind of sloppy. Fan1967 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio, vanity. --Terence Ong 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, albeit in a drastically cut down fashion. Way too much unnecessary info in here, but the list of publications does suggest that it meets or comes close to the professor test there. The listed awards fail the test, tho, IMO. Colonel Tom 00:40, 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 06:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of word puns where one or more of the included words is used in whole[edit]

Idiosyncratic fork of List of miscellaneous portmanteaus, with the odd criteria that "one or more words are whole" and therefore not actually portmanteau words, a prerequisite I've never heard of. Brought to you by the creator of List of songs whose title starts and ends with the same letter and the future creator of (if the redlinks at List of portmanteau word lists are to be believed) List of word puns with numerals and List of word puns that only truncate only one letter in any of its etymological words. Calton | Talk 05:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add creator to "List of people who have nothing better to do than to create nonsensical lists" and delete this. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a fan of this list which I view as part of an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. --Icarus 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Would be interesting to look at who spent their time doing all this. SandBoxer 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless listcruft.--Cini 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some list are use full, but this is not (list creep).--blue520 09:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft must be expunged and it must be expunged soon. Proto||type 09:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad joke here.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Danny Lilithborne 11:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Powerdelete with inherent deletion. Just not encyclopedic. Maybe some specialized linguistics text could use some discussion about the topic of the nominated list (I doubt it), but Wikipedia certainly isn't the right place. Barno 13:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do I even nee dot justify this vote? --Bachrach44 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might be worthy of a category. Arctic Gnome 21:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- listcruft. The El Reyko 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterminate and pour salt over the article so it won't ever rise again -- Hirudo 04:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is Listcruft - Aeon 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Discounting anons and new editors, and with 2 extra delete voices since relisting, I think consensus is clear. I probably should have closed as delete rather than relisting in the first place but now there's no excuse not to close it that way. Furthermore, as for arguments raised, he would appear to be borderline on notability and most editors felt that he wasn't quite there yet. He's a young man and maybe he will become more notable in the future, there's no rush. This is an enyclopedia and it's meant to stand the test of time. kingboyk 06:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Makharinsky[edit]

Sychophantic twaddle not conforming to Wikipedia's reasons for inclusion Kittybrewster 23:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Heycos pointed out, this article has always been blatantly POV. Pages are always being improved and it is mistifying why Dezhnev is troubled that his POV is brought to the fore.Kittybrewster 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I voted again in accordance with Dezhnev's request and he deleted one vote. 84.70.175.84 11:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvagable self-promotion and vanity. If he is truly notable in the future someone else will start an article about him. Hawkestone 01:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is still advertisement or sycophancy. It remains strong POV. It is all written by Dezhnev (a new user), who is probably the same person as Macaroni. 84.70.175.84 10:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding POV, how can one help it if everything they have done is positive and there is nothing negative to say? Dezhnev 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over 200 pages on Google about him from sites like The Economist, The Guardian, York Evening Press, Russian London, Ecademy, RealWorld magazine, official sites of Oxford, Warwick and Greenwich universities etc. EBayVP 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the user's ninth edit. Previous edits all incomplete AfD nominations. Sockpuppet? Septentrionalis 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity/advertising. Septentrionalis 23:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable 160.83.32.14 09:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the POV/bias argument is stupid since you can't find anything negative to say in article. 158.143.133.70 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote is the only edit from this IP Septentrionalis 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sepentrionalis/Pmanderson is acting like a spoilt child who cannot get their way. Maybe, just maybe the above is normally signed in but this time wasn't, maybe they didn't realise they were logged out, or maybe this is the only time they've felt strongly enough to want to post here. You are also lying that eBayVP's previous edits are all incomplete nominations, as his two deletion requests had been deleted. Stop trying to judge people on how many times they have posted, that is completely irrelevant and discriminatory. Dezhnev 08:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much of this comment speaks for itself. It may well be true other edits by EBayVP have been deleted; but if he's not Dezhnev's sockpuppet, how does Dezhnev know? Septentrionalis 16:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no doubt that EBayVP is Dezhnev's sockpuppet and Dezhnev has acknowledged he is a close relation of Kirill who is proud of Kirill - which is just fine. I think he would be better off watching this space; it is hugely relevant that EBayVP and Dezhnev are virtually non-contributors to other entries. They have staggered into the room for this topic alone and it would be strange indeed if their views were not discounted accordingly. - Kittybrewster 17:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Borderline notability. If it is kept, it needs to be wikified/cleaned up. Metamagician3000 07:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As Metamagician says, the subject exhibits borderline notability. I tried to make the article presentable, but if kept, it needs much more work (and will anyone actually do that work?). Anville 09:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - B-list celebrity status in UK. MorganStanMan 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of you may be outside UK, right now Kirill is getting huge coverage including national newspapers everyone knows who he is. 129.67.52.37 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Goodness sake. Highest calibre graduate in the entire UK is certainly more notable than half the people entries on this site. And no, before any pedants step in, I am not a "sockpuppet" and have not met Kiril in person. GOY2006 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My objection is to Kiril inserting himself as one of the great people of St Johns College, Oxford. This link is what I have a problem with. Kiril is obviously a gifted and well positioned young man. It may be a little preemptive to call him one of the greats of a very old college. Metaphorically, when one's child pronounces that s/he wishes to be an astronaut when they are grown up, it absurd to expect their name to be immediately added to NASA's astronauts list. Let Kiril live his life. If it turns out as he hopes, it will be added. If not, he will avoid embarrasing himself. Oxford is not going anywhere, it can afford to wait - commentator, St Cross College, Oxford and former member Darwin College, Cambridge
  • Strong Delete - achievements to date include going to school, university, and playing games. Well done him. Now he should go and do something worthwhile. I dispute that he is getting huge coverage [...] everyone knows who he is: what is he supposed to have done - and no links are included in the article. Precisely the sort of self-aggrandising rubbish that should be saved for his User page rather than the main Wikipedia. --Major Bonkers 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I am at St John's. He's an unknown arrogant twat. Delete him!

  • Delete please, I'm fine with seeing him later, per "commentator, St Cross". --Alf melmac 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

those speaking negatively are posting hilarious comments not based on facts and not in the spirit of wikipedia. how do you know kirill added himself as a great of st johns? or even contributed to this article? or cares whether he's on here or not? i suggest commenting only if you have access to facts, in an objective manner and on him personally only if you know him well. Just as should be the case for everyone on Wikipedia.

  • Delete, notability. There's plenty of time. --kingboyk 05:19, 25 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!
kingboyk 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find Kittybrewster's contributions to the article somewhat disturbing; however, the article looks like a non-notable biography even as it stood at creation. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary - I did so, so delete the article. --Celestianpower háblame 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scundered[edit]

Northen Ireland slang. Very small websearch results Dangherous 12:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other - move to Wiktionary; dicdef. Elrith 12:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - move to Wiktionary - Kittybrewster 13:52, 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!
kingboyk 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki To Wikiionary Aeon 06:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki agree with other users that a move to Wiktionary is needed. FloNight talk 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. kingboyk 09:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screech (comics)[edit]

Redundant: See Shriek Symbiote (comics); erroneous terminology; no article links here Chris Griswold 22:02, 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!
kingboyk 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete without redirect. Turnstep 14:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lasher, aka Ramon green LF sym (comics)[edit]

Redundant: See Lasher (comics); erroneous terminology; no article links here Chris Griswold 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect GT 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing useful to merge, not a likely search term. TimBentley (talk) 03:51, 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!
kingboyk 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scream, (Donna, the yellow female LF symbiote) (comics)[edit]

Redundant: See Scream (comics); erroneous terminology; no article links here Chris Griswold 22:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect GT 06:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't seem to have anything useful to merge, not a likely search term for a redirect. TimBentley (talk) 03:50, 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!
kingboyk 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 06:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Bonus Stage[edit]

Not nearly notable enough; fanfiction usually doesn't get it's own separate articles anyway and this article in particular was made by an ex-member who made unnecessary changes to the plot and said he could have his own version of the series. YesIAmAnIdiot 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosis and I chatted about our return and he said he was going to do it. I know. Why don't you go check on the PBS Wiki updates if you don't believe me, hmm??

STOP REVERTING MY EDITS! SERIOUSLY! Clan rHrN 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. This article just seems to drag a dispute onto Wikipedia anyway, as is clear enough from this very AfD page. -- Mithent 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Non-Delete as this is Psychosis' works and there are 2 versions of Psycho Bonus Stage. Psychosis' word is final. Clan rHrN 20:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfiction doesn'tusually get articles, and there is nothing to show that this is exceptional fanfiction. DJ Clayworth 18:40, 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!
kingboyk 05:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party Agreement-in-Principle[edit]

Nothing more than then text itself as per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources should be transwikied to wikisource Jon513 12:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwikied per nom. major content is primay source.--blue520 13:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki the "full text" section, but Keep the summary of each section and the page. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:21 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki full text, keep summary text per Cuiviénen. Samaritan 07:24, 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!
kingboyk 05:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 05:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and keep Keep and wikify the summary; transwiki the text. It's a matter of some notability and should be kept around.Captainktainer 09:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki full text, keep summary text per Cuiviénen. Arctic Gnome 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. I see a lot of articles (usually definition types) that do not change after despite being marked for transwiki. I think it requires a bit more motivation, and deleting it will provide it.In1984 23:28, 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 merge to Bunkum. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buncombe (term)[edit]

Dicdef. Attempted prod; Monicasdude removed prod as "etymology/history is not dicdef". I believe the article is still more or less a dictionary definition, and can't go much beyond one. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary (if there isn't already a definition there) per my nom. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Merge to Wiktionary:Bunkum. Feezo (Talk) 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have an article on Bunkum which is the relevant term but which lacks references. We should merge this referenced article with the better known term. Capitalistroadster 06:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Capitalistroadster, since I just came to exactly the same conclusion independently :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Capitalistroadster. --Terence Ong 13:43, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon: Z4[edit]

Fails WP:CB by a mile: the article specifically states that no information is available. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "No Infomation has been given out yet." How then can this be notable if nothing is known?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laughed out loud. --Dunstan 08:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. incog 01:58, 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 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palesrael and Israel-Palestine[edit]

Delete Both Two article for alterna-terms prodded by me with the same notice, to wit, "neologism, rarely if ever used, POV magnet, nothing to merge". As far as I can tell, these are not accepted terms anywhere, invented words that the BBC does not use. I think this may be what they term here "POV-fork". Prods were removed on both article without an objection to deletion, just a desire for discussion. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:17, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JForté[edit]

Seems to be nothing more than promotional advertising. ekedolphin 06:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Video Game Proposal[edit]

Relisting as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Thompson. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (no opinion on the matter myself) Following text from the original AFD:[reply]

No, this isn't for the JT article himself, it's for the two sub-articles:
The Jack Thompson article was recently ripped apart and put under WP:OFFICE for having "unreliable sources." That has since been remedied by going to print sources. Given that the two sub-article also have primarily online (which have been determined as "unreliable") sources, they should be deleted before Jack Thompson tries to sues us again. Hbdragon88 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to defend myself here. This isn't about the so-called WP:NOT policy of censorship, this is about WP:V. The JT article was ripped to shreds and the dicussion following it determined that the likes of GamePolitics.com and GameSpot were not reliable sources and were thus removed. The JT article has no online sources at all now. A Modest Video Game Proposal was entirely online-based, with Thompson issuing his ultimatium through the Internet, the "I'm O.K" guys developing and releasing their game on the Internet, Penny-Arcade (online website) giving the $10,000 check, reporting online, and GameSpot picking up his complaint to the Seattle police department. If isn't allowed in the JT article itself, why should it belong on a sub-article, a fork of the article? Hbdragon88 05:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. If this sort of thing is to be Jack Thompson's M.O., absolutely we should keep this information on Wikipedia. His tactics as mentioned here are an important part of the entire Jack Thompson story, and should be preserved on Wikipedia, whether he threatens to sue us or not. Wikipedia is not censored. ekedolphin 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The sourcing is better than in the original Jack Thompson article and is easily verifiable, and due to Thompson's own heavy-handed tactics relies to a great extent on documents of public record. There were some questionable sources in the original Jack Thompson article, but that situation has been remedied, and this article is mostly free of those problems. Also, WP:NOT censored per Ekedolphin.Captainktainer 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Jack Thompson cruft. The level of detail that we have on him is unencyclopedic. There should be a single article on him and that's it. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, very notable event. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is a notable event, and has caused a lot of controversy in the gaming community. This article was created to allow the Jack Thompson (attorney) from becoming overly long. --Tollwutig 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, notable event. --Terence Ong 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jack Thompson. I don't see any good reason for a standalone here... it's not that notable of an event.--Isotope23 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable event on it's own, as it is the inspiration for a whole slew of mods and fan-games. And it's relatively well sourced now. Jabrwock 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for a seperate article. BryanG 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's notable and well-sourced. --ElKevbo 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article ties the events together well, and is well sourced. Colonel Tom 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captainktainer Maxamegalon2000 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ekedolphin and Captainktainer. - Kamek 19:28, 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 merge to Jack Thompson (attorney). This is clearly a POV fork of that article. Any verifiable, neutral content should be merged with the Jack Thompson article. If none, the article should be relisted for deletion in, say, a month or so. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson and video game players[edit]

Relisting as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thompson. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (No opinion on the matter myself) Following text from the original AFD:[reply]

No, this isn't for the JT article himself, it's for the two sub-articles:
The Jack Thompson article was recently ripped apart and put under WP:OFFICE for having "unreliable sources." That has since been remedied by going to print sources. Given that the two sub-article also have primarily online (which have been determined as "unreliable") sources, they should be deleted before Jack Thompson tries to sues us again. Hbdragon88 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not strong keeping like I did with the other subarticle because some of these sources are a little more questionable. However, the article has improved in quality greatly, and if OFFICE has a problem with it they'll let us know. We shouldn't try to bend over backwards for insane legal threats; that's what OFFICE is for :-) Captainktainer 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems like an unnecessary fork of Jack Thompson (attorney). And a POV fork at that, given the history. It's hard enough keepioing a lid on one article, let's not needlessly multiply them. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Jack Thompson cruft. It has a level of detail that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back w/Jack Thompson unless the article is too long, which, in that case, it should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the sourceable information back into Jack Thompson (attorney) There isn't a whole lot that is sourcible on this outside of Gamepolitics. The little that is can be readded to the main article without too much bulk. Would prefer one of the regular Jack Thompson editors to do this merge however.--Tollwutig 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jack Thompson (attorney). Honestly the level of coverage of this guy is rather ridiculous. Granted, he is of some notability to videogame enthusiasts, but the number of articles here are delving into the minutae of everything he does. If he'd ever successfully prosecuted a case against a videogame maker, or successfully used a videogame defense, or even brought a successful lawsuit against one of his "stalkers" (his supposed reporting of Texas kid to the authorities is completely self-reported if I'm not mistaken) it would be something worth writing about, but 90% of the content here is about totally pointless chatter that has no discernable effect on the real world. 3 (+?) articles about forum trolling, legal threats that evaporate on scrutiny, hyperbolic polemics, and public responses to Mr. Thompson seems to be vastly overstating his actual ability to influence the videogaming world.--Isotope23 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible, although likely, it won't be, as most of the references are to deleted GamePolitics posts. The accusations of an "industry conspiracy to shoot the messenger" I think are important, because he accused the porn industry of the same back when he was trying to get all sorts of music banned for obscenity. Jabrwock 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever can be reliably sourced into Jack Thompson (attorney). This smells like a fork to get around the sourcing rules on the main Jack Thompaon article. From a quick read of the Jack Thompson talk page several things removed from there seemed to have ended up here (like the Metalgearsolid.org stuff). BryanG 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI this fork was created long before the current sourcing issues came up. The original reason for the fork was because the main article was being considered for deletion due to it's length. This and other sub-articles were a result of an attempt to short the main article, while keeping notable events consolidated. However it never went through the same sourcing review that the main page did after Thompson's complaint. Jabrwock 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry, should have checked the history first. But having said that, it should definitely be held to the same standards as the main article as far as sources go. BryanG 01:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unecessary fork with very poor sources. I would recommend merge but as someone who has kept an eye on the Thompson article for over a month I believe it would be unwise and was removed from the Thompson article for good reason. --ElKevbo 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if someone is notable for a specific thing, it makes no sense to separate that thing into its own article and not the subject's biographical article. MCB 07:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jack Thompson is notable for more than video game players, if you read the article you'd find he has faced off with Janet Reno, Howard Stern, 2LiveCrew, and the Florida Bar.--Tollwutig 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jack Thompson (attorney), per Isotope23. Avador 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, ask around for stored copies of any sources that have been deleted --King Nintendoid 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While I am a bit reluctant to support an article that defines the Jack's neurotic attempts to pointlessly belittle video game players, MySpace users, and the internet at large as an entity of significance in itself... The existing Jack Thompson article is too big already. Instead I think we should take all such scenarios (specificly, of Jack making dick of himself on the internet) here and on the main Jack thompson article, and organize it into a single large article entitled 'Jack Thompson and the Internet' or something to that effect.--KefkaTheClown 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Isotope23. - Kamek 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikimedia Office had to get rid of it for a reason. Let's not resurrect it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OR AT LEAST MERGE, this article seems to be more like a section of the Jack Thompson article sliced up and given its own section I think the sources are perfectly fine. The article is supposed to show Jack Thompson's relationship with gamers and for that I think that his posts on a gaming forum that he trolls at all the time would be a perfect source. Besides gamepolitics doesn't take up THAT much space in the article.User: Father_Time89
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XM maintenance[edit]

wikipedia is not a place for how-to guides. Should probably moved or transwiki'd, but I seem to have problems locating instructions on how to nominate for that Hirudo 04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see where it has been copied to ??

  • Delete, per nom. incog 02:30, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales From The Pit[edit]

None notable webcomic, found here. Alexa gives back a rank of over 2 million. A search for Angband "Tales from the pit" on Google shows 30 links. This isn't a notable website, being a webcomic doesn't make it any more so. - Hahnchen 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 04:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Eivindt@c 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 23:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason given for deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Two reasons were given for deletion by the nominator (Alexa and Google tests). I cited WP:WEB, which gives three other criteria, none of which this article meets. It looks to me like, depending on how you count them, between three and five reasons had been given by the time you left your comment. Can you clarify what you mean by "no reason given for deletion"? -- Dragonfiend 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the reason is in the linked page in my userspace, but on revisiting, I think it's not actually relevant. Delete per JzG. Stifle (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting, Redwolf24 (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware. Just zis Guy you know? 10:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It updates regularly and often and it's referenced often at rec.games.roguelike.angband, which is the primary forum for Angband players. --Otie 16:41, 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.. Hoax or not, they clearly fail notability and verifiability standards. Turnstep 14:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da Squad[edit]

Delete non-notable or hoax band. I can find nothing on Google tying Da Squad to either the college or the 2 albums. --Bruce1ee 07:50, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MalaysiaMostWanted[edit]

This website just entered beta today. No Alexa rank. A spamvertisement for a nn website. Delete. --Hetar 08:33, 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 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaea Chronicals[edit]

WP:NFT Dunstan 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "the following page is something that only exists in my own mind"? -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the first line warning in the article explains its unsuitability for Wikipedia better than I could. Colonel Tom 00:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the first line of the article. Stifle (talk) 01:21, 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.

(sic)

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

The result of the debate was Delete upon confirmation of zero relevant Ghits. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa LaBarbera White[edit]

An attempted speedy delete and subsequent prod were both contested, so here it is at Afd. Original speedy based on non-notability: ZERO Ghits unrelated to wikipedia. Eusebeus 08:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I nominated previously for the prod. No references. No WP:GT. Non-notable. Megapixie 08:55, 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 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid speedy keep, firstly "bad faith" is not a valid reason to speedy keep, secondly there is already a vote to delete. Stifle (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because her clients are notable, doesn't mean she is. Jamoche 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verifiable, otherwise delete Destiny's Child and Jessica Simpson are both very notable people and if this person is actually responsible for bringing them forward then this person should be notable enough. Of course, my opinion is that some people are a little "elitist" when trying to get "nn" articles off wikipedia. Nevertheless, if nothing can be verified then the article should be deleted. DanielZimmerman 17:59, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sid McCray[edit]

Speedy and prod contested, so here it is at AfD. Original speedy argued non-notability: nn singer. Eusebeus 08:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete singer with a band replaced before they became famous. Nothing to say about him which is not already said in Bad Brains. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 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 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid speedy keep, firstly "bad faith" is not a valid reason to speedy keep, secondly there is already a vote to delete. Stifle (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - no useful information here -- Hirudo 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bad Brains. He's already mentioned there.--Isotope23 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Vegaswikian 18:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable. DanielZimmerman 18:01, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Kohlmann[edit]

contested prod, so welcome to AfD. Original prod noted Fewer than 300 results returned in Google search Eusebeus 08:46, 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 13:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being mentioned in one news story doesn't look like enough reason to deserve a Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 17:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. NN bio. Vegaswikian 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN bio. Some 70 unique Ghits. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:00, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Buckland[edit]

Contested prod so bringing it to AfD. Orig prod noted : No references cited, no assertion of notability, not a WP:NPOV Eusebeus 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. The awards he has won are also not notable (and I went here). - ҉Randwicked҉ 08:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 12:34, 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 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid speedy keep, firstly "bad faith" is not a valid speedy keep reason, and secondly there are two existing votes to delete. Stifle (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it can be proven and verified that this is the same "Richard Buckland" accused and exonerated in the Narborough murders in England in the 1980s (see Colin Pitchfork, [14]). Buckland was a 17-year-old kitchen worker in 1986, is he now a computer science lecturer in Australia? If so, the DNA information is notable, the academic career is not except as a closing mention. --Canley 14:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Definitely not the same person! Richard Buckland (the lecturer) graduated with a Bachelor of Economics from Macquarie University in 1986 [15] - the same year he was arrested in England for a double murder as a 17 year old kitchen worker (by which time he'd also written several papers on Computational Algebra and Number Theory). Could also redirect to Colin Pitchfork? -Canley 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice factchecking, Canley. The external awards of the lecturer don't seem notable to me, and the other Richarcd Buckland should just get a mention on one of the pages dealing with DNA evidence. -- Hirudo 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Randwicked.--Cini 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails to show that he is notable for his academic work and in a brief search, I have failed to find many. A Google Scholar search for "Richard Buckland" shows 39 results but many appear not to be related. [16].Capitalistroadster 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed claim about being cleared by DNA evidence as it is obvious it is a different person. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Upfront disclaimer: I know this guy -- when I was in university I kept on hearing his name and then did a bit of digging on his background (this was all about 3-4 years ago). He hasn't really done anything amazing on the reserach side (he still hasn't got his PhD!) but he did make a splash by picking up the ***first*** MQ Computing university medal in 91. That is probably his only claim to notability though. novacatz 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Easily meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Turnstep 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Gray[edit]

contested prod, so bringing it to AfD for review. Orig prod notes this seems like a vanity page and/or self-promotion by the book author; non-notable. However, business success, authorship and coverage from NPR add substance to potential notability [17] Eusebeus 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the guy has a real talent for self-publicity, and massive chutzpah, but thus far appears only to have published one book, with a pretty minor lifestyle press. May well become notable in future, but I'd say not yet. Just zis Guy you know? 10:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as author. With an Amazon sales rank of 15,000, that book has got to have sold 5000 copies. Mangojuice 12:28, 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 13:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? How is that a bad faith nomination? Prod is only good for uncontested deletion, contested ones should be brought here. Mangojuice 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he's simply going through the contribution list of several editors, myself include, who have been actively reviewing and challenging prods, and bringing the articles to AfD without regard to the merits of the dispute. In some cases, it appears that he hasn't even read the reasons for deprodding. He's said that his standard is whether the original prod makes a "prima facie case," indicating that the other side of the argument is irrelevant to his decision. ANd I think that can fairly be characterized as bad faith, or disruption, or WP:POINT, or whatever. It's indiscriminate action, no more appropriate than me nominating for deletion every article created in a particular one-hour period. The fact that some might deserve deletion doesn't make his indiscriminate actions appropriate. Monicasdude 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but needs some serious cleanup to remove irrelevant gunk. -- Hirudo 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Gray has been featured in hundreds of print, magazine, radio and television venues such as: ABC World News with Peter Jennings, Good Morning America, The Montel Williams Show, Life & Style, Tavis Smiley Late Night on PBS, Good Day LA, CNBC, BET, NBC, FOX, CBS, NPR, The Tom Joyner Show, ABC Radio, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Radio One, XM Satellite Radio, Ebony Magazine, Essence, Readers Digest English 2 Go, Gospel Truth, NV Magazine, MBE, Folio, Las Vegas Review Journal, Wall Street Journal, Atlanta Voice, Dallas Morning News, Sacramento Bee and Montreal Gazette. Gray’s biography is recognized in the 2005 Marquis "Who's Who in America". LFerrell 15:51, 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 merge and redirect to Romanian Academy. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfons Oscar Saligny[edit]

Contested prod, so bringing this to Afd. Low gogle count, no assertion of notability (beyond membership of the Romanian Acad). Could be merged to his brother's entry. Eusebeus 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, membership of the Romanian Academy is probably enough proof of notability; there is something in Romanian here. But I'm pretty sure one needs to go to Romanian dead-tree sources to research this. Until somebody actually does that, merging and redirecting the name to the brother is better than deleting him entirely. u p p l a n d 13:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing all disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Assertions like this (claiming that the editor is calling for opinion when he lists his reasons for a desire for consensus clearly in the nomination) go against Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attacks; AFD is here to establish consensus on what the fate of articles should be. Kuzaar 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Uppland. Kuzaar 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Romanian Academy and redirect. That article could use some more meat -- Hirudo 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the point of mentioning one particular member of the Academy in that article, when there is not even a list of the most notable ones? Merging with the brother seems much more natural. u p p l a n d 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'm ok with a merge to the brother. I was thinking that perhaps a merge to the Academy might trigger someone to expand that article (by for example adding other, possibly more notable, members) -- Hirudo 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:Hirudo. JIP | Talk 17:49, 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. The only keep argument is somewhat negated by the fact that the Dark Lord article itself does not limit itself to people who are actually called "Dark Lord". This is a rather new article (which further justifies a deletion), and is entirely too broad, unverfiable, and full of original research to be kept. Turnstep 14:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Lords in fiction[edit]

The article is a (sort of) list of 'Dark Lords' in fiction. It consists of a great deal of (unreferenced and unverifiable) original research, where pretty much any evil character in literature, video games, or movies is dumped into a big crufty list. I'd prod this, but prod is currently misbehaving. Strong delete. Proto||type 09:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr. Burns? Delete until someone explains what Dark Lords don't exist in fiction. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary list of arbitrary (and exceedingly common) fictional stereotype, brim-full of original research. The concept is probably encyclopaedic, but this list is not. Just zis Guy you know? 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:CanadianCaesar and User:JzG. JIP | Talk 17:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but cut out all individuals that are not specifically called "Dark Lord". Arctic Gnome 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ill-defined, overly-broad, and unmaintainable. Think about it: an alternate title for this list could be "List of antagonists in stories from the fantasy genre". There are simply too many for such a list to be reasonable. That would be like, I don't know, a list of the "bad boy" or "conniving bitch trying to steal the hero away from the heroine" characters from romance stories. The Dark Lord article is encyclopedic, and this article may seem like a cool list and a logical extention of the Dark Lord article, but in practice it just doesn't work. --Icarus 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prime random listcruft -- Hirudo 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete - cool list, but see nom. Metamagician3000 11:44, 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 all. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Spence, and others[edit]

Delete non-notable person from a non-notable band.

I also co-nominate the following articles for deletion for the same reasons as above:

-- Ned Scott 09:32, 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 Speedily userfied as apparently a private joke.

Eric Roubinek[edit]

Obvious hoax. Such things should be speedyable. Delete, including the image. Lupo 09:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax article and image of nn person. Hmm, why are hoaxes exempt from CSD G1 (patent nonsense with no salvageable content)? OTOH it doesn't really hurt anyone that stuff like this hangs around for a few days. Weregerbil 09:50, 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 delete. Turnstep 15:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Social[edit]

An ad for a non-notable bar. No claim approaching WP:CORP. Deprodded without comment. Weregerbil 09:44, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchit Mishra[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable software engineer. The "published article" link goes to a post on a bulletin board. Was PRODded, tag removed by anon. — sjorford (talk) 09:46, 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 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson C. Philip[edit]

This looks as if it's a real and notable subject, but on closer investigation things might not be all they seem. For example, the books mentioned appear to be either free e-books or published by Philip Communications (i.e. self-published). Google shows under 600 hits, with Wikipedia top of the list. No citations are provided outside the subject's own websites. I can't decide whether the problem here is systemic bias or whether the guy simply is not as important as the article would have us believe. Just zis Guy you know? 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects of the unaccredited schools ran by him will likewise have to be deleted then. Arbusto 03:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notablity is established. Arbusto 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sadly. This person would easily be notable, if we could verify the information that is contained. Without independent sources, this article will always be POV. It will always be either used for promotion or for attack. We already have a problem of discussing something as basic as his education in the article, due to the lack of independent sources writing about him. It's to important to not mention, yet we haven't the sourcing to do it verifiably, neutrally, and completely. --Rob 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Rob, that was exactly the view I came to. Nice to know it wasn't just me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the person who last worked on this article. I notice that some of you who want deletion are not presenting the whole fact. For example, one of you say that bibliography leads to the personal sites of this person. You ignored several regular commercial publishers who are listed there. Similarly none of you is ready to consider the definition of "accredited" other than the American model, though mosts older institutions in India work under a British model and do not come under this classification. Some of our greatest scientists, doctors, lawyers, journalists, and ALL theologians come out of these "older" institutions patterned after the British model that are not listed as "accredited" yet they find no difficulty in getting admitted or appointed in the newer institutions that are pattered after the American system and listed in many places as "accredited". Institutions within India know about the British and American models that work here. Since it it difficult to work against so many people who simply are not willing to consider these points I raised, I too recommend that this article be deleted. If this guy is really of any importance let someone else write about him somewhere else. --Nonikay2k
  • For info, we list books by ISBN number, not with links to the publisher or any individual seller. Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think in this case, if there's a link to an independent publisher, who may have info on the book and author, that would be useful for this article. Wouldn't it? --Rob 08:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if it is a print-on-demand sales operation or some such, no. Much better to use the ISBN I think, it's less open to abuse. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN adcruft. 102 unique G-hits, and the kiss of death: the lead Google hit is the Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Van der Sloot[edit]

Unverifiable, highly likely a hoax. Same creator as Eric Roubinek listed above. Delete. Lupo 09:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Speedy delete. Most likely to be a hoax.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no relevant Google hits at all of person or band or album, seems hoax Gu 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very likely a hoax. jni 14:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. not WP:V and very likely a hoax based on author's edit history.--Isotope23 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I'm speedying this as vandalism. If someone finds a source, put a note on my talk page and I'll undelete it post-haste. Stifle (talk) 01:05, 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 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Saltpetrier[edit]

Unverifiable, highly likely a hoax. Same creator as Eric Roubinek listed above. Delete. Lupo 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete name gives no hits in Google (except Wikipedia) Gu 12:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. not WP:V and very likely a hoax based on author's edit history.--Isotope23 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to buy the hoax theory; even if he's real, being known only in Vermont wouldn't exactly make a convincing claim of notability. I'd also note that whoever created it doesn't have a clue how to apply categories; I got here by having to fix [[Category:Pianists|Pianists|Saltpetrier, Marvin]]. Delete him unless somebody can prove actual notability (though I won't hold my breath). Bearcat 03:37, 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 keep. - Turnstep 15:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Gold[edit]

Fails to meet WP:CORP no particular assertion of notability - no sources have been provided to establish notability or genericisation of trademark Politepunk 10:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using google to search for "dutch gold" lager yields 383 pages, including some prominent wikihits. The same search for "carlsberg" lager yields 941,000 pages. The same search for "heineken" lager yields 723,000 hits. For me that implies some disparity in notability. WP:Corp provides guidleines for asessing the notability of products, in my opinion, Dutch Gold fails to meet those (as stated in the nomination). - Politepunk 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is this some sort of joke? This page is for an extremely popular beer in the Republic Of Ireland. "no particular assertion of notability". You can clearly see in the pictures that it is indeed a genuine type of beer. If you delete this particular beer, then I assume you'll be deleting the pages of every other produced beer on Wikipedia? Heineken, Carslberg etc? utterly ridiculous. Jayteecork 11:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayteecork. Mangojuice 12:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does that imply that it is the page that is making the beer notable? - Politepunk 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it quite clearly implies that the product is sufficiently notable for its inclusion on wikipedia to elicit a response on an Irish national radio station.
Comment This is hilarious. This guy "politepunk" still thinks this beer doesn't deserve it's inclusion on Wikipedia. The mind boggles. Unfortunately Wikipedia is full of such people, thinking they know what's best for everyone. Jayteecork 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody, including the new editors who have shown up to register their opinion here, has provided any sources to show why it meets the guidelines for notable products suggested by WP:CORP; that's why I still think that this article doesn't merit inclusion of wikipedia. Look at the number of google results quoted above, is every product that is made or bought anywhere in the world worthy of inclusion? Additionally, please read WP:CIVIL. - Politepunk 21:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepm notable product. --Terence Ong 15:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a well-known (rather nasty in my personal opinion) beer in Ireland. Dlyons493 Talk 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known and entirely notable cheap beer. ergot 19:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 19:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Poy[edit]

The guy is non-notable, even if both his children are notable – I'm putting the relevant info into his children's articles, but this guy's never going to be more than a footnote Mgekelly - 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 speedy deleted └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assspatula[edit]

Non-notable band, vanity page Mrmctorso 10:14, 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 3rd May 2006 (UTC)

Upfront Rewards[edit]

opinionated original research. And if that's stripped out, a credit card, no evidence it's a particularly common one. Just zis Guy you know? 10:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Maybe, possibly, use it as an example of Predatory lending, but I'm not excited about that option. --Elkman - (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete spam --Bachrach44 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spamvertisement, linkspam, not encyclopedic, reads link an ad, is an ad, etc. ergot 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It was NPOV and lacking original research a month or so ago. I'd be happy to clean it up, but I am waiting for an admin to (restore or) email the copy that was deleted from the archive so I have something to work with. It's not really possible to pass an opinon on this AfD without seeing the copy of this page prior to Zanimum deleting it clean out of the history. He deleted it because of disparaging statements about Upfront Rewards. Ping-pong... It was far more extensive, and had several references. Note, I made significant changes since the above 3 votes. Elvey 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the changes are not really sufficient to address the issues brought up by the voters above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • what issues remain, Tito, et. al? If you're not providing constructive criticism, you're just being rude. In IETF circles, at least, if you're unhappy with something, you're expected to suggest alternate wording. None of the complaints suggest that a good article on Upfront Rewards can't exist.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Morrissey[edit]

Non notable unverifiable biography. Probably hoax. soUmyaSch 10:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense and non-notable person WP:CSD G1 and A7 - Politepunk 11:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7, tagged. Most of the content is a hoax, anyway. PJM 11:55, 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 Keep. kingboyk 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of record labels[edit]

A very large list which isn't particularly useful. Categories are better for record labels than lists. Delete. kingboyk 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. This is why we have categories. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a very large list because there was a *load of record companies. It isn't even complete. Is there an alternative? I'd like to add a couple myself just to get the ball rolling.--sabinelr 17 Apr 2006 1819 PDT
    An alternative? Have you checked out Category:Record labels? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Such pages are useful where confusion and lack of clarity are a possibliity. Philip Cross 10:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because being a list is not enough reason to delete. Lists perform an essential function in the reference hierarchy. Unlike categories, lists can show in a single location which articles are missing, and provide descriptions in cases of ambiguity. This list has a good mixture of red and blue links. Keep. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just my two cents, but I just needed to know if Capitol Records was part of Warner Music or not. I came to Wikipedia, found that link in 2 seconds and now I know. So, for me, it was completely handy. April 22, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.209.165 (talk • contribs) .
  • Retain- I see no reason to get rid of a very complete list of record labels. It seems a waste to get rid of something that can be quite useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.78.110.99 (talk • contribs) .
  • Retain For the purpose of researching a specific record lasble, a list is much more useful than categories. Many Lable would have to be listed under several categories and may or may not be listed under the categories one person thinks it should be. For a specific genre, categories are more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.154.117.178 (talk • contribs) .
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!
kingboyk 10:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm no list monger, but I consider this one useful. PJM 11:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per zzuuzz. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an example of a good thing to have a list article for. Mangojuice 12:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic list. --Terence Ong 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Jcuk 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually used this list yesterday looking for alternate spellings of a record label in Amsterdam. --Joelmills 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very useful list, I've used it quite a few times before. It's a lot easier to use than a group of categories.
  • Keep Visual diagrams, such as a list, help explain the complexity of the record industry.


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

The result of the debate was no consensus/keep. - Turnstep 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_noted_polyglots[edit]

The article contains plenty of text which argues that it can never contain actual verifiable information. The first paragraphs are a great disclaimer that the list is nothing but anecdotal. Mlewan 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as possible original research. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, unverifiable listcruft. --ES2 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of claim, very little verification Karlusss 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fascinating list, and there are plenty of blue links on it. I agree the first paragraphs are nothing special and most of those could go, but the list itself is viable. It is not true that "it can never contain actual verifiable information", because all Wiki needs for verification is a published source, and presumably that's where the info came from in the first place.Tyrenius 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A published source isn't really enough. A published reliable source is needed. And the sad fact is that the content of that page has been disputed at least in parts for about two years, and still there is no reliable source for the actual language skill level for any one of those "polyglots". I agree that it is fascinating reading, but it is not factual.
    • I admit that it is a noteworthy fact Mezzofanti is supposed to have spoken one hundred languages. It is always interesting to see how people were perceived. But it is not possible to compare that (likely erroneous) claim with a (probably equally erroneous) claim of forty for WJ Sidis, as the people who spread the two rumours most likely had different criteria. In short: this should not be a list. Mlewan 06:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the Wiki editor's job to decide whether a source is telling the truth as that would be original research. It is the editor's job to report what people have stated.Tyrenius 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, even though it's interesting. Would make a good addition to a trivia site, but not Wikipedia -- Hirudo 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I love the page, it's very interesting and well put together. Let the readers verify for themselves whether each case is legitimate and modify the page accordingly. shorestrack3200 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For many of the individuals the information seems to be verifiable, and the sources should be contained in the blue-linked articles where they belong. Note that the verifiability criterion is not whether these individuals actually did speak that many languages, but whether or not that claim has been publicly made about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if taken to an extreme this page could end up listing every hotel clerk in western Europe, but the degree of polyglotism represented here is truly notable, and it should be possible to obtain verifiable sources for most people on the list. --phh (t/c) 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as badly-defined and hence unverifiable list. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Fut.Perf. --DV8 2XL 16:04, 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. kingboyk 08:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital terrestrial television in the Denmark[edit]

Article has almost no content and no context, badly written. Consists of links to other articles.--Zxcvbnm 20:05, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. kingboyk 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden age of sail[edit]

This page is undoubtedly a fork and a stub.--Zxcvbnm 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A fork of what? And if you have a problem with it being a stub, then expand it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is a fork of Age of Discovery, which deals with the same time period.--Zxcvbnm 22:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no content in common. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously. The Age of Discovery is described as 15th-17th century, while the Golden age of sail is described as 18th-19th century. Mangojuice 12:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of good stuff in sailing came from then Jordanmills 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In Europe, the Golden Age of Sail is generally agreed to be the period in the 19th century when the efficiency and usage of commercial sailing vessels was at its peak (eg Clipper ships, tall ships etc etc) and immediately before steam ships started to take trade away from sail. Some would say that the Golden Age of Sail relates specifically to the Clipper ship era. Suggest that the article does not justify a separate entry as the content would be very brief and duplicate material well written in other articles. Boatman 09:33, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Boatman. --Arnzy (Talk) 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. We're talking about a well-accepted name for over 150 years of nautical history, folks. It's a good stub, no reason to delete it. Mangojuice 12:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - prominent term for a specific historical period - just fix the dates and other info. Could expand to other things like improvement of ship models and progress of navigation - Skysmith 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing wrong with stubs if they can be expanded --Astrokey44 14:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else merge with Age of Sail. — RJH 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. kingboyk 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book sox[edit]

Publicity -- Szvest 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable advertisement--Zxcvbnm 21:35, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nice try: Booksox. PJM 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mangojuice 12:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as adcruft. --Elkman - (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, advertisement. Colonel Tom 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Book sox are cool. They look and feel better than brown paper bag covers, though they are a bit pricy. This article, however, is pure advertisment. --Icarus 04:07, 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. kingboyk 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booksox[edit]

Publicity -- Szvest 20:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable advertisement--Zxcvbnm 21:35, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Also, unsourced. PJM 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Yeah, it's unsourced, but it may be verifiable. I just wouldn't care. Mangojuice 12:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one as adcruft too. --Elkman - (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, advertisement. Colonel Tom 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not going to bother adding a comment, as I already did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book sox. Is there any way to bundle two nominations together into one after they've both been made? --Icarus 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 16:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmdb[edit]

Non notable -- Szvest 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --BillC 21:49, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not properly sourced and does not seem notable. PJM 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like nn web site with little content Gu 12:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. kingboyk 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appledore IV[edit]

another non-notable boat. This is getting funnier every time. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 20:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I could see an article on BaySail, with this boat listed there, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Gwernol 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. --BillC 21:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Tall ships are a sufficiently unusual sight in this day and age that there aren't that many of them. Abstaining. Haikupoet 01:57, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Haikupoet is right, tall ships are unusual and some are definitely notable, but this is a 1989-built leisure boat used by a commercial operation. Compare with Tall Ships Youth Trust and Stavros S Niarchos (ship). Trivia fans: Stavros was completed and fittted out at Appledore yards (no connection). I'm undecided. It looks like spam for BaySail as-is (TSYT is a not-for-profit), but open to persuasion either way. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - personally, she's no USS Constitution.  RasputinAXP  c 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to baysail M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a boat owned by a non-profit that I've never heard of... and I'm pretty familiar with Bay City, Michigan. I need to see a stronger case for inclusion than is already laid out. If it had some sort of historical context I'd feel differently. BaySail doesn't have an article and presumably doesn't meet WP:CORP (if you want to apply that to a non-profit) so I can't really support article creation for a redirect.--Isotope23 16:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not that notable - Aeon 05:40, 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. kingboyk 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N-Tiernet[edit]

Delete self-promotional article, which is primarily original research. Also delete the redirect page at here. I originally tried to prod the article, but an anon removed the tag. Mindmatrix 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -AED 07:57, 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!
kingboyk 11:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either a protologism or vanispamcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Of the top three google hits, one's WP, one's the company making it, and one's somebody's blog that appears to have been spammed by the WP article author Jamoche 02:48, 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. - Turnstep 15:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Names of Pokémon[edit]

More Pokecruft, this entire chart is stated in the lists of Pokemon, making this article mostly a fork. Unnecessary.--Zxcvbnm 21:39, 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!
kingboyk 11:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. "Intended name?" WP can't read minds, folks... I doubt this has been published anywhere. Mangojuice 12:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR concerns above. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete redundant M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but "intentional name" is not good English. If the list is abandoned, then the commentary on naming convention should be merged somewhere. Peter Grey 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable original research. JIP | Talk 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately,Delete, I think the japanese names are already on each creature's page. And if anyone says pokecruft again, I swear to god... Toastypk 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus (defaults to Keep). kingboyk 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-exportation[edit]

This should be in Wiktionary, it's not of encyclopedic value. - MB (Talk) 11:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup. Seems it could be expanded to a decent article. --Tone 13:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a dictdef to me. --kingboyk 11:28, 25 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!
kingboyk 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important issue in internation trade. Kappa 11:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an appropriate {{stub}} and keep it. Even as a stub it could use some copyedit though -- Hirudo 16:47, 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) 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DataObjects.NET[edit]

Non-notable proprietary library for .NET. RayaruB 11:57, 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!
kingboyk 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per usage in Object-relational mapping, but consider rewriting it so it reads less like an advertisement. Specifically, the article should mention what makes it unique or different from other .NET object databases, and include some reviews (if available). --Elkman - (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of context. Slight merge if needed. Stifle (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it does not look like spam to me Yuckfoo 17:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were a part of the main .NET release, I'd keep it, but it's not related to .NET in any way, except that it uses it as the framework, much like Autowikibrowser runs on it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:12, 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 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Links Directory[edit]

Non-notable directory, fails WP:WEB. Delete -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:52, 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 no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I_Have_This_Dream[edit]

Ok - this article survived an afd last year when it seemed imminent, but is now faintly embarrasing - personally i don't think it's going to happen at all, if and when it does, we can write an article about it Petesmiles 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Gu 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a good example of why WP should not be a crystal ball. Mangojuice 12:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Mangojuice says. I'd say nothing should be included until a decent interval has passed after it has happened, to avoid this kind of nonsense. Just zis Guy you know? 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree this is embarrassing, to express it faintly, not to Wikipedia but to Wacko Jacko. Assuming Associated Press is a reliable source, the immanent appearance of the CD single was announced several times. The article simply describes what was actually reported, rather than (implicitly) assuming the accuracy of the "prophecies" reported upon, just like Great Disappointment reports on the embarrassing failure of a prophecy. The article itself does not suggest anything specific is going to happen: my crystal ball detector gives a negative. LambiamTalk 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, WP:NOT crystalball, but even vaporware (or the musical equivilent) can be notable if enough press is churned out about it. I equate this to The Phantom (game system).--Isotope23 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and arguably has enough relevance for own article.--Cini 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reasons stated above by Mangojuice. --Charles 17:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Isotope and Cini. JoshuaZ 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An object lesson in why crystal ball articles need to be deleted. -- GWO
  • Delete. It failed several times to prove its notability by getting released. It always gets delayed and we can't continue to maintain an article of a non-existing single till eternity. Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encyclopedias don't predict the future. -- notyouravgjoe 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT.In1984 00:46, 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 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piquant[edit]

I had originaly suggested a move to wikipedia, but piquant is already there. Article appears to be an attack (or an hommage) anyways. Coren 12:26, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xemidi and Zxyxy System[edit]

Xemidi, and the related Zxyxy System look like some sort of fictional universe. However there are no Ghits at all on any related terms such as "Calgonaric" (notably, Calgon is a water-softening product here in the UK), Xemidi or anything else. I'm listing this and Zxyxy System for deletion as their lack of verifiability makes them look like something made up in school Tonywalton  | Talk 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – vanity. These articles were clearly written by Its Highness Xemidi Ralgomarack itself, who currently resides at DKIT (don't ask me what the "K" stands for – you don't want to know). Xemidi is vain to the highest degree and strongly biased, describing itself with exalted terms like "A great and cruel ruler". Gag this with a Zxyxy dinner fork. LambiamTalk 14:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN; original fiction, but I liked the pictures. Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xemidi managed to get a couple of votes in the student election in the DKIT,even though he had originally started out as an antitdote to the many people who used about an entire rainforests worth of paper promoting themselves and the numerous promises they would never be able to keep.At least Xemidi spoke the truth.After that he took on a life of his own. WishIhadablog

  • Delete, crap. incog 01:55, 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 as an advertisement with an ALL CAPS title. Turnstep 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOLLHOUSES[edit]

advertisement and endorsement for a specific, probably small business Skysmith 12:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE AS ADCRUFT. Oops, sorry, I had my caps lock key on. --Elkman - (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisment Gu 14:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement, but I'll keep it in mind next time I'm looking for a dollhouse. --james °o 16:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. JIP | Talk 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge anything salvageable with Dollhouse, just advertising though. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:15, 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. Flowerparty☀ 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimmigrants[edit]

Neologism only popular on a few message boards Neverfailtotry (talk • contribs) removed {{prod}} tag. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Irishpunktom\talk 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn epithet. AKADriver 18:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia's blatant attempts at censorship aside, this term is quickly becoming relevant. Delete it if you must, but you'll come back with your tail between your politically correct legs and add it later. In all seriousnes, if Wikipedia is supposed to be "impartial", I find it laughable you're fussing over this word. It's more than just a few forums..do your research. Besides, "spam", "netizen", "blogger"...these all started off "on a few forums". Your excuses are weak, and probably indicative of a conservative upbringing. Neverfailtotry
    A fuss indeed. This article is being given the same sort of intense scrutiny as such hot-button topics as orange pants.— AKADriver ☎ 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a common argument by people arguing for newly made-up words, that other, now common terms were once equally obscure. The difference is that words like "spam", "netizen", "blogger" are no longer obscure. This one is still about as obscure as they come, and we don't add words here because they might become common or are "quickly becoming relevant." Fan1967 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with orange pants. Neologism, dic-def, and insufficiently notable. Stormfront and a Freerepublic thread aren't reliable sources, and if they were, their usage still wouldn't make this an encyclopedic article. Barno 22:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki If it is a proper word that is. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO, though based on a grand total of 17 unique GHits, hasn't even made it to neologism status. Fan1967 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Hirudo 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Crook, he apparently owns a website with that name (at least Neverfailtotry added a mention of it to that article). --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No indication at all that this term is in common use. Does not deserve any entry at all, even a redirect. Fan1967 18:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if individual racist epithets routinely received their own articles, this one still wouldn't qualify. --phh (t/c) 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Cain[edit]

Non-notable baby, more a prop in the episodes it appeared than an actor. Bjelleklang - talk 13:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Might merit an article in 15 years, but doesn't now. JoshuaZ 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're too young to talk, it can't be called acting. Edit histories on most of these show a pattern that looks like the articles were created on behalf of agents with a lot of baby clients. Fan1967 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mention briefly in the parents' articles. Stifle (talk) 01:01, 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 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alisyn and Kelli Griffith[edit]

Although I haven't seen the series, they are only listed as having appeared on General Hospital on IMDB, and due to this, my opinion is that they're non-notable, and thus should be deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 13:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Without having watched GH during that time it's hard to establish importance to that show, but most child actors in soaps are human props with no speaking lines. Had an uncredited appearance in Baby Geniuses [18]. Notability shaky at best. AKADriver 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Props not actors. If you're too young to talk, it can't be called acting. Edit histories on most of these show a pattern that looks like the articles were created on behalf of agents with a lot of baby clients. Fan1967 19:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Stifle (talk) 01:01, 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 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Middleton[edit]

As the article states; she was replaced with an older actor able to do a speaking-role. Might be famous sometime in the future, but in my opinion not notable enough today to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn bio and no indent to continue acting Gu 14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Stifle (talk) 01:01, 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 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible film and music synchronizations[edit]

Original research. No evidence that the subject matter would ever become notable. No criteria is presented for the inclusion or exclusion of other similar items. Santtus 13:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT should have an entry that says "Wikipedia is not for information produced from a combination of drugs and free time". Danny Lilithborne 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and listcruft. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 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 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Focus[edit]

Is this notable? Some High School kids form a label and mark their home page as referenceLajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 13:52, 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 redirect. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

phronistery[edit]

Tiny Yahoo! search results is the only basis for this one. Dangherous 11:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Harvey Industrial Designer[edit]

Endorsement of an individual person and/or business Skysmith 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see any notability there. If this article is kept, the name needs to be changed. Vegaswikian 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Stifle (talk) 01:00, 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 (creator's request, has already merged article with Richmond River) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond River, New South Wales[edit]

Page already exists at Richmond River - was my somewhat lame attempt to "normalise" all river entries in NSW. Probably a waste of time and resources unless an ambiguity arises Peter1968 14:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pagemove (including history), Richmond River to Richmond River, New South Wales. --blue520 14:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, since you're the author and only editor, and there is no other content or history for keeping. (Speedy G7). I'll add the tag to the page. Kuru talk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pagemove per Blue520, there may be other Richmon Rivers. JoshuaZ 17:42, 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 keep. Flowerparty☀ 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Gordon Moore[edit]

Went through a previous afd, and was deleted but recreated sometime after this. Is still not notable enough to warrant an article, even though she has appeared on an album and an album cover, I don't think this is enough for her to have an article. Delete or merge into her parents. Bjelleklang - talk 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passed VfD was some time ago, and current article is much more informative than the version that was deleted previously. Notable enough, and no acceptable location for a merge. Sarge Baldy 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Performs on 2 albums which were issued by either a major (Watt) or a notable indie label (SYR). Ac@osr 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The performance you mention, consists of some crying on one track before her first birthday, and screaming on one track lasting 17 seconds on an album when she was six. In addition, she was on the cover of this album, and had a cameo in a music video. Bjelleklang - talk 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Sarge Baldy and Acosr. Sigh, this is the third time an attempt at AfD was made for this article. At this point, this is pretty much a teflon article. I suggest that it be left alone. Not to mention, her parents have their own separate articles - there's no way you'd be able to merge the article onto both. --CJ Marsicano 04:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right. And much of the information pertains to her, rather than her parents. Sarge Baldy 21:38, 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☀ 03:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orlandito Camacho[edit]

Good story, but doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The kid was lost for less than two days, and turned up alright, like a lot of other kids does. Delete for being not notable enough. Bjelleklang - talk 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. Perhaps not as notable or grotesque as Aron_Ralston but did make national news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESnyder2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Getting lost for two days doesn't make you notable. Everyone has 15 minutes of fame. JoshuaZ 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and those 15 minutes are up. FCYTravis 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews. Yes, it's possible. The only non-trivial edits to this article were made by User:AntonioMartin, who multilicenses with the appropriate CC license. Stifle (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)...or not. He does license under CC-by-sa, but Wikinews uses just CC-by. So delete, because Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 00:59, 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 to Delete all nominated articles. --Pjacobi 12:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also related past AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle synchrony, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_20#Category:Cycles, and see current AfDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward R. Dewey.---CH 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle theory[edit]

New set of articles about non-notable pet theory. Original set of articles posted in June/July 2005.

I am also nominating the following additional articles:

Material regarding Cycles Theory was originally inserted into Wikipedia in the summer of 2005. This was backed out where it was added into articles like Cycle, and deleted outright when it was presented in articles like Harmonics Theory, as it represents the pet theory of one individual (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory (2nd nomination) for sample context). Material has recently been reinserted into Wikipedia in the articles noted above.--Christopher Thomas 06:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - The Foundation for the Study of Cycles looks like it dates from the first time this topic came up. I'm striking it from the list of related articles, to be considered separately if anyone wants to put it up for AfD. --Christopher Thomas 06:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. This is a 501c3 U.S. recognized organization. That is doing research in cycle theory. Your personal opinions on whether it is bias, rubbish or pseudoscience is redundant. This is a verifiable entity conduction research in cycle theory. Thus a sub on the theory should be expanded. Therefore, cycle theory should be on wikipedia as the foundation and it research arm. Personally, I hold little interest in the topic. But what does interest me is giving credit were it should be given and it should be. H0riz0n 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First - State a vote of "keep" or "delete", at the beginning of your voting comment, either as a blanket for all articles listed, or on an article-by-article basis.
Second - getting registered as a non-profit organization doesn't make you noteworthy. It means you went to the appropriate office, filled in the form, and paid the fee. I've been part of one which consisted of half a dozen people who met once a year to satisfy the AGM requirements so I'm quite familiar with the process.
The most likely deletion criterion considered here is notability (though that's not a cast in stone policy, it tends to be what gets considered). What makes a _scientific_ _theory_ notable or non-notable is how much mention it gets by scientists. What makes an entity in general notable or non-notable is how much mention it gets by the public at large. Google is the usual yardstick for this for AfD disputes. Go and check for yourself to see whether this is notable or not.
Third - while status as science or pseudoscience isn't relevant for an AfD vote, it _is_ relevant for how the articles themselves are presented (see WP:NPOV). I have a strong background in science and engineering. If I call something pseudoscience, it's because I have the expertise to know it certainly is. If I'm not sure, I _say_ that I'm not sure, and ask scientists. Accusing me of "bias" and "personal opinion" when assigning labels like that verges on being a personal attack. Please consider the possibility that I _do_ know what I'm talking about. --Christopher Thomas 07:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable research, no evidence of being pursued outside of this institute, smells of pseudoscience. Sandstein 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by User:H0riz0n, originally interleaved with the original AfD notice text:)

(Cycle theory isnt a pet theory to hedge funds who apply very secret matenamtical equations to hedge their investments over large investment markets.)
(grouping the article together is like grouping all religions, philosophies, sciences under individual topic. Cycle theory is a long studied topic that deserves individual coverage.)
Cycles Research Institute -- this an [independent 501c3 reseach entity] doing work in cycle theory and working to establish a Unified Theory of Cycles this work has been ongoing since Edward R Dewey was appointed In 1931 as chief economics analyst for the U.S. Department of Commerce with the special task of finding out what had caused the market crash two years before.
Unified Theory of Cycles -- (this should be an independent sub since there is published research by the Cycles Research Institute

(Comment by User:H0riz0n)

research outsite institute on cycle theory
  1. Germany 1 2 3
  2. United kingdom 1
  3. Australis 123
  4. Business & Other Cycle Theory 1 excellent overview of the verious types of cycle Theorys

(Comment apparently by User:H0riz0n)

The term cycle is used a technical term in many areas, including symbolic dynamics, the area of my own Ph.D. thesis (on a kind of almost periodic dynamical system, and I think I am reasonably qualified to discuss the periodic kind too, heh). But it should be clear that such usages do not in any way "endorse" the vapid claims discussed in these articles! Let's see: you linked to a web page discussing some work of John Maynard Keynes, the K-theory preprint archive (ROFL !!!!!), some kind of blog on business cycles--- c'mon, who do you think you are kidding? But thanks for mentioning K-theory since I think others here will enjoy that as much as I did! :-) CH 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Cycles Research Institute since it's not immediately obvious that it doesn't exist , merge (slowly and painfully) the others with it. Studying rhythms is one thing, but they don't have a cycle theory yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (Didn't Fourier or someone work out the real cyclical math a few hundred years ago?) Peter Grey 07:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of Fourier series. This is a useful way of representing an arbitrary signal as the sum of a series of sine waves (via versions of the Fourier transform). I could wax poetic for several paragraphs about when it's (very!) useful and when it's not useful, but suffice to say that it's not related to what Cycle theory claims to do. --Christopher Thomas 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's your definition of "exists"? According to its website it does not yet have an office of any sort. It seems to exist on the web and the author seems to have filed for 401(c) status. I don't think that's very notable; it sounds like this is run out of this guy's kitchen. --Fastfission 05:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (addressing Peter Grey, not Christopher Thomas)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, if that wasn't evident from the fact that I initiated the AfD. A google search turns up all of 309 hits for "Cycles Research Institute", once Wikipedia-sourced pages and a similar-sounding unrelated organization (Economic Cycles Research Institute) are removed. Many of these hits are archives of a post CRI made to sci.astro.research and other newsgroups. --Christopher Thomas 08:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These results are inflated by a variety of things. I get 353 results from your search. After removing results from cyclesresearchinstitute.org and tomes.biz, these results are brought down to around 260. Additionally, from playing around with the search parameters, it appears that of these 260, about 100 are the result of spamming of newsgroups with announcements. Even here, with only 160 results, some are references to other organisations, and many appear to just be random links. My final search was this rather long expression.--Philosophus 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Though there are many studies of cyclic processes in different forms of science, I see no independent evidence for the existence of a coherent discipline known as "cycle theory" as defined on the article page, one which tried to be a "unified theory of cycles". The key question here is not whether one can find times when various economic models are described a cyclical, but whether or not there exists a "cycle theory" as a disciplinary field. It seems, from a superficial look at the links offered here, that the author is trying to carve out some sort of new interdisciplinary approach. That's good and well, but unless there is independent reference to this from a mainstream source of some sort I don't think it passes WP:NOR, and does not belong on Wikipedia. If/when it becomes a notable disciplinary approach, we'll be happy to have an article on it. --Fastfission 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More than half of the 350 results on google are either self-references or newsgroup spamming. The articles focus quite a bit on cycles outside of business, but have no links to peer-reviewed and respected publications outside of the business-related links. It appears that "Cycle Theory" might be an obscure business theory, but depending considerably on psychology of people involved in business, which bears little relation to what these articles are about. To cite a precedent, this is much less notable than Aetherometry, which was deleted for non-notability. Foundation for the Study of Cycles seems a bit questionable too - many of the links to it appear to be astrology related - but I will look into this later. --Philosophus 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Ray Tomes has been posting similar stuff in UseNet newsgroups for years, and recently has tried several times to create WP articles which misleadingly portray this Cycles Institute and so forth as some kind of major scientific enterprise. In fact, as far as I can tell, all three or four articles here are really only talking about Ray Tomes and his website. Tomes has appropriated (with credit) the writings of an earlier crank, and continues to popularize these ideas, but as far as I know, he is the only living person who seriously believes in this stuff. He seems like a nice enough fellow, but in the interests of the readers whom we are here to serve, Tomes should be gently but firmly discouraged from using WP as soapbox in this manner.---CH 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, some time back Foundation for the Study of Cycles was only a blank site, but it has become an extensive website with sections on such crank-infested waters as Nikola Tesla, Rife, Wave Structure of Matter, and naturally, poor old Einstein. Tomes does claim that the organization has a dozen researchers, but I question the mental picture of a large building with these fellows hard at work in their offices which I think the website and articles try to create.---CH 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipating that some users who are not mathematicians or scientists may wish to vote intelligently in this AfD, or might be curious to learn more about why cycles are commonplace (but certainly not present in every phenomenon which one might study), I'd like to give two very readable references
  • Hilborn, Robert C. (1994). Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-195-08816-6. The best undergraduate level survey of this vast topic I've seen. Clear and well organized.
  • Jackson, E. Atlee (1991). Perspectives on Nonlinear Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42632-4 and 0-521-42633-2. (two volumes) A wonderful nontechnical survey, with beautiful illustrations.
Both of these books extensively discuss various applications, and discuss both periodic and almost periodic dynamical systems.
I urge anyone interested to obtain one or both of these books and also to read the articles up for AfD in order to verify the following assertions:
  1. Modern dynamical systems theory offers much insight into why cycles are common (but certainly not ubiqitous) in dynamical systems, including systems which are often used to model phenomena in economics, biology, and physics.
  2. "Cycle theory" as described at the FSC website and in Cycles Research Institute and the other articles up for AfD amounts to little more than the observation that cycles are common (but certainly not ubiquitious) in phenomena which nowadays are often modeled as some kind of dynamical system (continuous or discrete).
  3. There is no such subject as "cycle theory" in mathematics or dynamical systems theory.
  4. The mathematical theory of dynamical systems is a theory. The "cycle theory" promoted in these articles is vapid nonsense.
Since the real theory (dynamical systems) is both beautiful and powerful, I encourage anyone interested to learn a bit about it. The book by Jackson should make wonderful reading regardless of background.---CH 22:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably point out for the benefit of mathematically literate users that the notion of a cycle finds its proper place in symbolic dynamics. See the first half of
  • Lind, Douglas; Marcus, Brian (1995). Introduction to Symbolic Dynamics and Coding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55900-6.
There are in fact beautiful connections between cycles, closed geodesics, zeta functions, primes, and all that. Strictly speaking, graphs such as occur in symbolic dynamics do harbor homological cycles which are seen to be closely related to cyclic permutations in this context. And operator K-theory does play a role in symbolic dynamics (part of why I was ROFL up above), although not, of course, in a naive way :-/ But of course this does not at all contradict anything I said above. Quite the contrary, it supports my contention that the mainstream theory (the only real theory discussed on this page) is intricate, beautiful, far-reaching and powerful.---CH 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another article written by the FSC crowd is Edward R. Dewey, which promoted his mysterical numerology as mainstream until I fixed it just now. ---CH 02:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the arguments given above. Anville 11:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CH is right; to anyone who knows anything, this is akin to shouting Eureka! 2+2=4 ! Well, of course it is! linas 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call me a process stickler if you will, but for some reason, this has fallen off the April 5 AFD log. I am not sure when it happened, but since a discussion can be radically altered by it not being on the main AFD list, I thought it best to ensure that it gets sufficient attention by having it on for the full 5 days. I have added this to the April 25 AFD log. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CH. –Joke 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability concerns as well as the arguments presented above.--Cini 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fastfission, Philosophus and the previous AfD discussions. Last time(s) around, User:RayTomes was adding a category to lots of unrelated articles in an attempt to create a discipline ab nihilo, citing Edward R. Dewey as the primary progenitor; when you looked at it in detail, everything traced back to Tomes' own site or was unrelated to cycles (the category was applied to Sonoluminescence, for instance). This looks like a similar attempt to borrow credibility for Wikipedia for a basically pseudoscientific enterprise. · rodii · 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tosh and even if it wasn't no sources. Kotepho 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not an established science and this is not a crystal ball. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All (weak, in the case of CRI, as it may be a real organization). Not science, and non even established pseudo-science. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cycle theory predicts that even if we delete these articles, they will come back. LambiamTalk 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Move — as a compromise. Article is certainly insufficient as currently written, and needs to be held to a higher standard. However, following the links in the See Also or External Links (?), you can also see a respectable webpage and a number of links to other related organizations, as someone documented above. Some of you may not remember or know about Biorythms, which millions swore by (And sometimes 'At'! Well, certainly some daze, I did! <G>) for a few years back when computers first became common in the office. Basically, I'm saying this is a stub and no worse than many I've stubmbled across herein. The given links suggest there is a lot of room for improvement and clean up. WP:NPOV ALSO means rejecting it out of hand as psuedo-science doesn't mean these folks may in fact someday be able to explain say Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or something YOU PERSONALLY view as appropo to science. I PERSONALLY, however recall a mention and discussion of Cycle Theory in an upper level Economics course in 1974. Is this article well written— Hell No. But are the specious objections listed above because one only made a passing stab at looking into a topic they haven't been exposed to a correct and well informed vote— I don't think so. One of the criticisms of this forum is that far too often people don't take enough time to examin the topic and delete promising article topics willy nilly out of hand in misguided youthful exuberence. Doing Something does not equate to to doing the right thing. If you're unqualified in this forum in particular, don't vote on something. Experience is a wonderful thing and it tells me that stranger things than this research have occured. Most topics in particle physics for starters— perhaps we should toss out String theory and Quarks— I'm sure they are equally familar to most of the voters back in April.

Some particulars:

  1. Has anyone noticed that one of the Board Members on the below link is the CEO of FedEX? Think he's wasting his time?
  2. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 355,000 for "Cycle Research", Hmmmm Looks notable.
  3. Been around a LONG, LONG While— re:Dr. Theodore Landscheidt 1927-2004 Theodore Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity passed away on Wednesday, May 19, 2004. He was a long time member of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, author and publisher of many books and papers on cycles and universal phenomena.
  4. From the same site:

    While cycles have an ancient history, the science of studying modern financial cycles began over a hundred and fifty years ago in the early 19th century. However, serious study of financial cycles did not begin until after the American stock market crash of 1929. In 1931 the Department of Commerce assigned Edward Dewey the task of discovering the cause and underlying dynamics of the Great Depression. As Chief Economic Analyst for the Department Dewey had unprecedented access to resources and information. Dewey's work on understanding the Great Depression led him to his lifelong calling in cycles. He combined his enormous research in business cycles with research from leading biologists on cycles in nature and in wildlife. Dewey was astonished to discover that:

    1. ) Cycles of identical length were found in both disciplines
    2. ) Similar cycles from different areas reached their peaks and troughs at the same time.

and

On January 10th, 1941, Edward R. Dewey incorporated the Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Inc. in the State of Connecticut, to conduct further research into these important discoveries. The Foundation has now become the recognized world center for multidisciplinary cycle research.

Lastly, Crystal Ball doesn't apply in any way, in economics and biology in particular cycle theories have some strong adherents. Rather than deleting it, I suggest it be moved into the creator's user page as a sandbox and he be asked firmly to vastly improve it before resubmiting it to article space. Or better yet, some of the delete voters above could do some penance and clean it up properly with a little research. FrankB 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabartus, your comment is almost unreadable (I tried to improve the formatting but probably failed). I have some comments:
  1. move to what? What is this "respectable webpage"? What on Earth does "respectable webpage" even mean? Are you saying that you believe that WP should have articles on every website in the world?!
  2. Up above we already discussed the key issue in detail the point: in his websites, UseNet postings, and WP articles, Tomes uses legitimate terms from math and mathematical sciences like harmonic, cycle, and by mentions some genuine legitimate research, in hope that the reader will conclude that Edward R. Dewey's vapid numerology is meaningful and mainstream. Neither is the case. In my version of Edward R. Dewey, I tried to stress the contrast between vapid numerological mysticism and genuine mathematical theories, by sketching some theorems from dynamical systems theory which mention (mathematical precise notions of) "cycles".
  3. You seem to imply that you believe that we critics don't know what we are talking about when it comes to mathematics and science in general or cycles in particular. Did you overlook the fact that my own dissertation concerned a class of dynamical systems which (in the generic case) contain no cycles whatever, contrary to the ludicrous claim, attributed to Dewey by Tomes, that "cycles are present in everything which has been studied". I assure you that before you can understand notions of aperiodicity, you need to understand notions of periodicity!
  4. You ask "Has anyone noticed that one of the Board Members on the below link is the CEO of FedEX? Think he's wasting his time?". By "Board Members on the below link", I presume you mean "Members of the Board of the Foundation for the Study of Cycles". So what are the scientific credentials of this person? If he has none, why would you think we would be impressed? Particularly since we are well aware of a common cranky tactic of inflating polite replies to emails into "endorsements" (I've been a victim of that myself).
  5. "From the same site": aye, there's the rub. Edward R. Dewey appears to be entirely non-notable in the sense that I am unable to find information about him which does not come from one of the websites associated with Ray Tomes, which I insist are neither reliable nor independent sources of information.
  6. "The Foundation has now become the recognized world center for multidisciplinary cycle research." The trouble is, the only source for this claim appears to be none other than Ray Tomes and members of his organization. I take it that you are one yourself? In any case, this ducks the point, since mainstream science has recognized no need for "multidisciplinary cycle research", while happily accepting dynamical systems theory, which already provides powerful, beautiful, provable, and highly applicable insights into many aspects of dynamical behavior, including cyclical and non-cyclical behavior.
---CH 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a real topic here; and we have an article on Nikolai Kondratiev. Septentrionalis 05:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Has anyone noticed that one of the Board Members on the below link is the CEO of FedEX?"
So? John Harvey Kellogg was pretty weird, too -- even in what we have in our article. There's even more wierdness which I may be able to find verifiable sources for. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some points in response here:
  • The search for "Cycles Research" isn't returning what you think it is - take a look at the results. Hardly any of these results are related to the articles in question. Searching for "Cycles Theory" gives similarly erroneous results.
  • Many of us are mathematicians or physicists who are certainly qualified to judge the notability of these articles.
  • Although the FSC site certainly asserts notability, it offers little concrete evidence for such. Interestingly, the "recognized world center" for research doesn't appear to have an address, and at least one of its four constituents admits that it doesn't have an office (look at the CRI page, About CRI). Trusting the assertions given on such a site is rather naive, as we have seen in the past (see the Aetherometry discussions, for example).
  • Many pseudoscientific and obscure organizations have been around for a long time, or claim to have been around for a long time. That doesn't make them notable.
Whether these people (or person) are able to show something in the future or not doesn't really effect their notability now. They are still pseudoscientists, just like others we have deleted before, and non-notable ones at that. They appear to have attached themselves to a term used in economics, but do not really appear to have anything to do with it - while Cycle Theory in business has to do with psychology and other such things, and could probably be formulated on a rational basis, this group is concerned with things like linking cycles in the sun to economics. --Philosophus 13:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone wanting some insight into the history here might be interested in looking at the old CfD discussion on [[Category:Cycles]] (a sockfest) and the list of pages at User:RayTomes. Also see Tomes' contribs for a long list of articles he added [[Category:Cycles]] to. The fact that there are actual discussions in specific fields of something called "cycle theory" does not mean that there is a real account substantively relating, as the FSC partisans would have it, the business cycle, just intonation, the Aztec calendar, sunspots, Milankovich cycles, eclipses, sonoluminescence, menstrual cycles, bioelectromagnetism, bipolar disorder, and Kondratiev waves. This is almost but not quite at the level of noting that many things can be counted, creating a Foundation for the Study of Countability espousing "Countability Theory" as a deep theory of nature, putting [[Category:Countables]] on a bunch of pages and then justifying by pointing out that in mathematics there is something called Number theory. Hmm, I might be on to something here. · rodii · 14:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic but to my mind important correction: you wrote "The fact that there are actual discussions in specific fields of something called 'cycle theory'". Not so, what I was saying above is that there is a beautiful, powerful, highly developed, and highly applicable field of mathematics called dynamical systems theory, in which one can find various mathematical definitions of notions of cycle. I tried to sharply contrast this genuine mathematical theory (which of course has nothing to do whatever with Tomes's maunderings) with Dewey's vapid numerology. The term Cycle theory and Harmonics theory have apparently been used only by Tomes. I think what you were trying to say is this: the fact that cycle and harmonic are used as technical words in legimate mathematical and physical theories does not in any way. If so, I entirely agree with this corrected assertion. ---CH 03:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you misunderstand me, or I wasn't clear. While I appreciated your point about dynamical systems theory, I wasn't responding to you at all. Some posters above seemed to be suggesting that since there's a real theory called "cycle theory" (in field X) the term can be used in any context, which is clearly wrong. Philosophus above wrote "while Cycle Theory in business has to do with psychology and other such things"--I was expanding on his point, not yours. My point was that even if there were something called "cycle theory" in some field (I have no idea whether any field actually uses the term), that doesn't justify the use of the term promiscuously or, in the Tomesian sense, as some kind of universal Key to All Sciences. So, I am in fact in complete agreement with you (and, I believe, Philosophus). Sorry I wasn't clearer. · rodii · 03:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incredibly badly written (personal fave "Holy Gail equation"). Many things worth studying have cyclical dynamics, this says nothing encyclopedic about any of them. Not quite WP:PN, but closer to WP:CB. Pete.Hurd 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why is this AfD taking so long? How on earth did it mysteriously drop off the list? Can some admin wrap this up, please? ---CH 03:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Sjakalle's comment above: "Call me a process stickler if you will, but for some reason, this has fallen off the April 5 AFD log. I am not sure when it happened, but since a discussion can be radically altered by it not being on the main AFD list, I thought it best to ensure that it gets sufficient attention by having it on for the full 5 days. I have added this to the April 25 AFD log." · rodii · 03:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I was referring to. Your edit conflicted with mine; please give me a half hour to correct the mess. ---CH 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I'm done. ---CH 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for admin: looks this AfD will pass, and a good thing too! I think The Foundation for the Study of Cycles should also be deleted, but the nominator waffled. Do I need to initiate a separate AfD for that page? Whichever admin deletes the articles, can you please ensure that the AfD itself is kept? Since several of us expect that User:RayTomes will create more articles containing similar content, it might be helpful to avoid having to say all this over again and again and again. TIA ---CH 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, AfD pages stick around. I dug up links to the old Harmonics Theory ones when HT was re-posted. Anything that directly duplicates deleted content, under the same name or not, gets speedied pretty quickly. I nominated these two articles using the full AfD process because I thought they were different enough in content that it would be hard to make an ironclad case for them being duplicates. I removed FSC from the list of nominated articles because the two remaining articles, unlike FSC, _largely_ duplicated previously-deleted content, and so would probably be less contested than an AfD that included the FSC article. I'll take a closer look at the two articles you nominated this coming week.--Christopher Thomas 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like others, I agree that the existence of studies of cyclical behaviour in different fields does not mean that there is any "grand theory of cycles". Kevin 07:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Salix alba (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Salix, as a mathematician I have no quarrel with mathematical economics. But, Salix, these articles hardly mention economics! Their only purpose is to promote the numerological mysticism of Dewey/Tomes. That is cranky POV-pushing and I think that cranky POV-pushing is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Let us not lose sight of the fact that ultimately WP is or should be reliable source of information for the general reader. It is not a soapbox for promoting crank "theories". ---CH 03:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fastfission and Rodii, who made the crucial point that the article seems to be about a new interdisciplinary approach to "cycles". Thus I recommend deletion based on WP:NOR. --C S (Talk) 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vote. I'm no longer certain. While looking up info on Edward R. Dewey, I found [19]. It mentions that he worked in "interdisciplinary cycle research" and that there is now a Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research [20] So it would appear there is such a field, with Dewey as a pioneer. I'm unsure of whether the field is notable enough for inclusion; this is due in part to just the general crappy state of the article on cycle theory. But it may be that after appropriate cleanup, it would be suitable. --C S (Talk) 11:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alarm, alarm! Chan-Ho, I think you meant to vote keep in the Edward R. Dewey AfD and to vote delete in this AfD and the AfD on The Foundation for the Study of Cycles! (Pretty much what I've done myself) Sorry, I know it is confusing having three AfD's, but unforunately the nominator confused the issue early regarding the scope of this AfD. ---CH 03:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and all other people saying "delete". Dewey is the "pioneer" of cycle theory in exactly the same sense that Gene Ray is the pioneer of the Time Cube. Anville 21:40, 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 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon and Taylor Porter[edit]

Nn actors, IMDB lists them as being active only in Party of Five from 1994-95 (two first seasons), and Brandon as having had one additional uncredited role in 1996. Delete. Bjelleklang - talk 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. More baby "actors" added to Wikipedia by their agents. When they get a part that involves talking, let us know. Fan1967 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. Stifle (talk) 00:49, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICT Council[edit]

This article is an advertisement for the services of ICT Council. Takeel 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adcruft. ekedolphin 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Probably a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what Stifle said Crazy4metallica 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify, Sorry, I will try to modify it Chi 14:01, 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. Discounting voters from new accounts, this is a 2-1 majority for deletion (and the only keep was weak). That's enough to enforce our central, non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia:Verifiability on a article likely to be self-promotion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Gabrielson[edit]

Page prodded as Notability not established but the prod was contested. The prod was then resubmitted, but that is out of process, so bringing it to AfD instead where it can be discussed. Eusebeus 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • (update)Weak(/update) Keep unless his claims can be disproved. He is listed on [21] as one of the nssia directors. Someone needs to factcheck the other claims. -- Hirudo 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless further evidence contradicts his claims. LittleSurferBoy 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not how Wikki works, he must cite RELIABLE sources of information, citing his own works on the internet are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Check the whois on that website, he owns it.

http://whois.domaintools.com/nssia.org

He has created almost 30 Wikipedia entries, all about himself, ALL supported by his OWN websites he OWNS. Check the whois on them. I can go out and register 5 domains and come make 30 Wikipedia entries also, it doesn't mean it's true.

Check his contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Hbsnake1

He started all of them, all about himself, if that isn't vanity, I don't know what is.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs)

  • 'Delete, looks like a vanity article if I ever saw one. IronChris | (talk) 03:57, 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 - Liberatore(T) 19:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confectuate[edit]

Dicdef. Transwiki and delete UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Delete word dosn't even exist, 1 hit on google, that was some sort of message board. Dictionary.com dosn't have a refrence to it, neither does MS Word, Websters nor the American Heritage Dictionary (third edition)RiseRobotRise 15:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Delete per Ihcoyc. --james °o 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not transwiki. This is perhaps a hoax or neologism. Google finds but a single hit, for here, (caution, site tried to start a download) where it looks like a one-off joke coinage. If it simply means "complete", it is the sort of abstract inkhorn term that deserves every discouragement. Smerdis of Tlön 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Truglia[edit]

Prodded as Vanity page written by Steve Truglia himself but contested so bringing it to AfD. While clearly suffering from vanity, a self-authored page, while regrettable, is not in and of itself, grounds for deletion. The subject is asserts a mention in Guiness Book of World Records (I have not verified this), which could be construed as further grounds for his notability. Eusebeus 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, IMDB reference and possible GBWR holder (I didn't comfirm that). Cleaned the article up so it didn't read like so much promotional drivel.--Isotope23 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep after Isotope's rewrite. Minor notability as mentioned in nominator's comment. Kuzaar 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pleasantly surprised to find that after repeatedly removing this guy's advertising from the Stunt coordinator article for months that he's actually quite a guy... Guinness stuff checks out [22]. Both articles still need to be monitored for copy. Deizio 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try and watch the page to make sure the author doesn't revert it to spamvertisment.--Isotope23 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Mike Shropshire. - Liberatore(T) 20:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shopshire[edit]

Contested prod that argued WP:BIO Probably non-notable so bringing to AfD for fuller discussion. Eusebeus 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, extremely bad faith nomination. As noted in the deprod comments, which the nominator purposely ignores, the subject is conspicuously and undeniably notable as a published author, with multiple non-vanity books listed at Amazon. The article creator misspelled the subject's name, and this more detailed article should obviously be merged with Mike Shropshire. Monicasdude 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, is there a reason you're claiming bad faith as opposed to an accident? Kuru talk 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that the nominator has done the same thing on dozens of other articles, or the fact that he's systematically working his way through the articles I deprodded yesterday after I criticized his nomination practices? Monicasdude 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, to existing, correctly spelled article per de-prod comments. Kuru talk 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, now that the content is merged. Kuru talk 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Monicasdude's is quite right, I misread his merge deprod with the later summary (moved Mike shopshire to Mike Shopshire: Caps) and so was looking under the wrong name. Eusebeus 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Wknight94 already moved this. ... what I question is why this wasn't just boldly moved when deprodded? --Isotope23 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Mike Shropshire. I've already merged the content.--Isotope23 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both sides of this whole prodding/afding tizzy are guilty of not taking a little extra time to fix concerns with articles instead of blindly deprodding/afding them, which is a significant concern of mine. Kuzaar 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think WKnight only partially fixed the problem here. There is already an article for the author at Mike Shropshire (note the first "r"). He fixed another error, a lower case last name. Hence, move the unique content of this article to the correctly spelled article, and delete or redirect this one. I can't tell you why this wasn't all done out of AfD. Kuru talk 19:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, gotcha. Content merged. Opinion changed to redirect.--Isotope23 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could clarify your comment to fit the discussion about this specific article? Kuru talk 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What more clarification do you need, exactly? Notable authors and columnists should be kept, and he fits the bill. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, he doesn't. Mike Shropshire fits the bill. Mike Shopshire doesn't exist. Fan1967 22:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting under the assumption that this is simply a typo that needs to be dealt with. Obviously, the article would be sent to the correct spelling, as articles typically aren't supposed to be moved during an AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already exists under the correct spelling, with more or less the same information. I'd be inclined to Delete this one unless people think it's a likely enough misspelling that it deserves a redirect. Fan1967 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say it's possible for sure - hey, it just happened. :) Redirects are cheap. Kuru talk 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to correct spelling per Monicasdude. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:41, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Yardley[edit]

Contested prod by Mustafa_Bevi as bad article for several obvious reasons: autobiography, person of doubtful notability, and pretty badly written so bringing to AfD. She is a "penciler for Archie Comics' "Sonic the Hedgehog" which sounds like doubtful grounds for notability. Eusebeus 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave as above. Mustafa Bevi

  • Delete - no sign of notability. --Ajdz 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and cleanup, seems borderline notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We do have an article about Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie), where Tracy Yardley is mentioned as one of over 2 dozen pencillers. --Austrian 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Stifle (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep per 5K audience standard for published work. Monicasdude 18:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, the person who creates the content for the ads on the New York Times deserves an article. As well as every single newspaper reporter, byline or not, on a paper with a circulation of 5000 or higher, or any other person whose work appears on the pages of the paper. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been a working consensus for some time, well before my involvement in Wikipedia, that comic book pencillers generally fall under the "author" criteria for notability. There's no such consensus regarding advertising designers. Monicasdude 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...fails to assert any form of notability other than being a penciller. Miserably fails the Google test, with only ~277 unique hits. While being a penciller may be notable, has she been involved with the creation of any notable characters or content? As it stands, the article is an autobiographical stub with a quote that takes up 95% of the article, and it does not look like there is information to expand it past the stub.--Toffile 02:06, 2 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 17:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B4U_India_Web_Technologies[edit]

This is an advertisement ES2 15:14, 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 delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thayer[edit]

Contested prod as nn-bio, vanity so bringing to AfD for fuller discussion. Google search of Scott Thayer CTO returns ~ 18 hits. [23]; Scott Thayer + Robotics produces about 500 [24] Eusebeus 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I observe that my nominations have been challenged as being in bad faith, so let me quickly respond here: while contesting a prod is an entirely appropriate and often beneficial action, AfD is a good place to debate the larger merits of articles where the prod itself makes at least a prima facie case, which is my criterion for moving these to AfD. (I have personally refrained from either voting or often even recommending a way to vote since editors can make up their own minds). Eusebeus 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination made without regard to the merits of the dispute. Supposed "prima facie case" for deletion was the unsupported boilerplate phrase "nn-bio, vanity", which can be attached to virtually any article; since the deprob referred to the subject's extremely extensive Google Scholar presence, and the nominator conspicuously avoids that point, an inference of bad faith from the available evidence is certainly valid. Monicasdude 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence Thayer meets WP:BIO criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
    • Thanks for the sig by the way!--Isotope23 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit I know little about his field, but some fishing around suggests he's rather important in it [25], [26], [27] etc. Plenty of verifiable information to add to the article if anyone is interested. Meets my (admittedly liberal) interpretation of WP:BIO under "professionals whose work is widely recognized". Diverse news coverage is sufficient recognition, I see no compelling reason to delete. --W.marsh 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article shows no sign of notability. --Ajdz 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete this or Expand it, there's practically not enough words to even try to assert notability. Kuzaar 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability. -- Kicking222 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WMarsh. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of notablity. Verifying anything other than the one or two sentances that currently exist would not be possible. -- JamesTeterenko 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just an anonymous professional person. Golfcam 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article doesn't assert notability and sources. Being CTO of some company doesn't make the person notable in any way, unless the company is a) very large, or b) the CTO also has done something else to make him notable. Bjelleklang - talk 01:04, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safieddin Safavi-Naeini[edit]

Prodded as No evidence of notability, "random professor test" but contested so bringing to AfD. Eusebeus 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, yet another bad faith nomination that ignores the subject's significant Google scholar count and other evidence of notability; another display of deletionist fervor for cleansing Wikipedia of references to non-Western culture. Monicasdude 15:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. It appears he's co-authored 3 papers, which falls short of the professor test criteria. I don't see anything else that even comes close to WP:BIO. Reference to "non-Western culture" is a red herring. Any professor with these credentials misses WP:BIO regardless of where he or she are from.--Isotope23 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. His Google Scholar count is much higher than 3; it's nearly 100, and Google Scholar documents many more than 3 papers. Monicasdude 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, per Jareth. Sources cited show there are a considerable number more than the 3 papers I found... plus speeches, etc. How curious that posting sources, references, and evidence can sway one to change their opinion more so than polemics...--Isotope23 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article contains no evidence of notability. --Ajdz 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The 100 papers Google Scholar comes up with weren't all authored by him, at first blush about half of those hits are students papers which thank him. Regardless, those hits also show he's presented at IEEE conferences many times and he's been published in several reputable journals and IEICE. Ah -- and this link should clearly establish notability actually [28]. Unfortunately, the article isn't doing him any justice as it stands, but it can certainly be improved. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Jareth. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it has to be expanded. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Jareth. --Terence Ong 12:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This certainly satisfies the WP:MUSIC guidelines by virtue of its illustrious members. Several gigs are referenced, and even if there were legitimate doubt that those gigs ever materialized this is sufficient to document the fact that gigs were arranged and advertised. It may be appropriate to merge this to Gypsy Sun and Rainbows, but that is a decision for the editors to make. --Tony Sidaway 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Sun Experience[edit]

Prodded as non notable, deprodded as so obviously meets notability standards there should be no argument but there is no entry at Allmusic, and only 100 or so Ghits, so standard of WP:MUSIC may apply. Eusebeus 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) After further review, and the accusations made of bad faith below, I attach the following evidence. i don't think this band ever really existed. From the Google results, if we remove two bios that have been replicated across the web, the overall hits plunges dramatically: Exclude this result: "including a Hendrix-tribute outfit called The Gypsy Sun Experience," http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22cox+continues+to+play+to+This+day%2C+including+a+Hendrix-tribute+outfit+called+The+Gypsy+Sun+Experience%22&btnG=Search And this phrase: "Mitch is now involved with the Gypsy Sun Experience" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Mitch+is+now+involved+with+the+Gypsy+Sun+Experience%22&btnG=Search[reply]

And the hits fall by 60%. Of those that remain (including the samples from the above), we have:

1) [29] Billy Cox has recently reunited with Experience drummer Mitch Mitchell, and guitarist Gary Serkin and done a series of shows under the name Gypsy Sun Experience. No evidence of their having actually played anywhere or existing.

this page is replicated through the results. (e.g. http://www.jcrmusicnews.com/affprod.php?lang=uk&ind=874)

2) [30] In the wake of Hendrix's death, Cox played with others, including the Charlie Daniels Band, as well as session work and live dates. Cox continues to play to this day, including a Hendrix-tribute outfit called the Gypsy Sun Experience, which also includes former bandmate Mitchell on drums and Gary Serkin on guitar (Cox was also the recipient of his own model bass, when the Cort guitar company issued a Billy Cox "Freedom" model bass in the late '90s). But no evidence that they really exist.

3) [31] A myspace page of someone (Gary Serkin?) who is 72. From the site: About me: I'm a guitarist who is into positive forces for humanity and the universe For more info, please feel free to email me for the link to my website ~GS In the margin, claims to be part of the same or eponymous band ~GS's Companies Gypsy Sun Productions Nashville, TN US Band: Gypsy Sun Experience Guitar

5) This empty page http://contographer.com/The%20Gypsy%20Sun%20Experience.htm

6) Some 404s (including all the VH1 pages that at first glance appear to provide substance to existence) [32], [33]

7) Finally, we have a mention in a student paper, [34] but no evidence that they actually played a gig - no reviews, or fan comments, or anything. ('On Saturday night there will be a “Woodstock Party” at Seville Quarter with a concert by “Experience” Billy Cox and his Gypsy Sun Experience.)

8) And again, another phantom gig is referenced, but no furter evidence of having existed [35]

9) This mentions a gig (the same one referenced above) but the audio and review is missing and the guy actually never saw them. [36]

There are another handful of results, but I refuse to believe that this could be the total web presence of a band, had it really existed, that features such members. It looks almost like a hoax. Eusebeus 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, even though Billboard, allmusic, VH1, several newspapers, and all the band members say the band exists, you deny it exists. Could one ask for a clearer demonstration of bad faith and determination to stick to a completely wrongheaded position? Monicasdude 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post the relevant links? Your VH1 link is here [37] and it is 404 (Page not found). And I can't find anything on allmusic.com. Eusebeus 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, you don't know to click the "cached" link when Google indexes a later-deleted page? And, as I said quite plainly before, check the member pages at allmusic. You could, of course, also go to the relevant Usenet groups and finds concert reviews by concertgoers, but perhaps you'll claim those are hoaxes, too, since Billboard doesn't meets your definition of a reliable source on music, either. [38] Monicasdude 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, another bad faith nomination; just checking the members of the band would make clear that the main members of the band are clearly notable, and that the band is a reunion/reincarnation of the surviving members of the Jimi Hendrix Experience and obviously meets WP:MUSIC standards. Monicasdude 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't verify this through reliable sources. Through google I got to a Mitch Mitchell site that said he played a few shows in Nashville as the "Gypsy Sun Experience", but I couldn't find a concert review or any other comment in Tennessee newspapers via Lexis/Nexis (or anywhere else in the country), and the statement "There is talk of the Gypsy Sun Experience joining forces with..." is pure crystal ball. Certainly former members of the Jimi Hendrix Experience are notable but if they jam together in a few clubs and get no news coverage anywhere, does it still count as notable? Thatcher131 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) See below. Thatcher131 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point... I completely missed the fact that there was no allmusic entry. It does seem curious that former members of JHE getting together would generate almost no press. Removed my keep vote for now. I'm going to scrounge around a bit more before I decide.--Isotope23 13:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see alot of chatter above, but is there any evidence at all that they've recorded or gigged? --Isotope23 00:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They gigged in 1999. No dates later than that have turned up, and no recordings that anyone can find. Thatcher131 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Delete per WP:MUSIC, this is simply not WP:V. It would be notable if it were in any way sourced.--Isotope23 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by Monicasdude, verifiability established by Eusebus. The Allmusic biography (which is copied at VH1 and Billboard) and usenet concert info would not be enough to establish notability of an unknown artist but is enough to verify that these notable artists have performed together in this group. Merge would be a poor choice since the info would have to be copied into Mitch Mitchell, Billy Cox, Jimi Hendrix Experience and Gypsy Sun and Rainbows, so keep as a separate article. Thatcher131 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thatcher's fine analysis. I should say that I do not ascribe bad faith to the nomination and do not think such ascription to be fair; if anything, one's willingness to engage in a debate as to the propriety of our using certain sources, even where one appears exorbitantly recalcitrant, would seem to suggest that he/she has a deeply- and sincerely-held belief apropos of the notability (or verifiability) of a subject. Though one could, I'm sure, couch a bad faith nom in verifiability terms, I think the willingess of Eusebeus to engage in a genuine debate (making conclusions that, though perhaps not the same as mine, are surely not wholly unreasonable) disposes the question (especially in view of our presumptions in favor of good faith. Joe 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thatcher. Indeed, this is an example of a band notable via including musicians notable for their other work. Mangojuicetalk 17:17, 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. Short and simple: it fails WP:WEB and nobody has advanced a good reason why it should be kept. You'd think from the vehemence of the responses we were deleting the site itself, not a page about it on Wikipedia. Turnstep 22:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LetsGoBlues.com[edit]

Since there seems to be some confusion amongst many of the newcomers who are being directed here from the LGB message board, I would like to clear something up. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and wikipedia is not anarchy. There are criteria for inclusion. The issue under discussion is whether or not this page meets those criteria. Before you make a comment it may be advantageous for you to actually read those criteria so you know what is under discussion. This vote is not a judgement on the relative worth of the forum or the team. Making unsubstantiated claims, attacking other users, vandalizing pages, and deleting other people's comments will not win you the discussion. --Bachrach44 02:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Isn't even close to meeting WP:WEB. Most likely spam. Author has removed two seperate prods. Bachrach44 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is hardly spam. Try checking the site to see if it is non-notable. This description is part of the sense of humor displayed on letsgoblues.com. No need to delete this. Is it really fair to judge the site just because you don't find it of note? Kind of self righteous, don't you think? It is THE forum of ice hockey fans from all over the world. Thousands (at least hundreds) of people visit it every day. There are regular posters from Japan, Switzerland, Australia, England, Russia, Belarus, France, and Germany. The St Louis Blues already have a Wiki page....I think it is only fair for their forum to have a wiki page as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.189.3 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Barely notable and difficult to verify. Fails to satisfy the necessary criteria in WP:WEB--Cini 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DIFFICULT TO VERIFY?????? Try copying and pasting this www.letsgoblues.com into a browser. Surprisingly easy to verify actually.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.189.3 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I was referring to verification in other external sources beyond the actual website. In addition, it still fails in regards to notability and does not meet the criteria for WP:WEB which is still sufficient in my view for a delete vote. Please keep in mind the policy of WP:FAITH.--Cini 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fan forum like thousands of others. Fan1967 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Blues is a cross roads for all Hockey Info and has many insider connections to the world of Pro Hockey. Posters include St. Louis local Blues fans, media, and hockey fans throughout the nation and abroad. Not to be confused with any other letsgo____.com fan sites LGB, as it is referred to affectionately by its members, is a haven for the exchange of all things hockey including contributions from the National Hockey League, American Hockey League, Eastern Coast Hockey League and many other "funnel" leagues in the US, Canada, and abroad.

This fan site and forum community offers dedicated discussion areas for The St. Louis Blues and Peoria Rivermen. Additional areas for Forum discussion include other sports, entertainment, political, classifieds, contest, and a hall of fame. This forum is moderated by Curt Price and a small team of support moderators. Off season Postings are often in the hundreds per day while peak times of the hockey season can see thousands of posts in a single day.

LetsgoBlues.com has an affiliation with lesser known BluesNet, http://www.bluesnet.brick.net/, most of the posters from BluesNet have joined the discussion forum ranks that site. While still maintained it experiences far less traffic than LetsGoBlues.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.196.49 (talk • contribs) whose first contribution was the proceding comment

  • Delete, non-notable internet forum. JIP | Talk 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, just another fan forum even if it's a busy one, lacking evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa search shows a ranking of 206,026. WP:NOT a Web directory. Barno 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This site is easily as notable as anything the editors who have posted this page for DELETION,

LGB is easily more notable than obscure Rabbi's or SCI/FI authors. LGB.com is an active site that has thousands of visitors a month, there is easily more daily content on this site than MADDOX or Ebaums world. Besides this......LGB represents then entire fanbase of the St Louis Blues Hockey Club.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.228.1 (talk • contribs) . whose first contribution was the proceding comment

It is a shame that a few biased people people can ruin the efforts of a community to be recognized. I find it interesting that so many of the editors that are calling for the deletion of this site seem to support rather obscure pages themselves. It is really unfair to judge this page on the opinions of a few people. There are thousands of people who visit this site from all over the country, it is considered by hockey fans to be the best hockey forum on the internet. LGB.com is regularly visited by National Hockey media personalities such as Barry Melrose, John Buccigross and Sean Podein. This is not a site that only reposts articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.148.219 (talk • contribs) , whose first contribution was the proceding comment.

LetsGoBlues.com has national appeal. I live in Chicago and follow the Blues Nation on that site. This is a noteable community and is worthy of inclusion/link from the St. Louis Blues entry. -Sheffield Blues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.53 (talk • contribs)

  • comment This message board (BNF) deserves a place on Wikipedia, largely due to the large number and diversity of hockey fans that come to post opinions. Fans from teams across the NHL, rivals or otherwise, are welcome at this site. Why the need for deletion? Why not include it as a link on the St. Louis Blues' Wiki entry? Given the wide array of topics and issues that can be found on Wikipedia, I don't see how this forum is going to harm Wiki's credibility. There are television shows that ended or were cancelled years ago that still have links to fansites and message boards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.117.37.122 (talk • contribs) ., whose first contribution is the preceding comment.
  • comment Not a bad idea - the official fan forum and the unofficial one at lgb has now ben added to the Blues page. --Bachrach44 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I wish you hadn't done that: WP:EL. Blogs and forums as external links are frowned upon. To save any questions about "X forum being included in Y team article": Answer: It just hasn't been removed yet but thanks for bringing it to someone's attention. ccwaters 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I removed it but I have reconsidered and reverted it. Seems like a worthwhile compromise. I won't attempt to revert once again if someone decides to remove it from the page though.--Cini 07:17, 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, no consensus on merge, see Wikipedia:Merge for instructions on pursuing that. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (guitar)[edit]

There is little information in this article which is not in Slide guitar, and what isn't could easily be merged in. The creator makes a case for the existence of the page on its talk page, but I think the problems of conflicting terminology could easily be resolved with a few redirects and a "terminology" section. Hairy Dude 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any useful information in to Slide guitar and delete once done.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Dawson 17:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See Talk:Lap slide guitar#Steel, slide, bottleneck for some more background. The problem is, there are several different, incompatible and strongly held views as to what the term slide guitar means. On the other hand, there's general agreement about what a guitar slide is (the term covers both steel and bottleneck), so we can use this to provide a relatively uncontroversial introduction, without assuming any of the competing traditions. Interested in other ways of doing it, but going back to the previous situation (which is what this proposal amounts to) would be a shame IMO. This article is part of a larger project, see resonator guitar for example, to take a step back and present material added by many guitarists each knowledgable about specific traditions in a coordinated and NPOV fashion. Andrewa 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The slide and slide guitar are two separate subjects, and Slide (guitar) deserves to remain its own article. — TheKMantalk 18:21, 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 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home run leaders by letter[edit]

I had created this page back a while ago when I was a newbie at Wikipedia and basically created it for curiosity's sake. I would plead Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as a reason for deletion. It serves little purpose, and is not a worthy encyclopedic topic. Its also hardly been touched since October other than player linking or other standard maintenance. As well it only links to two or three other pages on Wikipedia, under "See also". Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. Already covered by "top 500 home run hitters of all time". — RJH 16:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. There's no significance to organizing HR hitters by name, sorting them by number of HRs is better. --Bachrach44 20:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Bachrach44. Also, this if kept would be another place besides Top 500 home run hitters of all time where the totals would need to be maintained as active players hit more homers. Barno 22:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. BryanG 22:53, 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 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loap Resident Evil Unoffical[edit]

sounds like a description of a game mod, but the text is difficult to decipher. suggest delete as nn. taviso 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed that it looks like the history of bug fixes to a game mod. Non-notable software WP:SOFT refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a Warcraft custom map variant (LoaP = Life of a Peasant). Doesn't meet WP:SOFT if you choose to apply proposed guidelines... In any case it is a knockoff of an existing mod with no evidence of popularity or extensive downloads. Article is more a series of development notes than anything elses. I think this falls pretty well under wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23 and aeropagitica.--Cini 18:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with Isotope23. Barno 22:26, 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 redirect. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallus[edit]

Not notable; subject covered in its entirety in Exiles (comics) Chris Griswold 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I at least needed to notify everyone before I made a redirect. --Chris Griswold 23:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Exiles (comics) AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Exiles Roster[edit]

Information not already covered in Exiles (comics) should be merged into that article. Not notable enough to warrant its own entry. Chris Griswold 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete and userfy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bray[edit]

Contested prod with respect to subject's notability so bringing to AfD for further debate. Google search on subject + BHTA produces 3 hits; subject + SP Services UK produces about 60. [52] Eusebeus 16:33, 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 and Berjowden. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astraxaphysis[edit]

This article appears to be a joke. None of the information can be verified. Mongrel 8 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN Crazy but gave me a giggle. ES2 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Savor the juicy deletes. AKADriver 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding a comment - gsearch for "Astraxaphysis" results in ZERO non-wikipedia/wikimirror hits. "Lame duck" metaphor is verifiably derived from the 18th c. London Stock Exchange alongside its furry friends Bull and Bear. — AKADriver ☎ 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have heard the Edison part of the story being told before. But I cannot find any references. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN is exactly where this belongs. Stifle (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came here to do some research. Last year, I got an e-mail from the Lame Duck Preservation or Rescue Society confirming this as a genuine condition, I'll look for it and post it here if I still have it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naisan Azimi[edit]

Prodded for deletion by the article's creator who explains on the talk page I created the article as part of a series of articles on CCs. One of these - Viv Craig - was deleted following an AfD decision (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivien_Craig) and I suggested the rest should go too to keep consistent. The prod was contested so here it is at AfD. Eusebeus 16:45, 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.

Selam Ahderom[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasan 2[edit]

Delete, nn San Saba 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is just an office building. Real, but nothing notable. Obina 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything that would make this worth including on any list of interesting (for most definitions of interesting including tallest or oldest) buildings -- Hirudo 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hirudo. Eusebeus 10:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending the building being haunted or otherwise infested with otherworldly beings, which would make this office building notable. Kuzaar 14:31, 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 delete as nonsense. JDoorjam Talk 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange pants[edit]

This is vanity, and complete nonsense. Charles 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 17:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dawson 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BillC 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete nonsense. JIP | Talk 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense. --ES2 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity & nonsense.--Cini 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete because. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. --waffle iron talk 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G1, A1, tagged. -Whomp 21:32, 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 U.S. Army Field Manuals. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FM 5-31 Boobytraps[edit]

Listing after failed prod. I don't see any reason to have a page for each field manual, especially since I don't think there will ever be any real content in there (anything on the content the manual may talk about should go into an article about that subject, no an article about the manual) Hirudo 16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This book seems to be a popular reference on booby traps and is certainly essential reading for modern soldiers. Good chance it could come up in discussions of current events like the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation has. AKADriver 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - could you elaborate a bit, specifically on what information currently in this article would be useful for that, and what information do you think can be added here? Wouldn't it be better to just add this manual as an external reference in the booby traps article ? -- Hirudo 20:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The current article is sparse and poorly-written, to be sure. But it seems to be the reference on practical booby traps and IEDs (and not just according to the poorly-worded sentence in booby trap). Other Wikipedia entries, such as S-mine (in both English and German) reference this book. AKADriver 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles reference it without actually linking to it though. I think they'd be better off linking to either the full text (if available) or a place to get the manual. What type of information about the manual do you think should be in this article? -- Hirudo 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to US Army Field Manuals which doesn't now exist, but should be a parent article for others such as US Army Field Manual on Interrogation. I see that some other articles have titles starting with their FM number. These should probably be retitled, and in some cases should be merged into US Army Field Manuals or subarticles on the types of field manual. Barno 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I doubt that this manual's content (not its description) should appear in Wikipedia; but if Wikipedia/Wiktionary use of the text is valid, it should be on Wikicommons. Barno 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Redirect to US Army Field Manuals per Barno. — AKADriver ☎ 04:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just created it as U.S. Army Field Manuals (since wikipedia seems to prefer U.S. with periods). — AKADriver ☎ 05:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Barno. Some guy 04:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the time being. I'd prefer a merge, but the preferred merge target doesn't exist. Stifle (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. It appears to be something you'd cite in a general article on boobytraps.In1984 23:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Piraka, if any more coverage is justified in that article, follow the redirect back. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antidermis[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 speedy deleted. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"factory expo"[edit]

This is pure advertising. Not even remotely an encyclopaedic entry. Sam Harrow 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete. --Charles 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am going to speedy delete - clear advertising └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North American Union[edit]

Original research, at least the article itself does not attempt to establish that it is a serious idea with even a marginal support. Bjarki 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no actual proposal exists and wikipedia is not a manifesto host. --Ajdz 17:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag it with a request for sources. If none are given, then delete it. Arctic Gnome 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it this is only a theory or a philisophical idea. It's not an actual proposed union. This article does not need to be deleted since it is only a philisophical theory, it needs to be deleted just as much as the article on the theory of capitolism. TBH 06:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a non-notable, original research idea with no actual support. Comparison to capitalism is a false analogy. --Ajdz 14:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 15:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a lot of room for growth in this idea if wikipedia does not censor it. 137.186.145.102 17:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Almost entirely original research. The thoughts and speculation of a handful of persons, and not particularly profound thoughts at that (e.g. "Cons: Each country would also lose something in the merging.")--Skeezix1000 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rather messy original research. Also per Ajdz. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian & the Mysterious D[edit]

Delete, not noteworthy enough for thier own page in WP San Saba 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It isn't clear to me under what guidelines DJ's fall, possibly WP:BAND (which they don't meet) or WP:MUSIC (which they don't meet). Assuming that DJ's are not treated with either of these guidelines, this pair is just not notable. JoshuaZ 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 00:38, 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. Userfied. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack lau[edit]

Vanity page. --ScienceApologist 17:30, 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 Keep. Puzzlingly, no coherent reason for deletion was given by the nominator. During the debate, no arguments for deletion emerged. The subject is a musician who has released an album produced by a major record company. The article is poorly sourced and needs cleanup, and has already been marked as such. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. Knocc Out[edit]

Delete, nn San Saba 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We're talking 560 unique G-hits, an album released on Polygram that did indeed go gold (which all by itself satisfies WP:MUSIC). I'm honestly curious what makes this fellow non-notable? RGTraynor 20:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Metropolitan may be right there (see below) -- I couldn't find various versions on the RIAA site, which has to be considered more reliable than the weblisting I used myself to check the gold assertion. I certainly have to withdraw my Keep vote pending some sourcing. RGTraynor 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google shows this gangsta rapper is real, but the first pages are Amazon, a bunch of lyrics sites, and eBay. No coverage by media with high enough PageRank to show up in the first twenty, no verification of Real Brothas going gold, but I'll take RGT's word that it did. The album's article says it was released on Def Jam/Outburst Records... oh, I see that PolyGram bought (half of) Def Jam in 1994, so RGT cited the parent label of the imprint which actually released it. Note that the album's article has only a track list, no citations indicating gold certification or media coverage. Weak keep and cleanup/expand per RGTraynor. Barno 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A prior article about this rapper (in which his name was misspelled) was deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.G. Knock Out. A search of the RIAA database at [53] indicates that his only album did not go gold, and his chart performance is marginal in terms of whether he qualifies under WP:MUSIC. No vote yet; I would need a clear indication that he does satisfy WP:MUSIC before I could vote to keep. --Metropolitan90 01:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also delete the copyvio image. --Rory096(block) 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to lack of valid reason given for deletion. Don't say "non-notable". Stifle (talk) 00:35, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waking Blind[edit]

Self-published work by Aquiles La Grave (also nominated on AfD) - See [54]

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!
No Guru 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, not exactly a best-seller or, for that matter, an any-seller. Googling the term actually comes up with a play by another author which is more notable, but probably still not notable enough for WP. --66.144.41.73 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (Was apparently not logged in at the time: --ES2 20:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak delete, possible smerge to the author if his page survives. Stifle (talk) 00:34, 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. Too much of a leap of faith to userfy, contact me on my talk page if you want the content for that purpose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Sangeet[edit]

Page makes no assertion of notability as per WP:Music. RicDod 21:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Desperate need. Jonathan235 22:41, 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!
No Guru 17:46, 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) 16:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Model United Nations[edit]

Non-notable Mystache 17:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there doesn't seem to be any notability guideline for educational organizations, but even a cursory gsearch for this name or HKIMUN shows that it wasn't just made up in school one day. This is not the only regional/national Model UN with its own article (see Category:Model United Nations). Needs to be wikified and expanded. AKADriver 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Article makes no claim at notability and followup on gsearch does not leave conclusive evidence that the conference is notable. Possibility of expansion is questionable. Mystache 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable or non-verified. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT, and not enough context to get any indication of what this is, does, etc. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave the chameleon[edit]

  • Keep - Cultural and political significance. lewbrown2
  • Delete - appears to be a politically motivated ad and hence not encyclopedic (on its own). If it could be cleaned up and NPOV-ized, I'd recommend merge with a Politics of the UK-type article. In any case I don't think it warrants its own article.--WilliamThweatt 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've not intentionally made this article polictically motivated - it is a description of the Labour party's campaign for the local elections (the campaign itself is 'obviously' designed to be biased), as has been reported in several popular newspapers. Since seeing that this is marked for deletion, I've added some opinion of Tory supporters to the article, and its contradictions. If there is an article on the Local Election Campaigns, 2006, I agree it should be added to that. Martinp23 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that for now this article should stay where it is, and when someone makes an article containing the election results after it takes place, it should (perhaps) be moved there, where details of other campaigns can be added. Martinp23 12:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that this article should remain in place. In its current state it is NPOV (as far as I can see), and an accurate summary of the campaign and the criticisms of it that have been made. I also agree that it would be better combined in a UK Local Elections 2006 article, or something similar. CPCHEM 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its a fairly notable political campagin. Robdurbar 08:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, if its an admin who closes this an its a keep, the page really ought to be moved to Dave the Chameleon; this is a redirect with two edits so normal users can't preform the move. Robdurbar 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - at the moment. The campaign is currently in progress, and we are apparently to be 'treated' to further installments. If the campaign progresses into something notable during the election campaign, then the page should stay; if in a few weeks time (after the elections) it remains essentially non-notable, then propose it again for deletion. DWaterson 11:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this isn't at all politically motivated, as I'm neither Labour nor Tory and have very little personal interest in whatever slanging goes on between them, but this was notable enough to be a major topic on BBC Question Time last week, and has had several newspaper headlines and a front page on BBC News - as long as the article is NPOV, i think it's notable enough for Wikipedia.KrJDub05 13:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a pretty notable campaign, and definitely an interesting one. --Easty 21:08, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulubuda[edit]

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. This information belongs on their website, where it already exists. WP:NOT a soapbox. ES2 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, has been updated, please check thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laivcf (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, still fails to assert notability in any way. Danny Lilithborne 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable student organization. Google hits are limited to its own website, student directories, etc. and provide no evidence of notability. Accurizer 19:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete campus cruft --Bachrach44 20:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:38, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Abraham (actor)[edit]

A lot of facts about the actor such as his place of birth, residing opposite Goldspot, first Asian Levi's model, parents eloping and estranged relationship with family etc are highly debatable or untrue. Also it doesnt seem to be written with a neutral point of view. Seems to be more like a fan page rather than a page bearing facts. The page needs to be redone with actual facts and should be devoid of claims such as the actor beig the sexiest homspaien and also of the wirters proclaimation of love for the actor --Wildflower686 10:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "sexiest homosapiens" bit was just added by a vandal and as for anything else, that can be researched. Since Abraham is one of the better known actors in Bollywood, I highly doubt it would be wise to delete his article. --Plumcouch 12:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of our Indian film articles are regrettably unreferenced. The editors are often Indian, and immersed in an environment where gossip about film stars is just as obsessive, and intrusive, as is gossip about Hollywood stars in the US. There's stuff that they just KNOW and don't see any need to reference. It is a constant struggle to keep the articles pruned of gossip and fancruft.
John Abraham is a major star these days (and incidentally, rather well known for his appearances in PETA ads, dressed in strategically placed vegetables, as I remember). Fix article, don't delete it. Zora 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable actor in Indian cinema, and qualifies for WP:BIO --Andy123(talk) 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Click here to visit his profile on IMDB. --Andy123(talk) 18:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks to be incredibly notable, has won several awards and has an extensive filmography. Articles should not be deleted for WP:NPOV reasons unless they're inherently non-neutral; an article like this, if non-neutral, can simply be edited until it's a good article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well known in regards to Bollywood. Plenty of sources which indicate enough notability for an article.--Cini 18:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be extremely notable. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems quite notable. Is there something about the non-vandal, non-fancruft that is unsupportable? Kuru talk 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, John Abraham is a notable star, people would like to know more about him, and this article certainly does provide more on that star— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.89.84.88 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 April 2006 165.89.84.88
  • Keep, unfortunately notable. Hornplease 07:49, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 21:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher (artist)[edit]

Prodded as stub that does not assert notability of its subject or contain biographical details - apparently released an album 5 years ago and deprodded: object to prod; article asserts basis for notability ("critically acclaimed". Most Montrealers may know of a Christopher as the token Anglo (le fla fla) on the Rad-Can weekend morning show, but this ain't him. Google returns ~230 on Christopher + his album [55] Eusebeus 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plamen Patschev[edit]

Contested Prod. Originally flagged as while some might claim that he is notable enough for an article, the current text is almost all a string of positions and interests and then deprodded: object to deletion, notable figure. However, Google returns 8 non Wikipedia results [56] Eusebeus 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Article needs to be rewritten. LaRouche Movement claims he is the Director of the Bulgarian Economic Chamber which seems to be a notable group in that country. AKADriver 19:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. You mean which claims to be a notable group? Quite aside from that Lyndon LaRouche's word for the sky being blue is no good, WP:V holds that we need verification of notability, not mere assertion of the same. It exists, at least, but that doesn't mean much in of itself. RGTraynor 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fella has a PhD from the "Institute for the Economics of the World Socialist System". 'Nuff said! Doesn't say where he teaches, and none of his other positions are anywhere near notability. He should go where the World Socialist System went :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there maybe an alternate spelling for the name? Seems odd that someone with such a background would only have one or two ghits (most of the others were wiki mirrors). Kuru talk 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, using the Cyrillic alphabet. Which we haven't searched yet. Average Earthman 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- JamesTeterenko 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I get six unique Google hits on "Plamen Pachev", which is a more regular Romanization of Bulgarian, while "Пламен Пачев" gets 37 unique Google hits. This seems to be about a different person, see "Who Is Who In Bulgarian Politic"[57]. LambiamTalk 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ترجمة[edit]

This article is essentially empty (sub-stub), and entirely in a foreign language. If this is a useful topic, we should create an article for it under the appropriate en name, but clearly the author didn't care enough about the topic to elaborate, and no response (other than a pefunctory removal) was forthcoming to a {{prod}} that was added. Translation has been suggested, but even if translated this would remain a sub-stub, so that's not terribly helpful. Harmil 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment seems to have been speedied while I was adding the AfD... -Harmil 18:38, 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, with a recommendation to use PROD for these sort of nominations in the future. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravestar[edit]

Either delete or redirect to rave culture. Dangherous 22:32, 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and does not seem notable. PJM 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki. Colonel Tom 01:07, 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. While it may have copyright issues, those are not settled here, where the consensus is clearly keep. Turnstep 13:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management[edit]

pure advertisement text (reads like a brochure MaxE 14:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete || we,we,we,...

"The personal, almost family-like atmosphere at the School is characterised by the fascination and commitment of everyone involved." this is not wiki MaxE 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep its a real educational facility, judging from the number of Ghits. Have stripped it down to a bare stub. Jcuk 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, the subject is verifiable. Bahn Mi 17:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, see [58]. School may deserve an article but this is not it. Accurizer 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a highly notable business school, ranked at the top of the list in Germany. This nom is akin to filing a AfD on the Harvard Business School. [59] Two minutes of research, folks. RGTraynor 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take exception to the above comment. I performed research before voting; this article is a copy and paste from a copyrighted website. I provided the link for others to follow. Accurizer 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is grounds for cleanup, not for deletion. Worst comes to worst, a copyvio tag should have been placed. RGTraynor 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep obvious. Sorry, nominator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per reasons above. PJM 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it as a copyvio and blanked the article, but the subject is obviously worthy of an article. Just not a copyright-violating one. Keep any new version. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 @ 21:48 UTC
  • Keep and cleanup the cut&paste from the school. Restore the info box and just leave a stub. School is certainly notable. Kuru talk 21:51, 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 - Turnstep 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GayCork[edit]

Non-notable website.

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a little too specific an audience to be notable. --Bachrach44 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with no prejudice towards future pages asserting both notability and verifiability. Turnstep 14:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Yraola[edit]

Person not at all notable. Possible vanity page. iKato 16:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor actor in a TV show [60]; does not deserve his own article Where (talk) 17:36, 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not properly sourced and the subject does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thelocale.org[edit]

nn forum, does not meet WP:WEB, reads like advertisement. A (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22thelocale.org%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) google search shows something like 350 hits. (note I didn't link it properly because google searches with my client seem to break external links, sorry). ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:16, 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!
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:56, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerGardens[edit]

Article about a seemingly non-notable website. Has been speedily deleted three times previously, the last of which by myself as recreation of deleted content, and a failure to establish notability. However, by request [61] of the page's latest contributor I have restored the page (and its edit history) and brought the deletion discussion here. I would vote to delete, since it fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:WEB. Pretty hard to find much in the way of relevant GHits. Unable to Alexa, since it's hosted on a free webhost (20m.com), but the fact that it's on a free webhost says a lot. The webmaster hopes to get a real domain name someday? Kind of says it all. Fan1967 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, thank you UkPaolo for recreating the page and bringing it here instead for discussion. I feel that, although the site discussed on the TigerGardens wiki page may not be notable to the wider world, it does receive sufficient attention and visits to justify the inclusion of a page about it on Wikipedia. The site itself is quite popular with students at schools in Buckinghamshire, UK (for the games and other resources) and I think that it certainly cannot be a bad thing to have too much information and knowledge on Wikipedia, although admittedly I can see how some people may consider TigerGardens to be too trivial and insignificant to deserve a mention on Wikipedia. However, in WP:WEB under 'Criteria for web content' the third point states "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" and I can tell you that TigerGardens has featured on parts of the online publisher MySpace as well as other websites and publishers (such as other smaller, independent websites and online journals). I hope this all justifies allowing the page TigerGardens to remain on Wikipedia. --Tramster 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: anyone can post anything on MySpace, it's not that kind of "online publisher" the criteria are referring to... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. -- Hirudo 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hosted on a free webhost. The WP:WEB guideline that Tramster referred to is intended to refer to publications that are not made by or initiated from the site itself. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, MySpace doesn't count as "publishing". With regret, the site discussed just isn't notable enough. — Estarriol talk 13:57, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azaei[edit]

Non-notable website which fails WP:WEB. Was prodded, tag removed by article creator. Delete Oldelpaso 20:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely non-notable, no Alexa data, no hits on UK Google, and pretty lame to boot. RGTraynor 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. PJM 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:43, 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 Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cospire[edit]

Promotional article for not-yet-launched, hence non-notable website, target of linkspam on six other pages today (all now reverted). This article is promotional boilerplate--they even seem to have forgotten to change the name from "Evola" to "Cospire" in one instance. Delete as nominator. · rodii · 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If it doesn't exist yet, it isn't notable or even verifiable. RGTraynor 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sulfur 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda_Karen_Lee_Middleton[edit]

nn person, Google on the name gets all of 4 hits and none of them indicate notability. Prod was removed by original author with no comment in talk page, but with an edit to add a paragraph on how much the author likes the subject. There are a lot of nice people in the world but they don't all get WP articles Jamoche 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This person should also be removed from various lists of poets as non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable IrishGuy 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice as she may be, the topic is non-notable. Sulfur 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wanda_Middleton by the same author should go too (it still has the prod tag). All her edits have been either to those two articles, or to add links to them in other places. Given her username is User:Leewanda22, I think this is either the subject or someone related to her. Jamoche 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leewanda22 has removed the AfD (after removing original prod). I'm still new myself; I don't know what to do now. Jamoche 04:36, 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 AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Dominik Sztyber[edit]

This nomination was apparently never listed on the AFD page. Completing the nomination. No opinion. The 5 day discussion clock starts now, though. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is not notable outside of being a band member.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; this article doesn't make him look notable, but pl has him releasing four works of some sort with another band. Granted, this isn't much compared to the other Behemoth members. Melchoir 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if I'd read a recent version of the English article, that information is here too. Melchoir 06:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. He has as much notability as any other member of this band. The album is ranked 8,349 on Amazon.com's music listing, which isn't half bad. RGTraynor 16:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is a member of two heavy metal bands, which Behemoth is a well known band in local and genre community. Visor 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, He is an important contributing member of both Behemoth and Nomad. That in itself makes him important enough. There is absolutely NO reason to have articles on both of these bands and DELETE one single member just because somebody doesn't think he's "important" enough. Every other member of Behemoth has an article, anyway. Seth should only be deleted if all members of all bands should be deleted as well.
  • Keep for reasons above. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor Sulfur 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Grace Grimaldi[edit]

Nn kid, her mother claiming her (with no sources given in article) to be the child of a royal person does not constitute notability in my opinion. Most of the results in a search for her full name appears to be either forums, or gossip sites. Bjelleklang - talk 22:00, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Addict[edit]

  • Keep image has been removed. site is nearing top 100,000 and success is part of a growing cyber beauty trend. don't see why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia that has a cosmetics section??? Carriejennings

nn website, image is probably a copyvio too. 109,969 Alexa ranking. Rory096(block) 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Bucketsofg 22:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sulfur 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn website and ads. *drew 06:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, almost Conan-like, delete. Per above, with additional Sheesh. Does this belong in an encyclopedia? Colonel Tom 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Rotolo[edit]

Claiming to have had sex with royalty does not constitute notability.

The fact that Prince Albert acknowledged more than one meeting with this person and the fact that her child is called Grimaldi (albeit on her initiative) could at least be a legitimate, neutrally-worded news item. Otherwise rulers can become their own 'Ministry of Truth', with a writ that runs worldwide. However, it could be argued that this does not constitute proof of Ms. Rotolo's claims, so the 'newsworthiness' of the item should not be held to imply the existence of evidence to corroborate the claims of Ms. Rotolo.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GBStv[edit]

Description of an obscure service offered to members of the SomethingAwful forums. Also worthless fancruft of members of the SomethingAwful forums. RabinicLawyer 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Anyone from the internet can update the playlist, and joining is free, unlike something awfuls $10 to get in policy. Also Lowtax has nothing to do with GBStv, but Putnam. jordanhass 12:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate from somethingawful Fleft 04:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WDMA, hpj.cc, typhoon and all the websites that goons actually visit have been deleted from the Wikiepedia. This site is even less popular than gbs.fm which doesn't have its own page. Not Notable and I don't think it meets WP:WEB --TrollHistorian 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that TrollHistorian is most likely a puppt of RabinicLawyer or the other way around. They have spent almost all their edits nominating Something Awful related articles for deletion. See [62] JoshuaZ 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I am not a sock puppet and I don't appreciate your accusations. I am free to have my own opinions and agree with others. Go look at the IPs we are different people. --TrollHistorian 00:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I love the article and the site in particular, but, at the moment I'm typing this, Alexa's rank of 172,706 makes it a little non-notable--at least for now, but it's moving up a lot. --Slgrandson 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a great article, also Comment I have requested that admins investigate TrollHistorian and RabinicLawyer, there's nothing I hate more than meatpuppets. Kuralyov 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this service is offered to everyone, not just SA, and I find your want to remove everything SA offensive. --Liface 01:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Why should the article be kept? It doesn't meet WP:WEB. --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of WP:WEB notability. Ashibaka tock 03:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with main SA article until notability is firmly established. Gail Wynand 04:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where are you going to find published sources for this? Kotepho 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://gbs.tv/ --Liface 05:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha I will just make up some elaborate bullshit, put it on a web site, and then write Wikipedia articles about it. Then my plan for world domination will be complete! --Afed 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool it with the sarcasm. As you probably have already figured out, the site is not elaborate bullshit. --Liface 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with main SA article until notability is firmly established (per Gail Wyland). --ElKevbo 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donkay ote 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Can you give a reason? It doesn't meet WP:WEB. --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. MrKeith2317 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per most of the reasons above -- Hirudo 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 24.251.0.143 05:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my vote, I forgot to sign in Deleuze 05:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WTF? non-notable? its more notable than jesus!
    • Unsigned vote by User:Junkevil who seems to have signed up only for this vote --Afed 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - How does this article meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seprate from something awful, completely free isn't spam at all, notable for many reasons.--The_stuart 20:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - But does it even belong on wikipedia? How does this article meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree, judging the article souly on WP:WEB it doesn't hold up much. I beleive this because GBStv is condiserabley new (less than a year old) and, because it is free and nonprofit and created by SA Goons (who tend to not be intrested in the opinions of nonGoons) has received little to no noteriety. However, if you look beyond these factors, GBStv is a prime example of Web 2.0. This is the first television station that is controlled completely by users without any comercial or financial entanglements. GBStv is the wave of the future and, that alone entitles it to have it's own article on Wikipedia. --The_stuart 16:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete it. User:CurtDogg
    Comment - I would like to hear your opinion on why it is notable enough to keep. --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are no real reasons to delete this article. GBStv has no affiliation with Something Awful other than it was created by member's of the SA forums. Also, the fact that GBStv is less popular than GBS.fm hardly seems to warrant a deletion from Wikipedia. If anything, the fact that it's less popular seems to be more of a reason for Wikipedia to include an article so it can educate the public about GBStv. User:sswanso
    Comment But notability has not been established. For instance even the history of website is not referenced. How does this article meet WP:WEB? --TrollHistorian 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, this article borders on non-notability. Kuzaar 19:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Something Awful. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GBStv is quite notable for what it is and it's a service that's available to everyone. I think the article needs work and that it would read better without the "history" section, but it shouldn't be deleted. -- goatasaur 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - There are many services available on the internet but they don't get their own wikipedia page. Can you show why this article deserves to be documented according to WP:WEB?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P-P-P-Powerbook (second nomination)[edit]

Fancruft. An obscure event that has no encyclopedic reference other than to members of SomethingAwful's forums. RabinicLawyer 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous nomination that resulted in No consensus. Kotepho 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep[edit]

  • Keep A piece of history. (what's an encyclopedia for?) Ovidiugm 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why delete this? It's accurate and entertaining. It's Wikipedia, how is there cruft? it's not like one page somewhere somehow ruins the whole encyclopedia. Honestly...

KEEP - Informative and funny, relief for those scammed

  • Keep It's notable. ktheory 15:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. Certainly grew beyond SA events. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. --waffle iron talk 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - googling "P-P-P-Powerbook" shows that this has spread well beyond Something Awful. This is a notable meme. Colonel Tom 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuralyov 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is one of the less notable Internet memes, but it does seem to have popularity, and the article is written rather well. Danny Lilithborne 02:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Col_tom. Note that this also received coverage on Slashdot. Gail Wynand 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per this editorial from Smart Computing magazine. Kotepho 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donkay ote 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create a page of SA-spawned internet fads/memes. This one reached well beyond the SA forums, as I heard about it not long after the prank. If the article is kept, though, some expansion would be nice. It doesn't seem long enough for a full article right now. Don Warren 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Don Warren. RMG 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a meme that went far beyond SomethingAwful. --AlbertHerring 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most famous pranks, quite notable -- Tawker 04:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep One of the internets most famous pranks, extends FAR beyond the SA forum borders. And it's been writen about elsewhere ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep got media attention, good enough for me. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (conditional) - I've heard about this on a few forums way before seeing its entry here. I've also heard rumors that one of the people involved in the prank was killed by the scammer. If it could be proven whether or not that happened, and that was added, I see a reason to keep this. --MewtwoStruckBack 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was regularly covered on Slashdot. It's a notable internet phenomenon. --AlexWCovington (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have certainly heard of it, and I am not one of the most well-informed people. I think this has a place - even if it is rewritten. Ian13/talk 17:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reason as above; I've heard of it, it's definitely something that's spread beyond SomethingAwful (as I'm not even a member of that community). Worth keeping, methinks. logic 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a popular meme, and grew enough that it deserves its own page. User:terry
  • Keep: Might want to tag for cleanup, but should not delete. I don't visit SA, but have heard this event referenced before. Popular enough to warrant staying. Fogster 19:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A solid example of what an organized online community can accomplish. Smooth.kriminal 20:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a notable meme with coverage outside the forum and meatspace media coverage as well.--Paleking 20:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable meme. Also, it's already survived one AFD. This isn't going to turn into another GNAA-style fiasco, where an article goes up for a deletion vote six or seven times, is it? 128.226.230.53 20:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a very important Internet meme, and there is a place for it in an encyclopedia. Especially an online encyclopedia.. --munboy 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the whole business of online scams is significant, and this is an excellent example to reference.--Sam0ht 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: this has become part of Internet folklore.--Jan.vdbergh 21:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Quite notable, but needs more content. Alternately Merge into Scam baiting. --Bhtooefr 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: this is a well known story. At least until there's a M-M-M-Macbook.
  • Strong Keep: major internet meme.
  • Keep, and the article should be expanded CoderGnome 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is pretty much Internet history. Cosmotron 01:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason for removal. --Mosquitopsu 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason for deletion of this article. Ayavaron 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP this is an insanely popular mime on slashdot and elsewhere that unfortunately will not die. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Timothyarnold85 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this has become a part of Internet folklore, and is well-written to boot. Grodin Tierce 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And maybe put up an article on scam-baiting?
  • Keep: It's a fact that actually happened and a part of internet folklore Muzzle 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I never read SA, but found this mentioned on Slashdot, and it is one of the single funniest pieces of internet fokelore (in my non-humble, non-NPOV) that exists. If it doesn't get it's own article, it should at least be made part of a bigger one... - JustinWick 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Legitimate part of Internet folklore, reasonable article. Richard W.M. Jones 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable internet phenomenon, and as per Justinwick. Kuzaar 19:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I remember about 1 year ago thinking 'does WP have an article on everything, no matter how obscure' and spending about an hour looking for this article (trying all the spelling variations on i could think of coz WP search is crap) and then giving up. As for WP policies, I think this story is notable enough -- I stumbled upon it ages ago (and I don't visit something awful) and as for the sources, they aren't very high on the reliability scale -- but when I go through them again, I notice the story is still the same as last year suggesting that the sources aren't making things up. novacatz 06:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as notable Internet meme that might be deserving of own article. If found to not be deserving, it should be merged with the Something Awful or Something Awful Forums article.Leftsaidfred 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 19:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is as notable as the other random internet meme articles that Wikipedia accomodates. The scam itself is referenced through the internet, calling it notable only to something awful members is incorrect.
  • SUPER KeepAre you kidding? The only person who would want to delete this is the guy who PPPP-Paid for the P-P-P-Powerbook. This is probably one of the funniest jokes EVAR

Delete[edit]

  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant information about a dead somethingawful meme/event. Can be covered tersely on the Something Awful page. Fancruft. Stuff like this should be on the somethingawful main page or a page of memes. --TrollHistorian 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a single event. We argue over whether Wikipedia should have articles about old news stories-- well, this didn't even get a news story, it's just a prank that happened once. Ashibaka tock 03:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ashibaka. --ElKevbo 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a strong Internet meme, but does not seem notorious enough to merit Encyclopedia entry. MrKeith2317 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I remember and thoroughly enjoyed the story, but I do not believe for a second that it merits a Wikipedia article -- Hirudo 04:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per incog and Hirudo Deleuze 05:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant forumcruft (is there such a word?) Celebration of some online community's childish prank is not encyclopedic. I would support a weak merge into Something Awful, but I doubt this is notable enough to even belong there. -66.92.130.57 05:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable event that happened to appeal to geeks sense of superiority. -- GWO


Other[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. From a weblink given in the article [63], it appears that the subject is the author of a self-published novel. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Booth[edit]

Vanity/advertising - User created article about his book and proceeded to (external) link spam other Wikipages. Sulfur 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No spam was intended. Other links are appropriate to subject matter, but will be dropped if requested to conform with Wikipedia policy.

There is no problem with this article. It is understated; the author did not list his various professional accomplishments or reviews of his book. It is factually correct and this request for deletion should be removed immediately.

  • From the article, half of which is a description of Mr. Booth's first published novel: "its story follows the mid-life crisis of protagonist Brady Greer as he seeks to establish meaning in his life by saving baseball from its various problems, including illegal drugs." Sounds like a Mary Sue. But by the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline, Mr. Booth is keep-worthy if his book has an audience of 5,000 or more. Can this be shown? The only link, an online bookseller, gives no indication of sales volume or rank. User "robertbo" who created the article is encouraged to read WP's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines pages. Weak keep and expand, published author, pending further evidence of notability. Barno 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Robertbo's contribution history, in articles such as Don DeLillo, Atlanta Braves, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, lends credence to Sulfur's characterization. Barno 23:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only the one novel shows up on Amazon, and this article doesn't include anything that couldn't be in an article about the book itself. porges 11:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read the vanity guidelines, I can understand the objection to the link to DeLillo (despite the obvious connection betwewen his novella, "Pafko at the Wall," and Booth's "The Perfect Pafko") and I understand its removal. However, since Pafko has been a Milwaukee icon for over 50 years (and was honored there as recently as this week, prior to a Brewers/Braves game), linking the Booth book to the Milwaukee and Braves pages cannot be dismissed as mere vanity. The book's editor, Kathy Keller, has been editing novels for over 18 years and has never before seen the narrative device mentioned; that is why the book is notable...and its author has earned a first place award for editorial writing in the Society of Professional Journalist's Green Eyeshade competition. It is a serious book by a serious author. The biggest issue here seems to be my lack of contributions, as a newbie, to other pages. I get that...and, to demonstrate that I do, I will be making additional contributions elsewhere over the next few days and beyond. In the meantime, perhaps we can all turn our attention to rooting out vanity where it really exists, which is not in the Robert Booth listing.
    • Comment: Hank Aaron has been a much bigger icon in those cities than this Pafko fellow. Does that mean that if someone writes a fictional book where Aaron is a topic, we should insert external links promoting that book into every WP article involving Aaron or his teams or their cities? No. Also, please sign your comments with four ~'s. Barno 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The issue is not a lack of contributions... "newbies" are quite welcome, but the edit pattern and article does show intent. Wikipedia is not a web directory and article links should be directly related to the content at hand. Either way, it is a side issue. Beyond vanity the question posed is notability. Can "a circulation of 5,000 or more" be shown? Sulfur 18:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Sulfur: The notability page you cite weakens your position and strengthens mine. It begins by stating clearly that what follows is a “guideline” and “not Wikipedia policy,” adding that “the whole concept of notability is contentious.” You then take the reference to published authors out of context. The entire standard suggested includes those “who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.” Booth’s op-ed pieces have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, St. Petersburg Times, Atlanta Constitution and Tampa Tribune (which has also reviewed The Perfect Pafko). All of those publications far exceed the 5,000 circulation standard. Finally, the notability page you cite suggests that those feeling a notability standard is not being met, “may wish to explain your position to the user, before nominating it for deletion.” Instead, you pounced immediately on the deletion option. Why? Is this your regular MO on Wikipedia? Would it not have been more prudent to contact me first? That would have allowed the two people who care most about this to dialogue directly on it. As a result, a person of your considerable intelligence would have seen quickly how flimsy the notability argument is and never have put this listing up for deletion consideration. Robertbo 21:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Robertbo[reply]
  • Delete I have yet to see anything presented in this discussion to change my opinion that the article is vanity and non-notable. If the final outcome is "keep," then I recommend that the self publishing bookstore link is replaced with an informational link to Amazon.com. I'm sorry if Mr. Booth feels I have singled him out, but have tried very hard to not alienate a new contributor and fellow Milwaukeean. You are correct that the WP pages are guidelines and not policy... hence the nomination and discussion process taking place. Sulfur 01:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the "op-ed" pieces were featured guest editorials in those major newspapers and not just letters-to-the-editor, then those citations would apparently be worth adding to the article as meeting the "audience of 5000" guideline. There might still not be a consensus to keep, but it would give editors more reason not to jump to a perhaps-hasty "not notable" conclusion. On the other hand, the facts presented here only bring the article's subject to the verge of notability, not a clear-cut case where a delete vote goes against WP's core policies. Certainly not a situation where a user ought to demand removal from this process of fact-finding, discussion, and consensus-building. Barno 02:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response You both make good points. The Amazon link would be more recognizable. Also, there is nothing notable about getting letters to the editor published; anyone could do that. The articles referred to here, though, were true op-ed columns, chosen by op-ed editors in every case to be displayed in exactly the same fashion as syndicated columns running on the same page. Regarding Aaron vs. Pafko, there is no question Aaron was the better player, but the better player doesn't always make the better story. Pafko was more popular in Milwaukee. That was because he was the only original Milwaukee Brave who was a Wisconsin native and also because, as the son of small town, Slovakian immigrants, he embraced and returned the affection of Milwaukee's large Eastern European community. But the title refers more to the famous Pafko baseball card--Topps #1 in 1952--that is rarely found today in mint condition. Finally, the "Robert Booth" entry in WP will not remain a stub. "Pafko" is extremely topical, dealing directly with the steroid crisis currently gripping baseball. Lamentably, that issue will reverberate for many years...but that fact will help sustain interest in "The Perfect Pafko." The author is also now at work on his second book.Robertbo 23:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His book has an amazon sales rating worse than 1.3m, so I posit that it does not have sufficient readership to meet WP:BIO. I'm open to correction. Incidentally, why is it that the "it's not a policy, it's a guideline" line is only ever trotted out when such a guideline very clearly makes out that some article should be deleted...? Stifle (talk) 00:26, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bowen (second nomination)[edit]

Vanity page for an obscure personality. Should be merged with Something Awful article. RabinicLawyer 22:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 'vote'. I threw it in when fixing the nomination. Undecided so far. Kotepho 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate from something awful Fleft 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's pretty well known for his poker parody and SA writing. He has a promotional deal with UltimateBet.com. He's in videos with Phil Hellmuth. [64] --waffle iron talk 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're a member of the obscure fan base that would support this article... to the greater world he is very un-notable RabinicLawyer 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because some guy is in advertisements doesn't mean he deserves a vanity page. Rather un-notable outside of SA. --TrollHistorian 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He's pretty well known for his poker parody and SA writing. He has a promotional deal with UltimateBet.com. He's in videos with Phil Hellmuth. [65] --waffle iron talk 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are plenty of articles of this type on wikipedia for people of far more obscure origin. Just because he has a niche audience doesn't mean he should be taken down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WellsLaRivière (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete Vanity nonsense --Curval 23:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per waffle iron. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability seems asserted to me, and the tone of the article is pretty much NPOV. Colonel Tom 23:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have articles on much less notable subjects. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Col_tom and Waffle. JoshuaZ 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Curval --Afed 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuralyov 00:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's Bill Fillmaff for god's sakes. --Liface 01:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This slew of SA nominations just seems like bad faith to me. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for poker promotions, especially Demilio 03:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per waffle iron. Gail Wynand 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argued above KASchmidt 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I believe TrollHistorian and incog have some SA jealousy considering they are trying to get most of the articles about Something Awful deleted.
  • Keep Notable, and the wikipolice need to stop hiding behind words like vanity and fancruft. Sonic Hog
  • Keep Notable. Why does RabinicLawyer hate Something Awful? Donkay ote 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Danny Lilithborne. --AlbertHerring 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable single personality. The post on the general forums at SA indicates bad faith. MrKeith2317 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per William Graham Deleuze 05:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What do you have against Something Awful Lawyer? Did they make fun of your website or something?--The_stuart 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a notable comedian and writer. Eunabomber 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith nomination, and per Colonel Tom. Kuzaar 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kyanka[edit]

  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.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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.


Vanity page. Worthless fancruft from members of the SomethingAwful forum. Non-notable personality RabinicLawyer 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, He spoke at Yale and UIUC. He runs one of the most popular humor sites on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.119.178.96 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, non-notable vanity page. incog 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,Comment, already covered at SomethingAwful there is no need to expand into this extra page. Delete or merge what is missing into the article. Even better, just redirect to SomethingAwful. --TrollHistorian 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, for the sake of consistency I am not voting delete since Eric Baumann has his own vanity page (which is pretty sad IMHO). Lowtax simply hasn't done anything notable outside of SA that wasn't SA related. I would still prefer a merge. --TrollHistorian 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, it certainly is not out of the ordinary on Wikipedia for there to be seperate pages for people who are notable primarily or solely due to their involvement with a notable organization. It's unreasonable to expect articles about companies, organizations, etc, to cram in complete sub-articles about every person who is notable because of involvment with the company or organization -- Tyler 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable creator of SomethingAwful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should every webmaster have an entry? Irrelevant outside of SA --Curval 23:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability seems asserted to me. The article certainly doesn't meet my definition of fancruft. Colonel Tom 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noted internet humorist. Spoke at Yale, UIUC. Interviewed by Wired. [66] --waffle iron talk 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Are you kidding me? This guy runs one of the most popular humor sites on the internet, as well as having been invited to speak at Yale and UIUC about his experiences. He has also been referenced in a number of video games, etc. --Liface 00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WTF is this doing here? Kuralyov 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uh, how is one of the more notable Internet personalities... non-notable? Nice logic. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm hoping someone can explain to me how he is "notable" RabinicLawyer 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, he hosts one of the most popular sites on the Internet, with one of the most popular message boards on the Internet, which is also the source of many of the more well-known Internet memes. But I doubt this will satisfy you; what more do you want? Danny Lilithborne 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm thinking there's more to this AfD than meets the eye. Consider examining RabinicLawyer's other recent AfD nominations for bad faith. Back ontopic, if Eric Baumann and Johnathan Wendel are noteworthy, so too is Richard Kyanka. Flakeloaf 03:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Danny Lilithborne. Gail Wynand 04:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a bad faith nomination. No less notable than Drew Curtis or CmdrTaco. - Tyler 04:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyanka runs one of the largest sites on the Internet. That's pretty notable to me.The Bob Talbot 04:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I believe TrollHistorian and Incognito have some SA jealousy considering they are trying to get most of the articles about Something Awful deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.119.178.96 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per waffle iron. --ElKevbo 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is bad faith, and I begin to suspect ulterior motives on the part of the nominators. --AlbertHerring 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad Faith on nominators very likely. Donkay ote 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Popular figure with a large influence over all these Internets. MrKeith2317 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't believe this is even being considered. --CygnusTM 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's been involved in a couple of newsworthy things. Wired article on his Katrina fund/PayPal thing, AdBrite story was published in a decent number of newspapers, some college newspaper, Google picks up mentions of a mention in ESPN the magazine but I cannot confirm. Kotepho 04:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is no reason to delete this article. It is very related to internet culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toebone (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per Col_tom Deleuze 05:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - From www.en.wikipedia.org: "Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. In some religious teachings vanity is considered a form of self-idolatry, in which one rejects God for sake of their own image, and thereby becomes separated from the graces of God." Yeah, I don't see this happening here. The Owner/Chief Moderator of one of the largest message boards on the internet (despite charging a membership fee) warrants inclusion.
    The nomination for deletion is in bad faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.184.241.118 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep, creator of something awful, should be enough, but has made film, spoken at universities and been in the press after SA raised money for Katrina Victims and brought armour for souldiers in Iraq—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.172.160 (talk • contribs) .
Comment Saddam Hussein also bought armour for soldiers in Iraq. Countless other people of various backgrounds have also done so. I think that there are other reasons for keeping this article. Many of them have been expressed above. Colonel Tom 13:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wasn't it Zack who did that armour fundraiser?--Drat (Talk) 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the webmaster of a highly notable website.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The mark of this article for deletion, when the article for Drew Curtis, arguably an equally notable Internet personality has been left unmarked, indicates bad faith to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.103.62.93 (talk • contribs) .

This guy has had a very big influence on internet culture, and has a large fanbase. Why anyone would want to delete his article is beyond me 83.161.39.210 21:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is ridiculous. The RabinicLawyer has added every single article that has anything to do with Something Awful for deletion. Voting keep just based on that. --The_stuart 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, alternately, merge with and redirect to SomethingAwful. - Bloodshedder 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per William Graham. Kuzaar 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - On the contrary, he is a very notable person. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 17:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Lowtax is a popular writer and humorist, not just a webmaster. -- goatasaur 17:38, 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, no consensus to delete, Wikipedia:Merge is that way. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Yablonski[edit]

Fancruft. Non-notable fictional character. RabinicLawyer 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant information about a dead somethingawful meme. Can be covered tersely on the Something Awful page. Fancruft. Cliff is basically a minor character persona. Stuff like this should on the somethingawful main page or a page of memes. --TrollHistorian 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that TrollHistorian is most likely a puppt of RabinicLawyer or the other way around. They have spent almost all their edits nominating Something Awful related articles for deletion. See [67] JoshuaZ 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment maybe you should read the discussion at that link. I am not a sockpuppet. I do not appreciate this kind of attack when I simply agree with RabincLawyer. --TrollHistorian 01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable --Curval 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful --waffle iron talk 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful JoshuaZ 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuralyov 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article on the website is at least enough. Golfcam 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, don't really care which --Liface 01:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to Something Awful. Personally, I'd rather keep it, there's precedent for this kind of stuff (Kibo) Danny Lilithborne 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect as above. Kibo is far more notable than this fictional character. Ashibaka tock 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful. The only seperately notable SA fictional character is Jeff K. - Tyler 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tyler. Gail Wynand 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Something Awful. Unlike some of the other SA things put up for deletion, Cliff Yablonski never really went that far beyond Something Awful itself, and is probably less notable. RMG 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - yeah. This one I'd say doesn't really warrant an article of its own. --AlbertHerring 04:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per AlbertHerring. MrKeith2317 04:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge the media knows him not. Kotepho 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one of the more famous Something Awful themes. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepkeepkeepkeepkeepkeepkeep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.250.113 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep because I can well imagine somebody trying to find out who this guy is. Notable meme. 122k Google results. --Moritz 00:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moritz, Google. Kuzaar 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Something Awful per Tyler. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kuryalov -- stubblyhead | T/c 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moritz. The rex 17:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - More notable than a crapload of undeletable webcomics. - Hahnchen 20:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Hahnchen Sonic Hog 03:46, 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 no consensus / keep. - Turnstep 22:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting hoax[edit]

Reference to an obscure, irrelevant event that has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Fancruft. RabinicLawyer 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Slate article linked seems to show that it has some value, and isn't "obscure" or "irrelevant." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeff. JoshuaZ 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kuralyov 00:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Liface 01:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Note especially the mass media coverage. Gail Wynand 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-noteable. --ElKevbo 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it made it to Slate, which implies some degree of significance. RMG 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --AlbertHerring 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donkay ote 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. MrKeith2317 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not at all notable, fancruft. Possibly merge into another article. Deleuze 05:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was discovered too quickly, so didn't become notorious or notable. Thatcher131 11:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither notorious or notable, it's just too niche. --Gmaxwell 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fancruft isn't a word. --The_stuart 19:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forumcruft Pete.Hurd 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Kuzaar 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Something Awful Forums. Won't be remembered after a year. Stifle (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not obscure or irrelevant Yuckfoo 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insignificant, even with an article or two about it. -Objectivist-C 22:20, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, Max and Dash Lucero[edit]

Nn baby-actors, have only appeared in Days of our lives 1992-94. Bjelleklang - talk 22:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete So these kids haven't been before a camera since they learned to talk in 1994, but someone felt they had to be added here? They weren't notable then, and certainly aren't now. Fan1967 00:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Gu 13:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Babies at that age are props, not actors. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marana Mountain View High School[edit]

Don't know if this a real school, at the moment it's just a joke page, needs deletion or redone to a factual page Berry 22:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found out it does exist, needs a new page though. Berry 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Linberry[reply]

  • Delete the article in its current state is worthless. porges 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Appears to be a PoV commentary from a student. Very little of the current content could be considered encyclopedic. — RJH 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:49, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Laziest Men on Mars[edit]

Non-notable band, popular only in a very small circle. Non-encyclopedic content. RabinicLawyer 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even less notable than Lowtax's ARC project. ARC doesn't deserve a page, neither does this. This is vanity, pure and simple. --TrollHistorian 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AYB, non-notable? Where do they dig you guys up? Kuralyov 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these guys pretty much popularized the theme song to the All Your Base video --Liface 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into All your base etc., not notable by themselves. Ashibaka tock 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Liface. Gail Wynand 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, achieved infamy due to All Your Base video. RMG 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into the All your base article. --AlbertHerring 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AYB. Donkay ote 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known outside the SA circle. AYB video brought notoriety. MrKeith2317 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your base are belong to Keep. In case you didn't get it...that's Keep. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is notable in a large circle.--The_stuart 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Liface! Kuzaar 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely! This is almost iconic in terms of 'Net-based fads! It's presence here is mandatory! - Parasyte941 18:40, 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) 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bannister[edit]

Contested Prod, which read initial google search yields few relevant results. Needs citations to continue existence.. Deprodded on grounds object to prod; google and imdb both document notable enough producer of this name (though there may be two, each notable. However, a google search turns up precious few hits on Bannister + Angelika [68] Eusebeus 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Found the bio-link, but he doesn't appear all that notable. — RJH 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 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) 05:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff K.[edit]

Fancruft. Non-notable fictional personality. RabinicLawyer 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable fancruft. incog 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already covered on the SomethingAwful page. Minor characters of comedy websites do not deserve their own pages. Fan cruft. --TrollHistorian 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable internet memes. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Was very poplar in the past and is credited with helping popularize an early variation of l33t. Merge otherwise. --waffle iron talk 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft --Curval 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional personality. Notability is well asserted in the article. This does not meet my definition of fancruft. Stupid - well, yes. Non-notable fancruft - no. Colonel Tom 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what the hell is up with one asshole suddenly deciding that every SA article needs to go? Kuralyov 00:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful. The El Reyko 00:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably just as notable as Something Awful itself. merging would be a mistake. --Liface 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ...Col_tom :/ Danny Lilithborne 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful. A lot of SA-related AfDs have popped up lately, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith. Flakeloaf 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Col_tom. Gail Wynand 03:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as notable as B1FF if not more so - Tyler 04:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable Internet Meme. However, article definitely needs to be cleaned and references added as appropriate and available. --ElKevbo 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per ElKevbo. RMG 04:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough for an article, I'd warrant. --AlbertHerring 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Donkay ote 04:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful. MrKeith2317 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep quite possibly the most famous Something Awful theme. huge in the internet gaming community, well established meme ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 07:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vashti 08:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the more famous SA memes, I've seen it used outside the site many times. --Nosmo 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RabinicLawyer hasn't been registered long and is deleting everything. --The_stuart 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SWATJester, bad faith nom. Kuzaar 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a formerly popular Internet phenomenon, although note that 1) the nominator isn't deleting anything, he's just putting stuff up for a vote, 2) maybe he's going through seeing things he doesn't like in large numbers. Assuming good faith is easy in this case. Lord Bob 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not liking something isn't valid grounds for deletion, and even a cursory examination reveals that the "crazyfingers script kiddie" stereotype spread like wildfire across the Internet thanks to the presence of interrelated gaming communities. Kuzaar 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "not liking something", I was using a quick and easy term for "something which, in his opinion, violates one of the established Wikipedia criteria for deletion". Lord Bob 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JeffK not notable?? His pastiche argot has become genuine slang... Mr Twain 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 delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashaneesse and Nasharin Holderness[edit]

Nn baby-actors. Have not appeared in anything since 1995, only roles was as babies/props. Bjelleklang - talk 22:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn, twincruft. Didn't we delete, like dozens of these a little while back? See [69] for lots more. · rodii · 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them and all the ones like them. Sorry Rodii, we've barely begun to scratch the surface. Like the link you put up, check the edit history on the creator of any of the baby articles and see how many others were created by the same person at the same time. Some people apparently think Wikipedia is a bulletin board for baby "actors". Fan1967 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:10, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subbaraju Raju Gokaraju[edit]

Prodded as looks like a self-posted resume, contested as I really doubt the head of a major Indian industrial firm is spamming WP. Article needs major cleanup. It look as if a family member Arudraraju wrote the article, and, more tellingly, subject receives 2 google hits [70] Eusebeus 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems nn bio and company [[71]] with a 1st floor apartment contact address Gu 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, yet another bad faith nomination from a chronic demi-vandal. Just googling "SIRIS India" gets over 75,000 Ghits, and many of the citations go to news articles or other documentation which mention the subject of the article under one or another of the many forms of his name. [72] [73] [74] Yet another foray in the Wikipedian war on dark-skinned industrialist and academics. Monicasdude 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment with 2 deletion opinions this is not a candidate for Speedy Keep.--Isotope23 19:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm having trouble both finding the name an the notability in the links you provided. Additionally, these personal attacks and accusations of vandalism in public fora against Eusebeus are unacceptable. I direct you to the Civility Guidelines. Kuzaar 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability within the structure of a company does not imply notability of the person in the world at large. Kuzaar 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if he is spamming WP (has happened before), it does not make him notable enough to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to the company. JeffBurdges 12:54, 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 merge per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When_Louis_Met...[edit]

Stub - this article should either be merged with Louis Theroux or deleted entirely Notyouravgjoe 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan and Michael Nelson[edit]

Although I haven't seen the series, they are only listed as having appeared on General Hospital on IMDB 1992-'94, in my opinion they're non-notable. Bjelleklang - talk 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Babies used as props are not actors, and not notable. If they haven't done anything since, they're not likely to become notable. (Have you considered just prod'ing a whole slew of these, and seeing if anyone tries to contest?) Fan1967 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Golfcam 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some anon created dozens of articles about twin kids, whose only claim of notabiity is appearing on random.show. As mentioned in previous events, babies used as props are not actors. WP:BLP applies. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 03:11, 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, recommend redirect to Boomer Esiason --Tony Sidaway 15:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Esiason[edit]

Nn person, he's got a famous father, and a disease. Not notable in any way on his own, should be deleted as per WP:BIO Bjelleklang - talk 23:37, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petronilho de Brito[edit]

Delete No verification, speculation, and confusing. If I understand this correctly, it's speculation about who created the bicycle kick, and that article appears to be slightly better worded with all the same info and more. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verification shows up. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Brito does look like a notable fellow, who deserves an article about him as a professional footballer. However, we'd be better off starting from scratch with this one. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:40, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_25&oldid=1081094082"