Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

Purge server cache

April 27[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Come as You Are. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come As You Are[edit]

Looks like astroturfing for a small business. It pushed out a legit article from the namespace to Come as You Are, which is much more notable. LGagnon 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Speedy) redirect to Come as You Are. Blatant advertisement for a nn business. dbtfztalk 04:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. fails WP:CORP and bios seem WP:VAIN. Mystache 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above. It has also caused lots of confusion, I fixed dozens of links meant for Come as You Are. Jon Stockton 04:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change it into a Redirect to the more worthy Come as You Are - Richardcavell 04:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per above. PJM 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as a Redirect - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, i didn't mean to push out the Nirvana song entry. Can I post the article under Come As You Are (sex toy shop)? Much less significant Cdn sex shops have articles: Good For Her and Venus Envy (sex shop). Also Come As You Are is the last co-op sex shop around since Good Vibrations (sex toy business) stopped being a worker-owned co-op earlier this year. The article wasn't meant to be an ad. sorry. -- Northleft
    • It might be best for you to move the article to the new location for now. I'm sure it won't hurt the debate to move it, since there is a consensus (so far) to use the current page as a redirect. Whether it should be deleted or not is still up to debate, as it looks like a vanity article. -- LGagnon 19:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Come As You Are (sex toy shop) or similar. this is a worker-owned co-op listed in List of cooperatives. notable as only worker co-op sex shop in north america.
  • Delete Advertising. --Arm 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil. --Allen 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, saying it is shit is civil? but fine, I'll change it.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should have been redirected as an editorial decision. Didn't need to be brought here. Jkelly 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Advertising article for a non-notable business. Beno1000 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Robdurbar 11:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again, there are much less significant sex shops with articles. Come As You Are is pretty groundbreaking in Canada. -- northleft
    • I would be ok with just moving it to the new article you've created and redirecting the current article to the Nirvana song. However, the article seems very POV, using positive terminology when neutral terminology should be used. This makes it look like an astroturfing job instead of a legit article. Neutralize the language, cite some sources, and add criticism (if any exists) and it should be ok to stay. -- LGagnon 02:20, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of word processors[edit]

Judging from its contents and comments on the discussion page, the purpose of this article is in fact not a comparison of word processors but a presentation of one or a few people's views of what a word processor should be. That might be a good blog post or business proposal, but it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, there is no information in this article that is not in the word processor article. Bill 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless recreated from scratch with information like the other Comparison of... pages. porges 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per porges. WP:NOT violated. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be original research--TBC☆O M G! 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or invite the author to Merge/add the content to other articles such as word processor. - Richardcavell 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per Richardcavell --Mets501talk • contribs 02:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 02:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletes seem to be objecting to the way the article has currently been written, not to the viability of such an article in itself. Surely the whole point of a collaborative venture is that other editors will work on an article that needs improvement, not just delete it because it's not good enough. There is an article Comparison of text editors which is directly comparable to this one and demonstrates the standard that this article needs to aim for. I have put an improve tag on it and a note on the article talk page to this effect. Many articles start off poorly and change out of all recognition over time. Tyrenius 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tyrenius. Legitimate article - needs improvement, that's all. dbtfztalk 04:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a reasonable thing to cover; think of how useful the edit history will be in twenty years... --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research, subjective definition of word processor -- Hirudo 05:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tyrenius Teke 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tyrenius and improve. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- POV article; obvious future target for edit-wars; list-with-no-end; original research as there as (AFAIK) no agreed benchmark standards in this area -- Simon Cursitor 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above--Smerus 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Mystache 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Legitimate article needing more time to evolve. As per Tyrenius. davidzuccaro 13:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any comparison which couldn't stand on its own without removing "comparison of" from the title. We already have word processor, no need for this. Also original research in the way the author defines a word processor. Wordperfect 5.1 never had a graphical web design capability. — AKADriver ☎ 14:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Not much more than a list right now, but it can be improved. --Optichan 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The article has potential for improvement. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a worthy topic, but needs a rewrite - it's not going in the right direction. -- Mithent 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag for improvement. If rewritten to be like comparison of text editors it would be OK, I guess. Herostratus 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs work, not deletion. For great justice. 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Doesn't appear to be in contravention of any criteria that decrees what shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. --Arm 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with some hard work it could become a good article. ILovEPlankton 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refactor to, well, a comparison of word processors. Just zis Guy you know? 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Knucmo2, the article as it stands is just an exposition of somebody's view of what word processors should be like. That violates NPOV and original research at least. To the people who say that an article on the topic of Comparison of Word processors could be good, if like the existing Comparison of text editors, I agree. The question is, since this article as it stands isn't even on that topic, in spite of its title, and has shown no hint of evolving in that direction in over a month of frequent edits, is it better to leave it and hope for a complete replacement, or to get rid of it until someone comes along and starts an article actually devoted to the topic?Bill 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. It seems to me to be an attempt to define the difference between a text editor and a word processor. That seems a reasonable enough way to introduce the topic. Maybe it could be improved, but that is of course the point of a collaborative project. Then there is a list with some minimal comparisons, again something to be improved. A month is not a long time in the evolution of Wikipedia. I can't see the rush to delete, rather than improve. There seems to be a growing tendency to think that a badly written article is cause for deletion, so all the energy goes into AfD discussions about it, rather than working on it. Tyrenius 00:58, 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 Speedy Delete as nn-bio. — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeun ho tsang[edit]

Reads like nonsense to me Nv8200p talk 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (copyvio). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Tag[edit]

Non notable map/game/whatever, prod contested without comment. Images may be copyvios; those tags look suspicious (especially since they were added after an nld). Rory096 00:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn, reads like advertising. porges 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep --Terence Ong 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altar (band)[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 00:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBC, can you give us more information about what qualifies Displeased Records as notable, as compared to the "major label" as mentioned in WP:Music? TIA. Sandy 02:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elbows In It applies under the recognized independant labels clause of MUSIC. Teke 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of what has been pointed out, Keep —porges(talk) 07:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandy 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TBC
  • Keep per TBC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TBC. --Terence Ong 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - clearly notable, clearly meets WP:BAND. dbtfztalk 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing in WP:BAND that they meet -Nv8200p talk 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" and "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." dbtfztalk 04:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we need more coverage of Dutch culture. --AlexWCovington (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable band. The rex 10:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. PJM 12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Mystache 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't know them from a hole in the ground, and if they gave a concert in my living room, I'd probably go to bed. Brian G. Crawford 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; they released 5 full-length albums on independent labels - certainly meets WP:BAND Spearhead 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are notable per WP:BAND, and the fact that most Wikipedians wouldn't know them from a hole in the ground should actually be in this article's favor; we need more articles about topics such as notable Dutch bands. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The perils of POV notability... For great justice. 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable band. Thetruthbelow 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of them before coming here, that seems notable enough to me. ILovEPlankton 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Never heard of em, but Displeased Records is a blue link record label so I think they qualify. As I've said before, imho WP:MUSIC is there to weed out vanity articles, bedroom DJs, up and coming bands etc., and this is not one of them. --kingboyk 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they seem notable to me. Metamagician3000 11:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per TBC's snooping around :) Barneyboo (Talk) 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets notability criteria. Maestlin 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May not be the most famous band ever but easily meets notability. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:MUSIC compliant, and good case of why we have to be wary of Anglo-centrism and systemic bias. Deizio 12:23, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Against Christ[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable band Nv8200p talk 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, album released on a notable label (Displeased Records). If not a keep, then at least a redirect to (Altar (band))--TBC☆O M G! 01:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandy 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Altar (band)
  • Is Displeased Records notable by WP standards including the WP:MUSIC guidelines? There isn't anything in that article to say so, except a list of bands, and I don't know enough about "Dutch death metal" to know how significant they are. Certainly there's nothing in Youth against Christ to give evidence of notability for that album, and Altar (band) says nothing about the album except that it exists. Redirect Youth against Christ to Altar (band). Barno 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 04:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if Altar (band) survives Afd (and it looks like it will), otherwise delete -- Hirudo 05:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Mystache 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard is that notable bands get album pages. Thus, Keep pending a keep of Altar (band). --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's probably closer to "the standard" (WP core policies being given a higher weight than guidelines) to say that "notable bands get album pages" if there's something encyclopedic and verifiable to be said about them. A stub which can't be usefully expanded (I'm not saying this is one) isn't better than a redirect. Barno 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of any band articles that either don't a) have album articles already created or have redlinks for their albums, or b) have the album information including tracklistings within the band article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (b) would suffice for this album, then. Redirect per Hirudo. — AKADriver ☎ 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ....based on what? I ask only because I don't know of any articles like that, my poor phrasing notwithstanding.
        • the b) option created huge, ugly and unreadable pages consisting merely of lists and scattered images. It's better to have albums in separate artciles Spearhead 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?)

  • keep albums of notable bands are often separate articles Spearhead 20:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be verifiable. For great justice. 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect there is a difference between bands notable enough to have every sneeze ever recorded given a separate article, and bands which merit inclusion but whose individual records are no big deal. Just zis Guy you know? 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Just zis Guy.... Metamagician3000 12:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Band seems to be reasonably notable. Beno1000 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not notable in any way. As per the redirects and merges, it may be worth a brief summary in another article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information or a free publicity host, however.In1984 23:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fairly minor but nonetheless, a release from a notable band on a just about notable label. Deizio 12:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: all their other albums have articles as well. Seems a bit random to just AFD one album. Spearhead 07:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tempusmon[edit]

Digimon of dubious existence at the very best. Doesn't get any googlehit, which is pretty weird for a Digimon species. Probably a hoax. All in-links were added by the same anon and should be reverted after deletion. Circeus 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. No google results [2]--TBC☆O M G! 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TBC M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 03:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without Google hits, it seems non-notable.--Jusjih 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 05:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 10:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't exist. I should know, I've got a comprehensive database of all Digimon... =] (Yes, yes, I can hear it. "Get a life!" ;)) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. hoax. Mystache 13:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two Google hits, one is Spanish and the other a list of fan-made 'mon. Shiroi Hane 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax, even assumed good faith and gave a chance for someone to come up with a source, but we got nothing. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax. Beno1000 23:33, 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 and possibly merge into A Course In Miracles. While a strict numeric tally shows a fairly clear preference for merging, several convincing arguments have been offered for keeping it as a separate article. It should also be noted that the article has changed significantly since it was nominated. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"[edit]

This article has been proposed for deletion by user Zeimusu | Talk page 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the comments have been separated into "delete", "mixed" and "merge" sections. I think this is counterproductive, as it does not show the evolution of the discussion on this topic chronologically. Please note also that this is not a "vote" process: it is a "discussion" process. I therefore request that this is restored to the normal chronological sequence, and the term "vote" is deleted. Tyrenius 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is not a truly democratic voting process. It can more accurately be described as a process to try to generate a consensus. I have seen many AfD's in the past structured this way. In fact, this whole process used to be called Vote for deletion. I think that the name may have been changed to better reflect the greater desire for consensus rather than for division which is the most common outcome of a vote. In my restructuring I have retained all timestamps so the sequential evolution of the dialogue can be noted. Restructuring it this way helped me to follow the commentary structure. In the spirit of the new renaming of this discussion, I will retitle the sections to Suggestions for... this or that. If you want to revert it back to the previously more random structure, that's fine with me. -Scott P. 12:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I am not going to over-ride the decision for splitting points of view, but I do think it makes it harder to follow the conversation. I think "suggestions" instead of "votes" is a good change, and makes things less rigid. Tyrenius 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience with me. The last time I was involved in AfD discussions, roughly a year ago, the format was as I had first refactored it. I see the benefit of the newer format and have since refactored this discussion back to the current norm.
-Scott P. 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • Delete An essay on the claimed authorship of a single new age book. Idiosyncratic non-topic Zeimusu | Talk page 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Idiosyncratic non-topic" accusation:
A Course In Miracles is not "New Age" and it is not merely "a book." There is nothing in ACIM about crystals, auras, chakras, meditating, incense, UFOs, aliens, etc. ACIM is a self-contained spiritual thought system that blends non-dual views of God (akin to ancient Hindu teachings) with modern day psychological insight in the tradition of Freud and Jung. It was first published in 1975 and has since sold over 1 million copies; its sales show no sign of slowing down, and it has been translated into dozens of languages [3]. And it was the basis of Marianne Williamson's book "A Return to Love" [4], which sold about four million copies in the US, and millions around the world. "A Course In Miracles" is projected by many to be as widely read as the Bible at some point.
This issue was the centerpiece of a high profile lawsuit. I'm sure that most of you, who appear largely to be uninterested in this whole genre of non-mainstream spirituality, as you have made snide and unfair comments about it, are completely unaware that this issue of authorship of ACIM became the focalpoint of a very high profile court case between Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy [5][6].
Lastly, this article does not contain "original research" as it links directly to comments from other sources. At this point, the article is not fully developed. Not being fully developed doesn't qualify this article as an "idiocyncratic non-issue," but as a stub -- and that's hardly a reason to delete the article.
-- Andrew Parodi 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I read this article and wanted to nominate it for BJAODN, but ACIM is notable nuttery and the lawsuit over "cannot hold the copyright to a work that was 'channeled from a disembodied entity'" probably makes this a notable topic. The parent article is very large, so I'm not sure whether some material on this topic should be merged into it. As it stands, all the unsourced references to "some people believe" ... "it is claimed that" ... make the majority of this article appear to cross WP:NOR. I would point out that this whole controversy is nothing more than solipsism, but the underlying topic seems to meet the same description. neutral, leaning toward merge (a sentence or two about the controversy, and most of the lawsuit paragraph). Barno 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems resonable to me. ---J.S (t|c) 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with the merge suggestion is that, as someone else noted, the main ACIM article is rather long. And though this article is itself only a stub at the moment, I anticipate it will grow a great deal after some time. Isn't it Wikipedia's general rule that overly long articles should be broken down into smaller articles? Andrew Parodi 07:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A History of this article: It actually began as a part of the main article: Did you all know that this article actually did begin on the main page ... where it was debated and edited into non-existence? The topic of this article is so controversial that many people within the "Course community" do not want to discuss it, and therefore if it is merged back into the main ACIM article it will just disappear. Are those of you who are voting for it to merge willing to keep an eye on the main page and make sure the whole thing isn't just deleted?
The history of this article has been quite frustrating. First, I introduced it as a brief paragraph in the main article. In the main article, it was debated - rather hotly - until I decided to move it to its own article. Soon, it was suggested (by someone unfamiliar with ACIM) that it be merged back into the main article ... and now someone is suggesting it be deleted, and in response to the deletion request it is being suggested that it be merged again.
I suppose we can just go round and round with this one. We can merge it back, it can disappear, and I can start another article on this topic.
The main problem here is that most of you voting on what to do with this article are not ACIM students and therefore can't grasp that this issue has any importance. The other problem is impatience. Doesn't it take time for a stub to develop into a good article?
--Andrew Parodi 09:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from your comments that this is a POV fork created because of content disputes at A Course In Miracles. This goes against the content forking guidelines.--Isotope23 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case at all. How can this be POV when I present two different opinions? I just don't get where you people are coming from. I make the claim that some people think Jesus is the literal source, THEN I SOURCE THAT CLAIM. Then I make the claim that some people think Jesus is the symbolic source, THEN I SOURCE THAT CLAIM. You all just don't "get" what the article is about because the topic is out of your league. So frustrating to have people vote on a topic that they don't even understand or care about. And deleting this topic because few are interested in it is a LAME IDEA. How many people are interested in the article about Pearl Lange?Andrew Parodi 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Original debate over merging back into main ACIM article: This article needs to be merged....
Please also note: Many of you have commented on my use of the words "some people" and on an apparent lack of sources. I have since edited the article to remove such phrases as "some people," replacing such phrases with direct references to organizations and teachers such as Kenneth Wapnick, Helen Schucman, Endeavor Academy, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, and Circle of Atonement. And I have also highlighted in quotations various comments made by Kenneth Wapnick on this topic, comments that are sourced and can be read at their original locations on the web. Please take into account that the article you are now voting on is not the same article that the nominator read. I sincerely think that if you all delete or merge this article you will be costing Wikipedia an article that will be very valuable and helpful.
--Andrew Parodi 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and M1ss1ontomars2k4. Arbusto 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this article has several links and NOTES it does not qualify as "original research."
--Andrew Parodi 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Claims like: "In this view, the Course is not seen as the result of a literal communication between Helen Schucman and the disembodied spirit of the historical Jesus Christ who died more than 2000 years ago" are not sourced. They are OR. While there are some links, which come from the same organization (and an amazon link selling the organization's work), they do not support the opinions presented. It reads like an ad. Arbusto 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such comments are indeed sourced. Read the damned articles I link to. People such as Endeavor Academy and Robert Perry make it very clear in their articles that they believe the historical Jesus Christ of 2000 years ago is the source of ACIM. How are you missing this? Do I need to put a note and reference at the end of every damned sentence? Do I have to start sourcing words like "the" and "2000"? Andrew Parodi 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"
To start, the term "original research" as used on Wikipedia is imprecise. I am currently taking a college class on writing research papers, and the bulk of the class is devoted to understanding how to list the sources upon which one's research paper is based. Explicit in this class is the rule that in doing research one must cite one's outside sources. It's odd that on Wikipedia the term "original research" is apparently used to denote an article lacking reference to outside sources. But I'll set that argument aside.
With regard to the use of the term "original research" as found here on Wikipedia, this article still does not qualify. Please find below the ten outside articles and references linked to this article:
  • Source 1: FACIM Outreach Question #97 wherein we find the quote: "Jesus is a symbol in our mind of the Atonement -- the correction for our delusional thought system of separation, sin and attack."
  • Source 7: FACIM OUTREACH question #65 wherein we find the statement: "(It) is important for students of the Course not to confuse the voice Helen Schucman heard and identified as JesusÆ, with the Jesus of traditional Christianity, nor to associate it with any particular image in form. The Course uses the term Jesus and the Holy Spirit as symbols reflecting the part of the mind of the Sonship that holds the memory of God. They are not real persons...."
  • Source 8: Absence from Felicity", Kenneth Wapnick's biography of Helen Schucman wherein we find the statement: " At first blush, and as the story of the scribing is usually told, it would seem as if the person of Jesus stood within Helen's mind with a microphone, dictating to her-word for word, in English!--the three books of the Course. It must be remembered, of course, that on one level this was Helen's experience. But similar to the misperception of the sun's rising and setting every day, one's experience , though valid for the individual, nonetheless, should not be taken for the actual truth, let alone as a model in form for other people's experience.".
  • Source 10: Jesus: Symbol and Reality, book by Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D wherein we find the quote: "The distinction between symbol and reality is shown to be crucial to one's spiritual growth as a student of A Course in Miracles. Confusing the two ensures that one remains a spiritual child, never developing the mature relationship with Jesus that leads to the love and peace that is beyond all symbols, and that alone is our true reality."
I realize that A Course In Miracles is not everyone's cup of tea. And I am the first to admit that the originally nominated article was not very well written. (In part, it was not well written because I had gotten tired of working on an article that caused so much controversy. I was tired of the battle.) And I realize that to some of you, this article is "notable nuttery." Fine. That's your perspective and you're entitled to it.
But if you are all going to vote to delete this article, can you please base your vote on legitimate reasons? This article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES. Please take note of this. Thank you.
-- Andrew Parodi 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge ACIM seems to me to most certainly be a topic of note. This aspect of ACIM seems to me to so far be a topic that has not yet shown to be of great interest to many, yet there does appear to me to be some potential for future interest. I vote to merge as suggested on the article's discussion page at the article's discusison page, AfD section. -Scott P. 12:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into original article. Mystache 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed , Keep or Merge. It's not fair to condemn it as NOR, as there are 7 references given and this is obviously a topic of debate that exists beyond the authorship of this article. Describing it as "BJAODN" and "notable nuttery" is completely POV. Wiki is here to record what other people are saying, not how we see things, and a lot of people take this seriously. Is any "religious" topic "notable nuttery?" Some might think so. Comments such as "some people believe" are weasel words, which may or may not also fall foul of NOR, but do not necessarily do so. They may merely indicate the author is not entirely familiar with writing guidelines. OK, so it needs to be cleaned up. There is no intrinsic bar to solipsism, as far as I know. It does indeed concern a "single new age book", but one which was a best-seller in its field, popular and influential. Negative comments about this topic can also be included in the article, provided they are properly referenced. Tyrenius 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:NPOV policy applies to article content, not to project discussions. Nonetheless I apologize for mixing personal opinion with editorial discussion. As a person (not in my role as editor) I consider all religions large and small to be nuttery. As a WP editor I consider those religions which have verifiable notability (regardless of illogicality) to be worth serious attention, including balance against POV editing by adherents. The fact remains that I got a good laugh out of "copyright to a work that was 'channeled from a disembodied entity'", and almost as much from the underlying argument. The improvements in documentation would lead me to change my vote to "neutral, leaning toward Keep" if a partisan editor hadn't refactored this AfD discussion contrary to the AfD norm. Barno 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you may be interested to find that A Course In Miracles is not a religion. It is merely a book that you read. Some people have started churches around it, but there is nothing in the book that talks about the need to start churches. The book designates itself as a self-study book intended for the individual to read on his own. Further, the Course has little resemblance to any religion because it denies a creator God; I attended a workshop with Kenneth Wapnick two years ago at Foundation for A Course In Miracles wherein he referred to A Course In Miracles as being "atheistic", because the Course says God did not make the physical world and has nothing to do with it. Andrew Parodi 06:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to A Course In Miracles and significantly edit the article down. It's not an encyclopedic article, it's an essay. Also apparently a POV fork per comments above. --Isotope23 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not a "POV fork". It caused controversy on the original page because it is a controversial issue, which you and the others would understand if you were to read the links I provide in the article and above. It was later decided that it was too controversial, and therefore too expansive, for the main page. Controversy is not the same as a POV fork. There are many controversial issues that are given their own pages. And as this issue (whether Jesus is the source of A Course In Miracles) resulted in a lawsuit between a major publisher (Penguin) and two non-profit organizations (Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy), and is important to tens of thousands of people around the world, it is indeed a notable issue. Andrew Parodi 11:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. —999 21:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reeks of OR and also looks suspiciously like a POV fork. Just zis Guy you know? 23:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research. -Ekajati 01:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Parodi. Not a POV fork, not original research. It would be nice to have more printed references, though. Melchoir 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with A Course In Miracles, If its so controversial among editors, then either make the mention of this really really short, or find better ways to state the material that most editors can agree on. Homestarmy 16:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Homestarmy. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Homestarmy. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and make finish I propose the article be called "Authorship of the Course." I also propose that there be a section added that presents why some people believe it is literally Jesus, the lack of that section, while having an entire symbolic section makes this a POV fork. Keep, because once a single section of an article, in this case ACIM gets big enough, it gets it's own article. Sethie 14:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's exactly what I was thinking. The article needs a better title. However, I have two quotes highlighted from the "literalists" and I provide links to more articles by them. It's not that this is a POV fork, but that I've had a harder time finding more comments from the literalists. Andrew Parodi 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting accuracy[edit]

This Article appears to be original research (personal essay) and a thinly-veiled advertisement (see final paragraph). --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be a guide about playing golf --TBC☆O M G! 01:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research and advertising - Richardcavell 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and therefore unverifiable original research except for the last paragraph which is spam, per Richardcavell. Gwernol 02:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cavell --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete right into the hole, per AbsolutDan and Gwernol. Barno 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOR Tyrenius 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, ad. --Terence Ong 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 03:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia articles shouldn't talk to me. Danny Lilithborne 06:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thinly veiled advertisement. JIP | Talk 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. PJM 12:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mystache 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please --Optichan 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, somewhat bizarre, no sources. Spam. First hit for "David Petz" is his site pushing his book. Herostratus 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 23:03, 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 Speedy delete as copyright violation. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos PHP Framework[edit]

Only 2 unique hits on Google, copyvio from Stratos' website, adcruft. Delete M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:43, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIY WOMP[edit]

Non-notable group with a MySpace page. PROD contested by article creator. FCYTravis 01:53, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Generation[edit]

Advertising for website+book, the only references in relation to "the coconut generation" that can be found in google+yahoo are in relation to the book and website, sounds to me that this is not a subject that warrants an article in an encyclopedia Librarianofages 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional metalcore[edit]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:NPOV. Self-serving to bands without consideration for actual figuring out the genrefication... evesummernight 02:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NEO Librarianofages 02:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn genre. --Terence Ong 03:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO at best or possibly just WP:VAIN. Reclassifies bands already accepted as hardcore/screamo. Insinuating it has mainstream popularity is also laughable. Mystache 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. When the article can't even decide if this genre is called "Emotional Metalcore" or "Melodic Metalcore" we know its in trouble. Gwernol 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete genre cruft Spearhead 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable genre. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:07, 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) 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Lake Bryan Company[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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skagerak and Nesbru Model United Nations[edit]

Non-notable. Possible Vanity, also borders on repository of random information. WP:NOT. Most of the information exists already in Model United Nations. Mystache 02:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC). Edited: Mystache 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge _ Librarianofages 03:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC) edited: Librarianofages 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 04:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Model United Nations per nom — who knows how many Model UN conferences worldwide are there? Kimchi.sg | talk 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be verifiable, not a vanity page. For great justice. 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Eivindt@c 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 80 to 120 high school students? -- Hirudo 02:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't bother to redirect - no sign of notability, most of the content is summarizing the general idea of a Model United Nations --Ajdz 05:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shann park[edit]

Delete Neighbourhood too small to have an entry = NN, article also speculative in nature __ Librarianofages 02:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Would reccommend a merge, but there is no real information to merge. Mystache 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neighbourhood. --Terence Ong 04:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NN. SorryGuy 05:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given current state of article although would support retention of article about an actual locality. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A small neighborhood that doesn't seem to establish its notability. Nothing really to merge. — TheKMantalk 23:08, 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) 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urbaniacs[edit]

Delete, non-notable online role-playing game. Note: Prod was removed. _-M o P-_ 03:16, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Rachbauer[edit]

Part of the ongoing campaign to remove WWII articles about people who have never been recorded as having existed. There is no non-wiki verification of her existence, details are purposely vague, and the possibility that Wikipedia is being used to spread in-jokes and misinformation is too great Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the absence of evidence of any kind of personal significance. Scranchuse 03:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as to prevent injokes. Would be more confident if you could point me to the written policy. Mystache 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has the ring of authenticity about it. I've checked out the original author User:68.248.199.3, who appears to be a heavy and serious contributor to Wiki and have left a note on their talk page about this AfD. This editor has created a number of similar articles. If they are genuine, it seems not right to delete all of this information and it may be a case of putting into in a bigger article and using existing pages as a redirect. If the articles are hoaxes, then we have a vandal of the first order. Tyrenius 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 04:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Librarianofages 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC) edit: Librarianofages 05:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, and not notable anyway - there were 55,000 guards --Astrokey44 04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1) unverified; 2) not notable; 3) attack page (alleges criminal action) -- Simon Cursitor 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original creator hasn't been active under that IP since last June and is thus unlikely to see Tyrenius's message. As for verifiability, the parent article Female guards in Nazi concentration camps features the following references, which are the most likely sources for this one too:
    • Aroneanu, Eugene, ed. Inside the Concentration Camps Trans. Thomas Whissen. Praeger, 1996.
    • Brown, Daniel Patrick. The Camp Women The SS Auxiliaries who Assisted the SS in Running the Nazi Concentration Camp System. Schiffer Publishing, 2002, ISBN 0764314440
    • Hart, Kitty. Return to Auschwitz: The Remarkable Story of a Girl Who Survived the Holocaust. Atheneum, 1983.
Anybody able to get hold of some of these and check? - No vote as to the "notability" criterion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 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 with deviantART. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeviantART gallery[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion due to lack of notability and its severe lack of content. There's no real reason to have a page to explain such an obvious feature of DA. Kargath64 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CUAUV[edit]

Non-notable student team. About 90 Ghits. Depordded without comment.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kimchi.sg | talk 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo reply cards[edit]

Unreferenced, does not assert notability. Gets 3 unique Google hits (the other three are duplicates). Snoutwood (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. Based on the evidence presented by Qwernol, I'm withdrawing my nomination. I figure the AfD may as well finish running, though. Snoutwood (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into magazines perhaps?. Ive never heard of them but its a not uncommon for mags to distribute that sort of info. Mystache 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article described is a real thing. I used to get "Biotechnology Laboratory" which was free and filled with ads that were numbered; you circle the number of the ad you want information on and send the card back. I didn't know they were called Bingo cards, although that makes sense since they are usually a table of numbers to be circled. Not sure if its notable enough. Thatcher131 04:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it looks like a notable term (though its often "Bingo card"). Google without the quotation marks and you get a slew of relevant hits, for example [9], [10] and [11] from the first results page. Clearly a notable and relevant industry term. Gwernol 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gwernol. --Terence Ong 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gwernol. --Arnzy (Talk) 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs some context. Why do they call them "Bingo reply cards"?--Isotope23 16:01, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TN ward company[edit]

Advertisement for the company. soUmyaSch 04:22, 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 redirected to Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Mailer Diablo 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-coniosis[edit]

Longest word in the English language. Yawn. Thatcher131 04:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh crud The article Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis already exists. (I searched old AfDs because I thought I remembered it there but didn't search the main article space.) Seems to be an unlikely term for redirect with the oddly-placed hyphen. Should we delete it here or make it a redirect (in which case I will probably send it to RfD)? Thatcher131 04:53, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zangelding[edit]

Non notable website (i think that's what it is, at least). Prod removed without comment. Rory096(block) 04:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:MEMES. Mystache 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a website, but seems to be a phenomenon where websites make a loop of Error 404 messages. I don't know why, but I'll leave that part to them and the deleting to us. _-M o P-_ 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Terence Ong 05:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like the author invented the meme. JIP | Talk 10:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 137.154.16.30 added information on Zangelding to dead link. -Reuvenk[T][C] 12:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "information" you mean a wikilink to the Zangelding page, then yes. Otherwise, no he/she didn't. - DavidWBrooks 13:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This was a self-referential meme where people linked to each other's Zangelding pages, and also intentionally came up with a lot of bogus links (e.g., "President of the United States shows his support to the Zangelding movement"). It was more fun if you read the URLs and link descriptions. I really don't think this got much force behind it, though, or got as much weight to it as some more well-known memes. Even I took my Zangelding page down some time ago. =) As for WP:MEMES, this can't be said to have influenced other memes, created copycats, or been much original ("Link to each other's bogus pages", bah, that happens every day), nor can I remember seeing media mentions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:24, 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) 00:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rendle[edit]

Delete. Not notable. Possible self-promotion: Article was created by User:Supercooldude4 whose user page redirects to this article. -AED 05:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page by a non-notable person. ekedolphin 05:25, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amapi(software)[edit]

Looks like just another advertisment for a not-notable software application. ekedolphin 05:22, 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. 1) Created by User:Andresbretel. 2) User:Andresbretel has made no edits other than to create this article and add it to a list article. 3) No third-party sources, no indication that anyone will add any, and considering that 4) the only articles that link to this page are two lists, I can't see why anyone would. 5) Verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of our encyclopaedia. The above and the lack of overwhelming feeling or argument to the contrary below is sufficient reason to remove this self-promotion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Bretel[edit]

Notability appears to be questionable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Producers are for obvious reasons not in the public spot-light as much as the artists they work with, maybe creating the perception that they're less notable. Librarianofages 05:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the extensive number of records he appears to have worked on. Possibly needs verification. Delete due to verification problems. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets notability criteria. --Terence Ong 07:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs to be wikified, verified, and expanded. Mystache 13:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.On google I could find no english language references to this person that weren't repackaged wikipedia pages. The only spanish language pages simply had a list of discs only for a few of which he was mentioned (not notable). Andres' official website, as referenced in article, is broken. Information is unverifiable Corrigann 21:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN rhmoore 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep V For great justice. 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedley Bunton[edit]

Appears to assert enough notability, but I'd like the community to look at it together. Neutral. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it asserts notability, it only asserts that he was a missionary who travelled around a bit. Seems like someone's grandad. So, delete. porges 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's enough there to keep it, though I wonder if it isn't a memoir of one's own relative/mentor. - Richardcavell 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but despirately needs to be wikified. Mystache 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the method for asking for input is to list the article on peer review. Not deletion. For great justice. 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are taking my statement out of context. I am asking for community review on whether it is sufficiently notable to be kept -- which is what AfDs are for. --Nlu (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Huh? This guy went to China, was a missionary, wrote a book about it. The linked page says it succintly:
Missionary with London Missionary Society in China. 
Minister in Congregational Church in Australia.
Authour of "Forty Years of China"
... if that warrants a page then I'm reading the wrong guidelines ^_^ —porges(talk) 11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a delete? If so, please state it explicitly. However, I don't think you're doing the page justice. You left out the part that asserted that he supervised 54 schools in Hong Kong (which creates at least marginal notability, I think) and served on the Council of World Missions. Again, not completely clear that that is sufficient notability to be kept, but you left off two of the most notable parts of his career. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out :) I'm still voting for delete (as stated above) unless someone can pull up another source on this guy. —porges(talk) 23:51, 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) 00:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Harbaugh Family In America[edit]

Not sure if I could really fit this one under any speedy criterion, but Wikipedia is definitely not a genealogy message board. Daniel Case 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Ardenn 21:33, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siddha samadhi yoga[edit]

Reads like an ad, only 470 Ghits. Prod removed without comment. Rory096(block) 22:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reverted this to a more neutral version. Deletion should happen only if it is not possible to write a neutral version or if the subject is not noteworthy. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN and possibly WP:VAIN. Mystache 13:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, vanity page. —999 21:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a minor and non-notable form of yoga. — TheKMantalk 23:12, 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) 00:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nimmo Pky[edit]

Nothing establishes why this street is notable, and I doubt anything will. Daniel Case 22:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the original PRODder, I surely agree that this street is non-notable; it is, moreover, only prospective, so, since WP is not a crystal ball, notability would likely entail were the planning of the road itself noteworthy. In any case, delete is in order. Joe 22:20, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If kept, should be renamed to Nimmo Parkway. --Nlu (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable outside immediate geographical area. -- Simon Cursitor 07:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Mystache 13:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability, barely mentioned in Virginia Beach article. --Ajdz 05:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hee, I'm from Virginia Beach, and I'm amazed that someone felt the need to create a Wikipedia article about Nimmo Parkway! Military Highway, maybe, but really, any street in Virginia Beach would be a stretch. ekedolphin 08:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also-- Nimmo Pkwy. The same guy created both articles, and I daresay both of them are candidates for deletion. ekedolphin 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. Mailer Diablo 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostel deux[edit]

First, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Second, the article is completely unsourced. There's casting information, but no links to anywhere that verifies it, not even IMDB. I know of at least 1 fan site that quotes this article on casting Rachel Stevens (Rachel stevens online). So entire article does not meet WP:CITE and WP:V. Claims interviews with tarantino, but I googled and can't find any regarding hostel deux. If this was going to be released in early Jan. 2007, there'd have been much more out about it. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:21, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Guess what's not a crystal ball? Danny Lilithborne 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Upon further investigation, the Hostel Deux thing is a complete hoax. There is evidence for a "Hostel 2" coming out, but not Hostel Deux. In fact, Hostel Deux was added, without sources to wikipedia, and then external sources CITE THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY as the source for hostel Deux! There's only minor information about Hostel 2 and NONE of it, Imdb, nothing, say anything about "deux" as the title. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article now directs to hostel 2. Should just be Deleted. Mystache


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal (theology)[edit]

Non notable concept; dicdef. Rory096(block) 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing to keep per expansion, but I can't withdraw because of the delete vote below. --Rory096 03:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to Wiktionnary. Grafikm_fr 23:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muchly expanded. You may want to view it before you decide. Goldfritha 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep after expansion. Concept is a valid encyclopedic topic and by no means non-notable in its field. Thanks to Goldfritha for the good work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no longer a dicdef after expansion. --Terence Ong 07:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems encyclopedic now that it is expanded. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks good to me. Mystache 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs more work, but is clearly a notable and defined concept in Catholicism. —999 21:28, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airport Services[edit]

Non notable company; just 529 Ghits. Rory096(block) 23:09, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 09:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Fails WP:CORP, but would be more notable if the section on bush administration overcharging were expanding. Mystache 12:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per last part of what Mystache said. This firm seems to have ties with the Bush family, but still overcharged the government and got hit with a lawsuit later on. Definitely notable. Kimchi.sg | talk 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, per Kimchi.sg. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 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 redirect to Syrup (drink). Sango123 (e) 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syzzurp[edit]

Non notable drink, possible hoax. Rory096(block) 23:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could not verify its existence. --Optichan 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Syrup (drink) as it seems to be a non-common spelling variation of Sizzurp which is a redirect to Syrup (drink).--blue520 09:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per blue520 --Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Mystache 12:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Syrup (drink), not a hoax. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How do you mix a Jolly Rancher into a drink? --Rory096(block) 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it is most commonly just dropped into the drink. I have no personal experience with this drink, so I can't tell you whether the Jolly Rancher dissolves or even adds any flavor to the drink, only that it is actually done. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:17, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sreenivasa Rao[edit]

nn warrior, just 3 Ghits for "Sreenivasa Rao" -wikipedia barki. Rory096(block) 23:21, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. NN but would be more useful is text was clarified and background given. Mystache 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If he was actually Hyder Ali's commander, he's pretty notable. But I am highly suspicious of the fact that it's been put up by someone with the same name. Hornplease 08:04, 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 19:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve marchena[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable; only 590 Ghits (bringing this to AfD only because of the valid objection to the prod) Rory096(block) 23:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for keeping page - artist has several published albums, and has performed with or opened for well-known groups like the Boston Pops. Website also indicates artist has performed at several notable venues. vpoko -April 23, 2006

  • Delete Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC cirteria. If he has released albums they should be listed. DJ Clayworth 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 08:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly likely to be vanity. - Richardcavell 09:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If the places he has played could be verified independantly, i think it would constitute a decent tour and pass WP:MUSIC until then, it seems WP:VAIN. Mystache 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Touring schedule meets notability requirements; objections seem to be based on the peculiar belief that a working musician whose other credits are verifiable would maintain a fictitious touring schedule on his main website, even though reviews/reports corroborate geographical scope of appearances. Monicasdude 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "touring schedule", isn't: it's a listing of gigs around Cambridge, Mass., with a couple trips to New York and New Jersey, not a "tour" unless you stretch the term into meaninglessness. --Calton | Talk 11:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeball 10/4[edit]

Non-noteable group who have yet to make their first film. The proposed deletion tag was removed, so I'm listing here. Kevin 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability at all. -- Kicking222 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- n n.--blue520 09:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are hardly notable if they haven't made any films yet. JIP | Talk 10:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Get rid of that hideous logo too. Mystache
  • Delete. Vanity. Fishal 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 20:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kicking222. Some guy 04:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not established for this group. — TheKMantalk 23:14, 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) 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viorel Costin[edit]

For many reasons. Cleanup and music-importaance tags has been added since March (?). Article is well below Wikipedia standards. Not sure about notability but they look like a local band (maybe). Most important thing I found wrong about it is its self-advertising. Moe ε 20:35, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. pictures too. Mystache 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band. Kimchi.sg | talk 19:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising content, Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, plus they don't have a page at allmusic either --Knucmo2 21:17, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scub'Scub[edit]

Neologism and/or WP:NOT things you made up in school one day, non-notable--Zxcvbnm 20:00, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controller Q[edit]

No google hits on "Rodents in Paris", only contribution by this editor (Aug 2005), suspect hoax RJFJR 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete obvious hoax/nonsense. -- Kicking222 22:35, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Eivindt@c 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does any of this exist ? -- Simon Cursitor 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 08:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- unverifiable.--blue520 09:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable, orphaned, and probably a hoax. - Richardcavell 09:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 12:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Mystache 13:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I've wikified it just it case it stays. --Tango 16:39, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace (Graphs)[edit]

This page contains some Aerospace-related trivia, but isn't an encyclopedia article, and is not suitable for Wikipedia.  — TheKMantalk 19:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with existing spaceflight articles and delete. Overlaps with content from Spaceflight records where the astronaut records should go. The "interesting facts" section is almost certainly covered in the remaining articles on spaceflight, but I didn't check them--not enough to be worth saving. Slowmover 20:05, 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!
Mailer Diablo 06:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Slowmover. PJM 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All relevant information is already available in relevant articles. — TheKMantalk 12:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything already mentioned. Merge the rest. Mystache 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an information dump. Rather misleading article title too. Kimchi.sg | talk 19:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivia. --Eivindt@c 02:51, 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 withdrawn by nominator with no delete votes. Merging to Minor Discworld characters seems encouraged. - Turnstep 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monks of Cool[edit]

Non-notable &/or hoax, from the same user who was a major contributer to Shut down period and Smibble's Truancy. -- Argon233 T C @   06:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by origional submitter of AfD. I agree that it should be merged into Minor Discworld characters. Thanks -- Argon233 T C @   21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have now confirmed this is not-hoax, by ref to D~world Encyc. as published. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Merge into something to do with Discworld. Is there a minor characters article? porges 09:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not a hoax. It's a silly concept, but Discworld is notable enough to make this notable enough IMHO. - Richardcavell 09:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Richard. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Discworld; doesn't seem to warrant its own article. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ed. PJM 12:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems fair. Mystache 13:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Minor Discworld characters. Vashti 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Minor Discworld characters with redirect, per WP:FICT. The series is notable, but this minor bit from a book doesn't seem particularly noted. Google search gives a lot of hits, but most are blog postings or Wikipedia mirror sites. Not much of significance in the first thirty hits; in fact, somebody's team by this name in a Blood Bowl game made the first screenful. Barno 22:31, 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 no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Aryans[edit]

Speedy deleted, restored after discussion at deletion review. [12] Does not claim notability per guidelines for inclusion of bands. Delete unless evidence to the contrary placed in article. brenneman{L} 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - notable as White Power band can be. Luka Jačov 09:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Resistance Records are notable, so are these guys, by virtue of having released two albums (Racially Motivated Violence and Too White For You) on Resistance. No vote as I'd personally rather read about every pokemon that ever existed. Jcuk 11:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even listed in Resistance Records. Label may be indie but is certainly not notable. Mystache 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment actually they are listed. Fourth from the top in the list of groups. The name was previously a redlink to Angry Aryans (band) Jcuk 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion on DRV, simply being used as one of a number of examples in articles about white power bands isn't enough for me.-Polotet 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DRV discussion; me neither. People keep saying that their teaming with Resistance Records is prima facie notable, but I have yet to see evidence that RR is in fact "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". The Angry Aryans article itself makes no claim of notability, the two albums cited have zero distribution on Amazon.com, and they're not even in the (nine page deep) MP3 listening list on the Resistance website. RGTraynor 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That must be a different Angry Aryans listed three times on the first page of the nine page MP3 listening list then. http://www.resistance.com/audio/listen_new.htm ;-)Jcuk 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad, I see that now. RGTraynor 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • NP mistakes happen. Personally I'd rather this racist BS group was wiped out of existance, but hey.... Jcuk 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Luka Jacov. --estavisti 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello. --GTubio 20:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --serbiana - talk 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (read my multiple comments on DRV). I'm busy rewriting some bios though, and I really don't care about some white power band. Why didn't someone just tell me it was three sentences? Kotepho 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd encourage everyone to read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. This isn't a vote, and there is a very good chance that the closing admin will ignore recomendations that fail to provide supporting rational. Further to that, rational that fail to provide supporting evidence may also be disregarded at the admin's discretion. - brenneman{L} 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find this band on resistance records, and this disrupts the credibility of the information. Thetruthbelow 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep barely passes WP:MUSIC as they've released two albums on a notable label, and is a prominent representative of a notable style. --Eivindt@c 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, as I disagree that the label is notable (or discerning, which is really what we should be concerned with). Jkelly 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with redirect to Resistance Records. As per the deletion policy, this should not yet be considered for deletion, let alone up for its second AfD, until a merge has been attempted by those who believe the content to be too trivial to merit a separate article. I see absolutely no good reason to remove verifiable information from Wikipedia in this case. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Kids (band)[edit]

nn-band, but don't have the courage to speedy it today Adam (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article was written out of consideration for other pages involving Justin Pearson and all other bands he has been in. Swing Kids are somewhat lesser known than his other bands but are more seminal in nature and referenced on many other Wikipedia entries, including the Hardcore Emo genre. What's worse is most of the links incorrectly linked to the Swing Kids movement of nazi-era Germany instead of the band before I wrote this article mere hours ago. It is an incomplete stub and I am still in the process of doing research. The patience and understanding of the Wikipedia admin community would be greatly appreciated here. As far as notability is concerned, the Swing Kids feature members of other notable bands and have toured internationally. Their records were released on an independent label alongside other notable bands.Curtyv 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep They are very notable, and all the members have formed other notable bands afterwards. First off Justin Pearson is in that band. If you don't know who he is, well he's also in this band called the The Locust. According to the guidelines found here Wikipedia:Notability (music), this band CANNOT be deleted off of Wikipedia because this group ...

  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (such as Three One G) (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

So based on these grounds, I call for a Speedy Keep - RiseRobotRise 11:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. For one thing, RiseRobotRise may be confused; we're not debating the notability of The Locust, but of Swing Kids. That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's radar might be interesting but is certainly irrelevant. For another, while this Pearson fellow might have his fans, 280 G-hits isn't a lot, and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch. I'd be interested to see sources for the inference that Pearson is the most prominent emo musician in San Diego. RGTraynor 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in the part of WP:MUSIC (guidelines, not policy saying something "CANNOT be deleted") mentioning "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" also says "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Weak delete and redirect to Justin Pearson; and frankly I've never heard of him or The Locust. Barno 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be notable for touring and who members became involved with. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC due to an international tour. Also notable for kickstarting Pearson's career. Article should be stubbed as it needs to be verifiably sourced. Wstaffor 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was such an influential band the members have gone on to do so much: Jose Palafox (of Struggle and Bread and Circuits), went on to be a UC Professor, earn his PhD and lecture on punk rock and the hardcore music scene. Justin Pearson who would release their recordings on his own Three One G record label, is in numerous other bands today along with starting and runing his own business. This was an extremely innovative and influential band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.91.49.233 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with Pearson and redirect. The band's importance cannot be separated from Pearson's membership, and the Pearson article could do with some actual content. -- GWO


  • Response to Merge While Justin Pearson's involvement in Swing Kids was of key importance, a redirect or merge may unfairly eclipse the work of two other important members of Swing Kids. Namely, the late Eric Allen (Unbroken) and Jose Palafox (Bread and Circuits, Struggle). Curtyv 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable band with a member of another band that is barely notable. If the supposedly notable member had their own page, then maybe. --Walter Görlitz 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable band, band members, influental. Kellen T 09:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Above- Justin Pearson does have his own page on Wikipedia. As far as questioning the notability of his later band, well you may have to refer to this website [13] and this one [14] also proving further notability heres one from VH1[15] and Epitaph Records signed a deal with these guys [16], well if you need to merge it with the other articles, then I guess that’s okay (although I don't feel it would fit in with the other article), but don't attack the notability of other projects he became involved with. I still believe that this article shouldn’t be deleted based upon the WP:MUSIC guidelines. A few users listed above would like to agree with me on that one.RiseRobotRise 00:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I nominate it for db-bio? He's a band-a-holicic? Does it make any of the bands notable? Not really. Now if he was Garcia re-incarnated, maybe. Tell you what. When Justin next plays in Vancouver, BC, drop me a note and I'll go see him. Until then I suggest we keep his bands off Wikipedia. From what I can tell his bands only tour So. Cal. --Walter Görlitz 21:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Locust has toured internationally (this includes Europe and Asia). Tour dates are not posted on their website currently, but I was able to find the following two links. [17] - Partial tour with Yeah yeah yeahs in several midwest states in 2003. [18] - European tour with Kill Me Tomorrow in 2005. [19] - Brief Bio of The Locust from Gold Standard Labs who released most of their records before signing to Epitaph. Swing Kids tour dates would be tough to reproduce since they broke up about 10 years ago. However, there is video footage of Swing Kids playing in Belgium (to an audience of hundreds no less) on the Three One G DVD which was recently released. If you would like to see it for yourself, you may purchase a copy of the DVD [here]. Either way I do urge you to go see The Locust the next time they play in Vancouver. Curtyv 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Curtyv, infact next time they play in Vancouver, BC I'll make sure that I'll be the first one to let you know :P RiseRobotRise 10:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to comments made by user RGTraynor "and calling Three One G (run, as it happens, by Pearson himself) one of the "more important indie labels" is an enormous stretch." untrue, read this article [20] (scroll down until you see Three One G in bold text). Three One G is infact "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." (I have more references to prove so) and since Swing Kids are infact on that label, that should give them a status of notability. "That an unrelated band may register on WP:MUSIC's" They are infact related by Justin Pearson. RiseRobotRise 05:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just read the article. Your rebuttal is seriously that Three One G made a list of the top fifteen indie labels in the city of San Diego? RGTraynor 07:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you missed my point. 31G has signed a plethora of notable bands, such as the Moving Units, who have gone on tour with Nine Inch Nails [21] [22], The Locust who also have been signed to Mike Patton's label Ipecac Recordings [23], and Epitaph Records [24], the Ex Models an influential noise band who have gone off on various nation-wide tours [25] [26], and The Blood Brothers who have went on nation-wide tours, most recently went on tour supporting Coheed and Cambria [27] [28] RiseRobotRise 09:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a support act to a notable band doesn't make you notable. -- GWO
Being a support act on a national tour fulfills the touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a support act on a national tour requires proof.
  • Did they tour the entire country or just one leg of the national tour? The NIN links above don't mention Swing Kids.
  • Did they get billing at the venues?
* Further, I don't think being the support act does qualify under WP:MUSIC. Implicitly, at least, I take the tour qualification to mean you were the main attraction. Back in the 1960s, literally thousands of rightfully-forgotten bands and singers toured the US and UK as bottom-of-the-bill on package tours, often supporting much bigger artists than NiN -- like Little Richard, Chuck Berry or Alma Cogan -- GWO
It seems that the entire Swing Kids entry is related to one member of the band, or am I mistaken? --Walter Görlitz 21:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we we're talking about other bands on 31G, trying to make a point that 31G is a more important indie label. Also if you scroll above, you'll see that more then one member of the band went on to form other projects stated by other user. RiseRobotRise 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems just notable enough, in any case I suggest giving them the benefit of the doubt. gidonb 00:56, 27 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!
Kotepho 06:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 08:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletionists soon screech about it if a band doesnt pass wiki:music as if it were some immutable law of the universe, therefor if a band passes it, and this clearly does through virtue of notable members, the same rule should apply. Jcuk 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The band has proven some degree of notability by at least being linked around to by all the other NN bands on wiki... Mystache 12:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The blue links testify to its notability. Fishal 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per gidonb. --LambiamTalk 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eric Allen, a member of Unbroken (perhaps one of the most important hardcore punk bands of the mid 1990s), was also in Swing Kids. This alone makes the band of high importance.
  • Comments: (1) This is a VfD on the defunct band Swing Kids, not on its members nor its members' subsequent bands nor a member's independent record label. We're only considering those to the extent that they bear on the Wikipedia:Notability guideline.

(2) From that guideline: "Many editors also believe that it is (a) fair test of whether a subject has achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies). Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included; meeting one or more of these criteria does not mean that a subject must be included." An "audience of hundreds no less" in any country doesn't meet the "audience of 5,000" guideline. Show evidence that SK were widely featured as being so innovative and influential, and we'll have reason to keep this article instead of redirecting it to the more-proven-notable topic Justin Pearson. (3) Mystache and Fishal aren't quite correct: The existence of articles on related topics linked to one another doesn't really indicate notability for any of them unless either they've survived AfD, or they contain citations to reliable sources proving notability. A whole bunch of fiction or trivia could be added as a "walled garden" of articles to give WP's credibility; people have tried this. Notable bands/musicians/etc, like notable fiction or religions, can have associated topics that are too minor or just not documented enough to keep as their own article. Some of this information is worth keeping, just in one article instead of five. No change of vote, pending evidence more directly relevant. Barno 23:14, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin P. Miller[edit]

Prod removed by author so bringing here. No vote. exolon 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I think we need to do some digging here. This article and Miller's documentary We Become Silent represent the only contributions by the editor. There are only 89 G-hits for the film -- this after excising references to Martin Luther King, who used the phrase in a speech -- but those hits reference a speech Dennis Kucinich made citing it, and one of those hits is from Kucinich's Congressional web site, so it can't be spurious. As against that, the documentary has no IMDB entry, nor is it referenced in Dench's IMDB entry. RGTraynor 19:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unless someone has sources to show otherwise. Fagstein 06:31, 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!
Kotepho 06:42, 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 merged and redirected to Ernest Shackleton, as the James Caird Society is apparently notable enough to be mentioned there, and I have added her name to that section as the current Life President. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Shackleton[edit]

Notability not established. Mais oui! 06:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google gets 810 hits. I neither support nor oppose deletion.--Jusjih 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in hopes of further expansion. Arbusto 10:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'hopes'? Wouldn't actually expanding the article be better? A quick google and see what you find? Average Earthman 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google is not the only possible source for content of legitimate articles.davidzuccaro 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a source - better than nothing. My quibble is with people who say an article should be expanded but make no effort at all to expand it. Average Earthman 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless evidence of notability is provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and does not satisfy WP:BIO. PJM 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added sources to enable a more informed judgement to take place. Average Earthman 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the update. However, based on what I see, my recommendation remains the same. PJM 21:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, does that mean that every grandchild of every notable person deserves their own Wikipedia article? Mmmm... --Mais oui! 13:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but grandchildren of famous polar explorers such as Ernest Shackleton inherit a certain degree of notability justifying a wikipedia article.davidzuccaro 21:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being related to someone notable is not enough to make one notable Barneyboo (Talk) 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Barneyboo is correct, davidzuccaro is incorrect, per multiple precedents. There's no longer anything specific on the topic in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents nor the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page linked from it, but there used to be, and most such AfD's end in a "merge" or "delete" consensus. Alexandra Shackleton has at least a bit of notability (in WP's terms) established by the NOVA interview, but most of it is "here's the person who knows and cares enough about Ernest S to interview", not stuff that imputes much encyclopedic importance to her. This is right on the edge of my threshold for inclusion, but I'm voting weak keep simply because she was featured (not just interviewed somewhere deep within a documentary) and I'm assuming NOVA had an audience well over 5000. Writing forewords and christening ships don't show up on my WP radar regardless of whether I might be a polar exploration fan on my own time. Barno 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also be fine with a merge to the Ernest S article's Legacy section, for the reason given by AE below. Barno 13:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn in her own right. —porges(talk) 03:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having thought about it, perhaps a merge of the most valid information to the Legacy section of the Shackleton article would be appropriate, since all her notable work is related to that legacy. Average Earthman 10:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge works for me. — RJH 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge might do it. Grandchildren of famous people are not inherently notable. Alphax τεχ 16:40, 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 (and God grant us more editors like AnonEMouse). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Barnham[edit]

Notability not established. Mais oui! 07:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After rewrite: weak keep. Pretty borderline (for example I really did struggle to think of appropriate categories for her), but perhaps notable for being a significant, wealthy, female landowner at a time when this was unusual. She was also perhaps a notable public figure of that period due to court cases and scandal. --Mais oui! 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. keep Arbusto 10:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Francis Bacon. JIP | Talk 10:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JIP. PJM 12:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, not even mentioned in Francis Bacon, possible in-joke. Mystache 13:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A quick google finds a website that claims to have indepth details on Alice Barnham [www.sirbacon.org/ResearchMaterial/Barnham.htm]. It also claims Bacon was Shakespeare, so I trust it about as far as I could comfortably throw the Isle of Wight. Average Earthman 20:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, everybody knows Oxford was Shakespeare. Sheesh ;-) Fan1967 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article itself admits non-notability. --Ajdz 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, she's authentic. ThePeerage.com shows her pedigree and marriage, Bartleby and the Encyclopedia Britannica mention her. Second, there's been a book written about her: Title: Life of Alice Barnham (1592-1650), Wife of Sir Francis Bacon. Author: Bunten, A[lice] Chambers. Publication Information: London: Page and Thomas, 1919. Since it's a 1919 book, you don't expect many Google hits, but it's also not self-published stuff. I'm not sure if the sirbacon.org link is to a copy of the book (it's been over 70 years, it may be in public domain), or what. She's not the most notable person, but she is the semi-notable wife of an extremely notable person, daughter and wife of two other peers (she remarried), and the subject of a historical book. I think that meets notability criteria. Not by a lot, mind, but enough. - AnonEMouse 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, something must have bitten me, and I completely rewrote the article, expanding it quite a lot. I guess I was inspired by WP:HEY. The article used to be two sentences, now it's two pages, including many cross-references and a picture. Please take a new look and say that this one is worth keeping. AnonEMouse 16:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Excellent rewrite with well documented references - bravo/a. One thing - the footnote after 'homosexual' does nothing for me, though it might be that I have my browser set funny. Eldereft 16:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was my mistake, I didn't really understand how to use that. It should be better now. Thanks. AnonEMouse 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrorween[edit]

non-notable IrishGuy 07:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Arbusto 10:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Can be recreated when the film has actually been finished and released. JIP | Talk 10:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable (yet) --Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has IMDB page, seems credible. Plot section could stand some revision though. Mystache 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thousands of films get "pre-production" IMDB pages but never get made. Right now it's just crystalballery. Fan1967 14:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Just another example of IrishGuy flaming again!

BEFORE YOUR CAST YOUR FINAL VOTE, NOTE THAT USER IRISHGUY HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY REMOVING PROVEN FACTS TO MAKE THE ARTICLE LOOK BAD!Whoizzy

comment Personal attacks aren't tolerated on Wiki especially during deletion reviews. I removed exactly one line about George Clinton performing the soundtrack as neither IMDB nor any other source is available to verify this. It isn't a proven fact and that was why it was removed. IrishGuy 16:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967. The "official website" linked from the article appears to be a PR firm's attempt to round up interest for a casting call, and contains some of the same material as the article (copyvio?). The way it encourages people to try to get talk-show hosts to mention their desire to get a role in Horrorween seems suspicious. Barno 23:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: THIS POST FROM USER BARNO IS NOT TRUE, AND JUST ANOTHER NONSENSE & CHILDISH ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT!Whoizzy

comment Go for it. Read the history and see where I deleted exactly one line because it was unverifiable. IrishGuy 15:16, 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 userfy/move, keep the other two. SushiGeek 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mayo[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. Should be moved to user page.

Move, same reasons. Sorry Paul, nothing personal. Jefffire 13:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they seem equally non-notable (I could be wrong, but more than one astrologer should be included in editing them). Lundse 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping the above user will update his vote to include (or not) these, and that f the vote is to delete/move, I suggest we also remove the two persons from the List of Astrologers article. Lundse 14:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I'll remove my page, though it's clearly not an advert and no doubt would have been edited by other astrologers in due course. It is not against the rules to put up your own page, though I know it's frowned on. MayoPaul5 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought - as debunkers would like to get rid of all astrology pages if they could - they have the avowed intent of wiping astrology off the face of the planet, so their vote, strictly speaking, should be discounted, more so as they are poorly placed to decide on matters affecting astrology because their knowledge of the subject is invariably close to zero (on the grounds: why waste your time when it's all a lot of nonsense anyway?). Frankly I find it quite offensive, considering astrology has a community more than averagely packed with M.A.'s, PhD's and other clever and multi-talented people. Surely common-sense says that they haven't all been hoodwinked? MayoPaul5 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you leave Jeff Mayo & Mayo School on, Lundse, as someone is bound to put them in at some point. Jeff was one of the most famous astrologers of the 20thC - but you wouldn't know that I guess, as you evidently, like Jefffire, know nothing about astrology. Neither Jeff Mayo nor the Mayo School has any connection to me whatsoever (see my comment on my talk page), and clearly the only reason they have been nominated is because they happen to have the same surname as myself. None of the other pages I have edited has been nominated, even though some of them are slighter, so this is clearly the reason. I see how it all works now - very cosy. That tells me more about the influence of the debunkers on this site than I want to know. Please tell me that the three of you who have voted so far are not all skeptics or debunkers desperate for evey inch of advantage you can get for your point of view, and I'll be both surprised and impressed. MayoPaul5 15:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a visit to your user pages shows I was correct - one skeptic, two debunkers. It does look just a tiny, tiny bit like a conspiracy, guys. Hope I can be proved wrong, for the sake of editorial freedom in Wikipedia. MayoPaul5 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, how about me? I'm willing to be convinced; can you source the elements of WP:BIO under which you prove significantly notable? Until then, Move per nom to user page. RGTraynor 18:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RGT, I appreciate your neutral input. Jeff Mayo and the Mayo School certainly qualify under those guidelines - I'd better leave it to other editors to provide the details to avoid further criticism. As for myself, borderline. I can't cite my famous clients, so that's no use. I have numerous clippings from newspapers but that may not be enough. I have varous other claims to notability which I did not mention, such as being the originator and organiser of the ground-breaking UK Earth Spirit Festival in 1984 and 1985 (which the papers said attracted 6,500 people), and the founder and first Chair of UFORM. However, I suspect that none of this will count a bean for those determined to see me off, therefore like I already said, I'll remove my page. I'm not a vain person, and I only did the entry because a few clients had asked me to. At that point I was not familiar with the Wikipedia tradition (though it should have been obvious not to write my own page, in hindsight). MayoPaul5 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Mayo - yes, I did find Jeff through you, because I have formerly seen an astrologer put himself on that list and make a page much like yours. So I searched the list for your name and found more people with the same surname and made by you - so I did assume you were related, sorry if I was wrong. I do not know how notable the Mayo school et al is within the astrological community - it is very possible they should stay, as I said in my nomination (I still stand by the fact that more than one astrologer should note them, though). I do not get your argument that skeptics should not edit astrology, who do you mean should be excluded: those with an ideological stake in the matter (including astrologers?), or that only those who disagree with your and/or require evidence before wanting something to be stated as fact in an encyclopedia? And for the record, I am still willing to be convinced. Both with regards to the notability of you and the other Mayo's and about astrology (I lurk in "validity of ast..."). Lundse 07:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (a bit late in writing his sig)[reply]

I did not say "skeptics should not edit astrology" as you claim. I said they should not vote on this issue. Get your glasses on, whoever you are. MayoPaul5 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That presupposes skeptics cannot apply NPOV and the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia in a dispassionate, clinical fashion, and infers that believers invariably (and uniquely) can, two presumptions I for one am unwilling to make. Assume good faith. RGTraynor 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: No it doesn't RGT, on either count. Anyone who believes anything will be biased, whether for or against. NPOV is a myth, and hard for anyone to keep to (but very well worth the effort). But as this "attack" came at a certain point in a fairly unfriendly "discussion" between myself and Jefffire the debunker, I'm sure you can understand that it raised my suspicions that he had orchestrated a campaign to hit at me any way he could, which suspicion proved unfounded as he provided with me with his assurance it was not so, which is good enough for me. MayoPaul5 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that last anonymous entry was yours, Lundse - sorry if I was a bit abrupt. Glad to hear you are maintaining an open mind about astrology. MayoPaul5 19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should assume good faith. I don't know whether you counted me as one of the debunkers or as the sceptic in your post above. Either way, I would vote to keep an article about an astrologer, a fundamentalist evangelist, or anyone else whom I disagreed with, as long as the article made plausible claims of notability and met other criteria. (You yourself assess your notability as "borderline" in the discussion above.) Similarly, I would vote to delete an article about a non-notable scientific sceptic. I cast a lot of votes in this forum, and I don't discriminate on whether the subjects of biographical articles share my own world view. And for the record, I have had no dealings whatsoever with the two people who voted before me. Metamagician3000 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything you say here is very reassuring, Metamagician, and I respect your detachment. I counted you as a debunker, info derived from your user page. I'm a simple man, metamagician, but long in the tooth. I trust people until they show me otherwise. As soon as I see the word "debunker" I read "untrustworthy", as, rightly or wrongly, that is what I have seen in the past. But if even the most avowed debunker tells me categorically they are trustworthy in any respect, their credit in that respect is cautiously restored in my eyes.
But there's no need for all this - I have already said I shall remove my page, as it does not seem appropriate to maintain it - on that I think we are agreed. In fact I bitterly regret putting up all the pages of notable living astrologers I have started to add. It never occurred to me what a hornets nest I might be exposing them to. I see myself getting into trouble with some of them over this, though my intention was simple and honest - to be helpful and informative. As I know or have at least met most of them (and read their books) I might have been a useful source of info I would have thought. In summary, my vote is to remove my own page, keep Jeff Mayo's (as he is dead) and the Mayo School's. MayoPaul5 08:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Job done. Just needs the actual page removing now, by someone who knows how. MayoPaul5 12:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has specifically voted to remove the Jeff Mayo and Mayo School pages, I assume they are to be left? MayoPaul5 12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite curious to me that there are clearly very few astrologers editing this website, as most of the arguments I've looked at are either dominated or totally decided by people whose user-pages show them to be not only non-astrologers, but scientists, pseudo-scientists, people whose main interests appear to lean towards science, debunkers and skeptics. This is clearly an imbalance, entirely the fault of the astrological community being so slow to wake up to Wikipedia's existence let alone significance. MayoPaul5 12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... come to that, would it surprise you to learn I'm a former CSICOP member? That being said, I see no more reason why I cannot reasonably and dispassionately apply the various rules and guidelines governing the verifiability and notability of articles in this instance than to any others referenced in the the numerous AfD discussions on which I comment; plainly some astrologers satisfy WP:BIO, regardless of whether I consider their pseudo-science delusion at best. We need more dispassionate judges and observers here, and fewer partisan cheering sections. RGTraynor 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that you are every bit as reasonable and dispassionate as you claim to be RGT; I have no evidence of any other and would never imagine any other unless and until it was demonstrated. And that is very honest of you to own up to being a former CSICOP member, and therefore I assume yet another debunker - this place seems to be littered with them. Similarly to you, I would vote for a debunker who satisfied the editorial conditions, even though I do regard them as suffering from the most appalling narrow-mindedness that causes their first victim to be the search for truth. Did you leave CSICOP after you found out about their scandalous deception of the scientific community? MayoPaul5 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I consider "narrow-mindedness" a virtue in AfD debates. So many rebuttals to nominations focus on how much work the editor put into the article, how invaluable a resource it can be, how it surely could be expanded into something more useful, how one's background unfairly affects voting, how the article is a step in some manner of public outreach, etc. Unfortunately, AfD focuses on only two real issues: is the subject notable? Is the article verifiable? The same applies to skepticism at large, where the only question at hand is whether the claims are verifiably, unambiguously true. For anything beyond that, I imagine we ought to take it to User Talk pages ... RGTraynor
Don't get me wrong, RGT. You and I are absolutely in agreement on the value of the parameters you abide by. As described by you, they do not in my opinion comprise narrow-mindedness, but common-sense. Skepticism I have no quarrel with, in fact applaud it. Taught, skeptical arguments impress and convice me. I aspire to be that way, but do not pretend to have got there yet. It is wooliness and deception I dislike, whether from debunkers or astrologers or anyone else. MayoPaul5 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is not an argument about whether astrology "belongs" in Wiki. I don't want to join such a discussion. Forgetting whether or not you have any respect for astrology, the study of its history and considerable cultural influence is an important intellectual pursuit. In that context, Jeff Mayo was an important, highly trained British astrologer of noted integrity and influence. I had absolutely no connection with him nor have I ever met or communicated with any of his heirs or students. He wrote several fine books, some of which are still in print. His approach to astrology was singularly schematic, since Mayo was a good astronomer and insisted that astrologers understand the physical, phenomenal basis of what they do to a degree that was singular in his time. I suggest that the decision about the inclusion of such material should be left to those with serious interest in the history and technique of astrology. I have authored at least a dozen good articles in Wiki on the subject--mostly in the history of astrology--and materially revamped dozens of others, and I hope my opinion will have some weight. I see no legitimate reason to delete the article. NaySay 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such discussion is on offer or would be appropriate; astrology is a notable and longstanding field of human endeavor, perfectly appropriate for citation in an encyclopedia, regardless of any debate on its merits or accuracy. RGTraynor 19:14, 26 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!
Kotepho 08:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paul Mayo, notability problem. Article blanked by author = request to delete (author also appears to be the subject of the article.) Weak delete Mayo School of Astrology, online correspondence course, probably should be judged as WP:CORP rather than WP:SCHOOL. "School" has been around pretty long though, so weak opinion only. No "vote" on Jeff Mayo, amazon.com seems to have a couple of books published by real publishers, though have low sales ranks; I don't know if qualifies as author. Weregerbil 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote on Jeff Mayo and his school. I simply do not know enough about these and lack the time to research it - I sincerely hope that a few astrology adherents and skeptics can agree on whether they are notable. My nomination was based on who created them, which turned out to be a coincidenc e (sorry). Lundse 13:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per my discussion above, Userfy and Delete on Paul Mayo (as I believe he has already done), Keep on Jeff Mayo and the Mayo School. RGTraynor 13:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as noted above, blanked by author.Mystache 14:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original page, blacked by author; Weak keep/Expand the other two pages, some notability seems to be established. --ES2 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate Comment: Paul, please do assume good faith. I'm a skeptic and debunker, but WP is a place where both James Randi and Sylvia Browne, because of individual notability, can have articles. --ES2 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation -- Above the issue was raised if sceptics should "vote" on astrology articles, and some disagreement emerged on their ability to judge the neutrality of an article's point of view. That, however, was not the issue; the issue was notability. Indeed, people having the opinion that everything involving topic X is hogwash may not be the best positioned to judge notability, and should try to exercise a reasonable amount of restraint. Conversely, people who believe that all X is of the utmost importance might be inclined to ascribe more notability than is warranted. But I think recommendations from all sides are welcome. I'm more bothered by "votes" of people who don't investigate the issues before voting, who fail to consider earlier arguments, or who totally misapply the existing policies. LambiamTalk 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: ES2, how can I afford to assume good faith when you immediately cite a perfect example of your bias, by quoting Randi (a successful debunker) and Browne (a fairly well-demolished claimant to be psychic)? Why not quote a successful psychic to balance Randi? It would seem more even-handed. For example, what about Uri Geller, who earned his fortune by charging oil and other prospecting companies 200,000 dollars a throw for saying "x marks the spot to the nearest centimetre. Drill down at 13.52 degrees N5.2degNW for 1231 metres and you'll find the product at this specific rate of flow, this specific quantity, this specific purity"? Perhaps it was because Geller took Randi to court and won that you don't mention him? Or perhaps it is because you just can't help talking from POV, like so many of us. I would like to be able to assume good faith, but at every turn I am given good reason to remain skeptical about debunkers - especially with those that remind me about the need for good faith. MayoPaul5 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Uri Geller is famous for making the football teams he tries to crystal-psychic-leyline-boost to succes fail miserably. The oil business is based on his own claims and the trial Geller won was for "insulting" him (lets bring up Gellers other trials instead). I have never heard of a "successful psychic" (except in making money or going on tv). Lundse 11:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, quite. If there was a single verified citation of Geller's claims of oil prospecting, that might be one thing, but there never has been, other than Geller's naked word. And I admit to being disappointed; I dislike exhortations to show good faith in the same post where you mention Geller winning a lawsuit against Randi (and allowing people to draw the inference it was a suit relating to Geller's claim to psychic powers) without mentioning it concerned an incident where Randi had suggested that Geller had driven a friend to suicide. RGTraynor 11:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, I totally respect your comments. I went against policy by adding my own page - a stupid thing to do, in hindsight, easily seen as vain. Seeing this by someone else, I would have been just as suspicious (now, with a few weeks experience). It was my very first edit; I did not trouble to read the guidelines or policies, which was clearly a mistake. On this AfD project, my issue was (and remains) that with all but one voter being on either the scientific or debunking side of things, with almost zero knowledge of astrology, even if their neutrality was unquestionable they are poorly placed to know enough about the people within astrology to cast a fair vote. Nobody goes ten weeks into a part-time astrology course without hearing Jeff Mayo's name. Many thousands around the world carry his diploma as their only entitlement to belong to a professional association. To even suggest he is non-notable is crazy. In fact the proposer specifically admitted he had made a mistake, after sparking off my accusations of witch-hunt. MayoPaul5 22:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RGT: So where has Geller's fortune come from, then, if you know better? I rather thought that (sadly) money talked louder than words in this world; businesses don't pay out big money without big returns, inferring Geller's accuracy. I allowed myself to forget how you debunkers think when I made such an unsupported statement; smack my hand! You misquote me: I made no "exhortations to show good faith". That was ES2. As for Randi, one of us has got muddled. I thought the conviction of Randi was for causing the suicide of a Japanese professor, with Geller simply facilitating the prosecution. I certainly did not intend to mislead in referring to this conviction, as I never imagined that all the debunkers on this page would not know about the case. Last point: as usual the substance of my comment was ignored and brushed aside with this peripheral stuff. You may be able to fool the public with these strawman techniques, RGT, but they are wasted on me. MayoPaul5 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Geller has money does not mean his services worked. How do you make that argument? Browne has made more money than Geller, by your argument, she must be the better psychic... And I read through your post, what was the substance? That we are not showing good faith? Would that be good faith towards Geller when he claims he can find oil but has nothing to back up that claim? Towards you? In that case you have plenty of good faith, jst provide somthing more than rehearsing Gellers claims and we (I at least) am all ears. We are skeptic in these matters precisely because we have never seen anything resembling evidence. Lundse 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You thought wrong about the Randi case, PM, quite aside from that it was a civil case having nothing to do with "convictions." As far as Geller's "fortune" goes -- although, come to that, he scarcely lives in the style that someone paid vast sums by oil companies would suggest -- he was a professional performer for a couple of decades. And straw man me no straw men; if you're going to cite Geller to back up your argument, you ought to be prepared to defend your selection. So let me ask you again: what verifiable evidence to you have (other than Geller's naked word) that he ever received a dime from any oil company? RGTraynor 13:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None. Neither am I basing any argument on Geller - I know very little about him, only that he is famous for being "a psychic", whether or not one accepts that appellation. Thanks for correcting me on the Randi-Geller case, RGT. Was what I read about Randi being fined millions of dollars also wrong? As I have no interest in either Geller or Randi, I didn't take the trouble to double-check what I read. The style he lives in is not evidential surely? I know of several extremely wealthy people who live modestly in terraced houses. As for evidence to Geller's earnings source, this is getting into the patently ridiculous because a) I am not his accountant, and b) I have no interest in him, so why would I bother even looking for any such evidence? You're the one who wants to know, not me, so you find the evidence. When you find it, don't bother me with it. The only evidence that impresses me is the evidence of my own senses (as the world is undoubtedly subjective) on things that matter to me, like astrology.
But then, this view will not surprise you, as I make no pretence to be a scientist or even a pseudo-scientist, nor to abide by the rules scientists set themselves. It is safer to abide by those cautious rules, I think, but one has to draw the "evidence" line somewhere, otherwise we'd want every loaf of bread double-checked for mouse-droppings and every organic cabbage for pesticides before we ate it. I know perfectly well that my bed has dust-mites, but if I had the evidence of it I might not sleep so peacefully. Astrology works for me, it doesn't work for you. Fine, I have no problem with that, although it does raise the question of why you and your companions-in-arms hovver around astrology pages. As a matter of polite curiosity, do astrologers ever come onto your debunking pages and tell you what a load of rubbish debunking is? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical. MayoPaul5 16:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whatever you read about Randi being filed millions of dollars is quite wrong; it was a simple defamation suit based around Randi making a crack about Geller driving a friend to suicide, and the jury award was $2,000, which is pathetically small in a case of that kind. As far as evidence goes, as you will find is the near-universal case on Wikipedia, we either require sourced evidence for any assertion or for those assertions not to be made in the first place; any unsourced assertion in an article is liable to quick deletion, unless it is phrased as an unproven claim ("Many claim/hold the belief that X is true."). As far as your last question, you are assuming that I hang around either astrology or debunking pages. Neither is the case. I see no particular purpose to trolling pages devoted to pseudo-science, nor to preach to the converted in the latter instance. RGTraynor 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you report here about Geller/Randi is so different to what I read that it makes me wonder if we are talking about the same case. If we are, and if you are correct, then I have been seriously mislead. However, as I said, I have no real interest in the case, so I shall just keep my eyes open to see if confirmation or evidence surfaces either way, rather than scurrying around to find it. As for your "evidence" statement re wiki policy, I have already been made well aware of that during this past few weeks, and entirely agree with the policy, as it is plain common-sense. As for the last point, I appreciate you taking the trouble to answer the question, though it doesn't appear to me to answer the actual question I asked. MayoPaul5 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it is okay for me to add a comment - I am a user of Wikipedia but not a contributer, and I thought my perspective might be useful. Quite by chance to the above debate, I did a Google search on Jeff Mayo today (after a conversation I had at the weekend about Astrology). I am unrelated to Jeff Mayo (sic!), and not an ardent Astrology fan, but I did want to know something about Jeff Mayo and his school. The article helped, surely this is the acid-test of wikipedia... so from my perspective... please leave it up! (Rob Machin)

Keep Jeff and Mayo School. Thanks for piping in. Lundse 07:23, 5 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) 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schoen (Dutch philosopher)[edit]

Quite an elaborate and real looking article, but still a hoax none the less. There is no proof of the existance of this person.-- JoanneB 09:57, 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 no consensus, default to keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Enemy[edit]

This article provides no real encyclopedic information. A detailed description of the events in a show is not suitable for Wikipedia Wolf ODonnell 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Information unnecessary and not suitable for Wikipedia. Wolf ODonnell 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 11:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if someone can make the effort to trim it down to a shorter synopsis. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are any number of TV shows where every single episode has its own article. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a "synopsis length" criterion out there. Plainly the article could use some cleanup, but that's no reason for deletion. RGTraynor 16:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ENC. Transwiki to a Wikia site if desired. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Edgar181's suggestion. Redxiv 00:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Like edgar181, I believe the artcle can be drastically improved. If not, delete it.(11987 01:04, 5 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) 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's Copyright[edit]

Non-notable neologic term. 0 Google hits. Haakon 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - original research unless it is published and agreed to by the academic community. - Richardcavell 10:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 10:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok. I guess I will have to popularise the neologism first. Crosbie Fitch 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly how Wikipedia works; it reflects subjects that are notable. RGTraynor 16:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SCHZMO ✍ 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —999 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --DV8 2XL 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And yes, Wikipedia is used to note things that are verifiable and notable, not to make them so. — TheKMantalk 23:18, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic science fiction[edit]

Recent and non-notable neologism, coined by author of one of the two or three works that may be classified under the term. The article is mostly a paraphrase of the essay coining the word, and as such serves as somewhat of an advertisement for the works. The term gets only 330 hits on Google with pages mentioning Wikipedia removed (460 otherwise), and has no verifiable source, with the only source being an essay coining the term (the other source listed doesn't use the term at all, and was written years before the term was coined). Most of the distinctions described in the article are already described in the articles pertaining to the works. Delete Constantine Evans 10:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 10:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RLetson 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Except the author happens to be Ronald D. Moore and the main work in question is Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining). That instantly gave the term weight whether it deserved it or not. The article is crap and probably should be hacked down to a stub, but AfD is not the place for this. For what it's worth, my own Google search excluding Wikipedia came back with 1320 results. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author's notability doesn't affect the notability of the term. Per the nom, this doesn't appear to have actually carried enough weight to be included in any verifiable sources. At the current time, that means the article should be deleted, not stubbed. If the term finds greater notability later, it may be appropriate to recreate the article. --Constantine Evans 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "Although no major critics, reviews, or media publications ever made the criticisms above..." in fact, the whole topic seems to have been noticed only by fan blogs, a Wikipedia mirror, and the Moore-written BG 2003 website-for-fans where it first appeared. Not yet noted by reliable sources, so delete in full agreement with Constantine Evans. Barno 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* The entire point behind NSF is that it is a reaction to the pseudo-science technobabble in Star Trek. Once BSG started being promoted as having a "realistic scientific slant" to it, we've constantly been beating back a wave of attacks on it by scientific experts who point out how it isn't *exactly* accurate (it is a tv show)......but they ignore the entire crux of the situation, which is that it is *more* realistic than Star Trek was.--->I notice that Evans is not an Administrator, and moreover, is part of the Wikipedia Physics Project. This is just another attack on NSF by technical experts who had their ire raised when the show claimed to be scientifically realistic. In short, there is amble evidence here due to Evans prominent role in the Physics project that his call for a deletion of this article was a "politically" motivated ploy. One more outburst like this and I'm going to slap a fandom category tag onto this, rendering its criteria for existence far more loose.--Ricimer 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith here, as I've never actually seen the show. The problem here is with notability (there is hardly any use of the term) and verifiability (there are no reliable sources). The essay coining the term doesn't count as a reliable source under WP:V. The text could certainly be incorporated into one of the main BSG articles, and this would make sense, since it is what the show is trying to do. But the term is really just a non-notable neologism, and not a real subgenre, regardless of who created it. --Constantine Evans 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with the assessments that the term itself isn't widespread outside of the whole controversy surrounding the reimagined BSG. The essay by Ronald D. Moore in which he coined the term is widely based of his personal frustration regarding his tenure with Star Trek which, admittedly, at the time, was at it's worst point in it's long history regarding scriptwriting. I am not against Moore's naturalistic SF philosophy being mentioned in the article for the reimagined BSG. By all means, it should also be expanded on in Moore's own wiki article. Moore's essay is almost three years old and it hasn't caught on in common usage within the genre, other than referring to Moore and HIS Galactica. The term cyberpunk, on the other hand, was quietly coined by William Gibson without a lot of bluster. Neverthless, peers and fans still somehow caught on to the term on their own. What Moore has done is simply a variation on an existing theme: Using SF to address contemporary political and social issues. Deep Space Nine, Bablyon 5, Legend of the Galactic Heroes, Dune only to name a few that have come before. As much as I put into this article regarding some of the cons of NSF, I hate to do this, but this isn't just about any one of us editors.Mr. ATOZ 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Mr. Atoz. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; although I've contributed to this article, I reluctantly agree that it's a neologism that hasn't gained widespread use outside of Moore's essay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 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 17:36, 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 delete. Shanel § 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiporn[edit]

Seems to be an actual Wiki, so doesn't fit the CSD of nonsense, sending it to AfD. Probably needs to be deleted anyway.

  • Delete - pn. - FrancisTyers 11:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to prod this as it isn't patent nonsense. It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB either. Capitalistroadster 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandy 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 11:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Wiki. --Terence Ong 12:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WEB. Mystache 14:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. RGTraynor 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Englishgirls. Please see the discussion at Talk:Wikiporn and add any contributions before considering deletion. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: saying "per (foo)" means you agree with the comments that (foo) made and incorporate them by reference. You can't use yourself there, because you haven't made any comments to incorporate. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, websites are not notable and term 'wikiporn' has 156 Google hits. -- Mithent 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments on that talk page. No vote, pending evidence of coverage by reliable secondary sources. Leaning toward delete as just another niche interest whose influence hasn't yet become widespread. Barno 00:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "...excluding those, there are 0 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. ... There have been a total of 497 page views, and 24 page edits since the wiki was setup. ... There are 3 registered users, of which 1 (or 33.33%) are administrators." [29] (MediaWiki is a handy thing, no?) In other words, too new site to judge any notability yet, all too new! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Englishgirls. So you are saying we should delete it because "too new site to judge any notability yet". I feel you have missed the point. The article is not about any specific web site it is about "WikiPorn". I find it remarkable that one is excluded from Wikipedia because a concept is "too new" despite the fact the are several sources and web sites dedicated to it. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please do not vote twice. Second, "Do not delete" is not a vote, it's a Mark of a Newbie - please read the AfD instructions. Third, "per <your own name>" is a highly unorthodox vote to say the least. Fourth, please sign your posts properly (use ~~~~ or use the signature button on the toolbar).
      Fifth, yes, we actually do delete sites that are brand new and have not proven to be of bigger consequences. Heck, we delete older sites that have not proven to be of bigger consequences. And if your wiki says it has approximately zero articles and three users, I'd say it's rather damning evidence that the site isn't very notable yet, regardless of what hard criteria we have. We might be inclined to keep an article on a new site if it's made by some respected established party and there's some proof that it will stick around and be notable some day (think of ajaxWrite, which was quickly AfD'd). But this site doesn't appear to have any of these merits yet. Also see our notability criteria for websites - it clearly fails these. They're tough rules, but they do make sure we will see the forest for the trees.
      While you undoubtedly have noble efforts to defend other small and new sites, this particular AfD is about this particular site.
      Just for rhetorical comparison, I can take a look at my own MediaWiki installation (not a public wiki yet): 109 pages, 851 views, and 476 edits, most of these by myself - and I'd still say my own wiki is too small and too obscure, in epic proportions, to be included. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Englishgirls. I have taken the liberty to edit this page so i have changed it as per your instructions. Englishgirls--Englishgirls 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. http://www.wikiporn.org is actually quite a popular wiki and a real, valid and new concept is being developed and explored. Wikipedia = open information, wikiporn = ? jjj_uk
    • Not with an Alexa rank over one million it's not. That aside, neither original research (WP:NOR) nor neologisms (WP:NEO) qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. RGTraynor 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • jjj_uk has edited Wikipedia three times, all to this AfD, and call me paranoid but seeing them sign the article exact same way as "Barry" (Englishgirls) - compare how both eschew the signature button and use same format, [[User:Englishgirls | Barry]] and [[User:jjj_uk| jjj_uk ]] - makes me slightly suspicious. Sockpuppetry, I guess? Can anyone confirm? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's complete rubbish Wwwolf :-) How can I prove that I am a distinct user to your satisfaction? Englishgirls posted on wikiporn and by doing this drew my attention to this debate. I'll update Mediawiki when I have time but less snottiness till then please! --Jjj uk 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, so this article is about two wikis. The other one has following depressing statistics: 225 pages, 87499 page views, 1943 page edits, 69 registered users, and older-than-heaven MediaWiki version. slightly better, but in my opinion, this still isn't particularly amazing! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Does seem to meet criteria to have a Wikipedia article, however so do many other porn sites not considered worthy of Wikipedia articles. Beno1000 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can assure you all that whoever jjj_uk is, it is nothing to do with me. Judging by the initials and the reference to wikiporn.org I would suspect it is Jason Johns from London who hosts that site. We are not involved or in cohesion together in any way. I can understand your suspicions of a newbie (weren't we all at some point) however, i have been honest and open to keep this article going. I am not a dishonest person. Also, let me reiterate a point. The article is not about any particular web site. It is about "WikiPorn" --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, if you say so. Just sounded suspicious, that's all, forgive me if I went a bit overboard too early, but please also understand that sockpuppetry is a real problem in AfDs.
      Anyway, if this isn't about a specific site, there's still one thing to be decided: Is this supposed to be an article about the two currently existing wikis titled "WikiPorn", or a generic article about discussing use of wikis in documenting pornography? If latter, the term "WikiPorn" is a neologism, and the article has to be moved to some more descriptive title (and I'm not sure if we need this, as our current list of wikis does include the category, or did when I last checked it). If it is an article about wikis titled "WikiPorn", we have two sites are only marginally notable and are better off merged somewhere else, and I believe wikiindex.com is better for that sort of stuff. And I still stand by either deleting the article, or redirecting without merge, because frankly, the current article is better off completely rewritten in any case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. --MaNeMeBasat 10:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the point of neologisms/"too new", I note that Wiki is included in Wikipedia. "Here a wiki (IPA: [ˈwiː.kiː] <wee-kee> or [ˈwɪ.kiː] <wick-ey>[1]) is a type of website that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit all content, very quickly and easily, sometimes without the need for registration."

Surely "wiki" in this context is a mere blip even in terms of modern history. Pornography or "porn" for short is an ancient concept. So is the problem that "Wikiporn" is the conjuction of these two words? Even if the article is deleted I would still be interested to know your opinions. "The current article is better off completely rewritten in any case" I totally agree. I was hoping for input from other Wikipedians which is what the ethic of Wikipedia is about. I will take the article on board as my "baby" and improve it over time so that it is more educational than it currently stands. "A generic article about discussing use of wikis in documenting pornography?". I must say that I do like that statement, I couldn't have put it better myself. Yes I am hoping that it is exactly that. Several people have said to me "what's a neologism?" or "what is a wikiporn?". It gives me a great buzz to say "look it up on Wikipedia". --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The problem is two-fold. If the article is assessed on the notability of its websites, it fails: the more heavily trafficked one of the two doesn't break one million on the Alexa meter, which is seriously insignificant (WP:WEB). If on the "concept" of wikiporn, the name is a neologism (WP:NEO) and the essay original research (WP:OR). If you are genuinely looking for the input of other Wikipedians on this article, our consensus seems to be that until and unless these websites gain enough traffic and outside notice to become notable, or the concept gains widespread and verifiable (WP:V) media and/or academic attention, this subject does not qualify for an article. I appreciate that you get a kick out of having people see your article on Wikipedia, but I hope you understand that Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. RGTraynor 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK i give up. Thank you for letting me have my say but there is not much more i can add. I will leave it in your hands to be deleted or not. --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB (or as neologism if we're to buy into the author's insistance that this isn't about a particular website) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Additionally, it's a copyvio, because Wikiindex, which is where the page was taken from, is a cc-by-sa licence. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I thought, until I noted the article didn't actually have anything remotely at all to do with Wikiindex article's contents, even when it said it was retrieved from there... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikiporn, the free pornography that anybody can edit? --Rory096 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find this amazing. I am now being accused of "possible copyright infringement" for something I wrote. Are you just having a laugh at my expense? --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not a copyright infringement like most we have here, but Wikiindex is released under a Creative Commons license, not a GFDL license like we have, so we can't take it here. You have to say that you want to re-release it under the GFDL. Anyway, I'm not the one who tagged it. --Rory096 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa ranking is around 1.1mil. — TheKMantalk 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So give me some time and show some respect that i am a newbie.. I will conform to all your standards but please have some more patience. In my humble opinion i am an intelligent person who can only contribute for the good of Wikipedia. --Englishgirls --Englishgirls 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well, remember - please don't take AfDs personally. We're debating the merits of articles, not the people who write them. We have near-infinite patience with people, but very little patience with bad articles. =) AfDs happen to best of us. I assure nothing bad will happen to you personally if the article is deleted (though someone may point you toward the newbie documentation and ask you to read it). I suggest reading other articles to see how they're laid out and what kind of information goes to a good article; also read some of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, to further understand how the stuff works. I hope this AfD has been an educational experience. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 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 speedy delete as nn-bio. Turnstep 14:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Ghafarpour[edit]

Apparent self-promotion of non-notable person; the given external link did not work when I checked. Skysmith 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. PJM 11:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 --Terence Ong 13:07, 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.
This page Syed Ahmed has been histmrged with Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur), which is a new article about the same man, and I have AfD'ed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed[edit]

Doesn't qualify as CSD so bumping to AfD. Maybe merge with the TV Show page ? - FrancisTyers 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - John Hunt 30.4.06


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Anthony Castro[edit]

Doesn't qualify as CSD so bumping to AfD. - FrancisTyers 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable bio. - FrancisTyers 11:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO. Mystache 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per my original prod: nn student activist. Wickethewok 17:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apologies for nominating for CSD. DarthVader 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. --Ajdz 05:35, 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. — Apr. 29, '06 [11:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Blizzhackers[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.

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.


With Alexa rating of 157,855, fails WP:WEB despite creator's laudable intentions on talk page. Daniel Case 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: This AfD page was also vandalized, but, I think, by someone trying to get at the creator, not the creator himself, since the anon in question also vandalized the article. He's been warned.

Daniel Case 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Remember people, just like the Wiki pages on small cults who commit 30 man suicides(as extreme as an example that might be), this is for information purpous only, on the history of a site that strongly effected many of Blizzard_Entertainment's top games. Yes it was a hacking site, but it niether supports or denotes it, being unbiased, and is completely factual. Also this page is not meant to support any hacks or link to any. So far Im getting the idea that people here think its supporting it, and that being their reason for deletion. This is simply not the case. Salgat 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Diablo 2 Hacking site. Off with their heads. Grafikm_fr 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided have any of the big names posted there? any significant cheats? Kotepho 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.the phrase "such as the TPPK which enhanced dueling or player killing." is enough for an RfD. It is not enhancing, it's ruining the game. Grafikm_fr 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that phrase is not a reason for deletion. POV is not a problem that requires deletion. Also, your stance that it is ruining the game is soapboxing in the same sense. Kotepho 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common sense, not soapboxing. Anyway, the rfd was made (and not by me), we'll let the votes decide.. ^_^ Grafikm_fr 17:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been many significant big name 'hackers' posting on BH, including mousepad (of D2 maphack fame), the makers of the prolific d2hackit program, the creator(s) of d2jsp and other 'bots', and other programs that have significantly affected the game. The forum has enough history and has been home to enough various programs and people who had a major impact, for better or worse, on Blizzard's games, that it deserves some mention. If imageboards like 4chan and forum sites like SomethingAwful or LUElinks get their own articles, certainly a board that has had over 200k registered users should be permitted a mention. A small disclaimer on this rant, I do have a slight bias in favour of keeping it as I am an staff member there, but I feel that this does not detract from my points.- Flaming_cows aka -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I actually might have posted there back in the day. I don't really see this meeting WP:WEB or WP:V/WP:RS though. fhtagn Kotepho 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nn forum site - no indication that it meets WP:WEB. --Hetar 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hetar. -Objectivist-C 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see supporting comment above. -Cthulhon 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': This user's sole edits are to the article and this discussion. Daniel Case 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does that detract from my points in any way? That seems like an ad hominem attack rather than a reason to not keep the article. And for the record, I have made other edits to various articles as an anonymous contributor.--Cthulhon 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to assessing the community consensus on whether this article will be kept, the history of the contributors to this discussion is relevant. Those users who pop up in response to the discussion (usually arguing "keep") are not considered to have truly put in the time on the project that would make their opinion worthwhile, and frequently their votes are discounted or discarded altogether. This is well stated in our deletion policies, in order to avoid ballot-stuffing using sock- or meatpuppets.
That you have made edits under other IPs is ... well, that's nice. Since we have no way of verifying this as you didn't start an account until today, we can't really say one thing or the other about your credibility on that basis. As it is we have no way of knowing what your agenda is here (If you want to be taken more seriously in this sort of discussion in the future, by all means edit under your current account and build up a history). Daniel Case 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough, but I still feel that you haven't responded adequatly to any of my points and I feel that history and reputation should not be the sole factor in deciding this matter.--Cthulhon 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blizzhackers is a well known website. New users will want some information about it before using it, to make sure that the content available is trustworthy.
  • Comment Blizzhackers is far from being about 'hacking' despite the name. Its a community of relatively good, knowledgable people, and a rich source of information, on programming, graphics and general life problems. In my honest opinion, in relation to gaming, Blizzhackers is one of the more important pages on the internet. Deleting it would be a travesty - Jake aka -JsRide
  • Keep agree with supporting comments. -JsRide
Comment:This user's sole edits have been to this discussion as well. Daniel Case 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blizzhackers has been around for many years now, and has had a major impact on Blizzard Entertainments games. Many (in)famous diablo 2 hackers have posted on these forums, such as Mousepad, Netter, Rishodi, Darawk, and the like. Whether or not people agree of disgree with game hacking shouldn't really be an issue I think, as, either way, it HAS had a profound effect on the game. It has also gone through many changes, and has faced legal issues with blizzard and still come through. Also, similar groups, such as myg0t have a wiki, although blizzhackers has probably been the home to many more hack releases than it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KSagle (talk • contribs)
Above is user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a large number of users, and well known programmers. Has had a big impact on many games esp. Diablo II. - stuck_fugu aka - Nevkeet
  • Delete unless shown to meet WP:WEB. 129.81.72.204 02:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blizzhackers has been the subject of published work independant of the site. Specifically, it has been discussed on TechTV, with on of its more notable members appearing personally as a guest.--Cthulhon 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice claim, do you have a citation for that? --Hetar 03:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is the inevitable post on their forums: [30] --Hetar 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: And the last person on the thread actually took the time to look at WP:WEB and realized it didn't meet the criteria there. Daniel Case, 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See my comment on the directly above delete vote as for why I believe it does meet WP:WEB. For the record, I read over the entire page for WP:WEB as well as the other pages about deletion that I could find.--Cthulhon 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see how your assertions, assuming you provide adequate sourcing for them, meet the WP:WEB criteria. Those say nothing about whether renowned hackers hang out there, or whether it's had an impact on some company's games, or been sued, or had its creator appear on TV, have anything to do with whether it's been written about indepedently, won awards, or hostred independently of the creators. Has it been written about in the gaming press? That would help satisfy the first criterion. If I were you that's what I'd be busy looking for.
Now I just Googled on the site name. I was told there were 114,000 or so hits, but after a mere 48 or so I ran out as it told me most of what was left was similar to what I'd already seen. And most of that was stuff posted on gaming forums, which doesn't meet our sourcing standards.
So, end result, I'm not encouraged unless you can find something I didn't. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now included in Blizzhackers is a media reference to one of the members of Blizzhackers, from a reputable network, TechTV. I wish I could provide more media references in concern of the WP:WEB but I dont have the time to search this up.--Salgat 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a case for the notability of the member, not the site itself. See above. Daniel Case 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please take into consideration that since this is an Online Community, it relys soley on it's members in order to do anything. Blizzhackers has always been a host of files made by the members working together, so any effect its members had in relation to the site, that being a forum, is an effect that Blizzhackers as a community has made. --Salgat 23:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But do those people just do stuff at Blizzhackers, or elsewhere? If the former, then the credit for any impact they had goes to them and not to the site, I'm afraid. It would be like crediting the owner of the office building you work out of for your company's success. Daniel Case 03:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I believe that if sites like SomethingAwful and LUElinks can have their own Wikipedia entries, that Blizzhackers should as well. However, I'm undecided on the matter. I don't want to say that it should stay without providing any proof, but I do personally believe it should stay. It has been host to some of the greatest and most controversial hacks against Blizzard Entertainment software to-date, including having not only its owner, but more than a few notable members threatened with litigation if they did not do what Blizzard Entertainment wanted them to. As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. As a last note, I realize that I'm not a registered Wikipedia user. This is because I have never seen a need to register. I've never found any serious edits I've wanted to make to any artices, and in fact I still haven't seen a need to register. -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.216 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider Blizzhackers a community that helps develop programs through the help of eachother. Without Blizzhackers, many of the bots, including the Mephbot mentioned, would likely not exist. If anything, we can credit Blizzhackers for the works of it's members since Blizzhackers is where many of these members learned, discussed, and created their bots. An analogy could be a Blizzhacker member making a bot compared to a member or team of a University making an invention. Through the help of the University, they are able to get ideas and create this invention, and owe much credit to the University for thier aid.--Salgat 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and ask them not to take it personally. Fagstein 05:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided I am in agreement with the comments of 'lord2800' above. Throughout Wikipedia, there are several articles relating to Blizzard and their games which mention hacks and programs that have propogated on, and in some cases originated on, BlizzHackers. If you talk to any Blizzard or Vivendi employee, I seriously doubt that they would consider BlizzHackers to be "non-notable"; rather, I imagine that they would respond quite to the contrary. On the other hand, I can see that the current BlizzHackers article does not meet the WP:WEB criteria, and although I have been an active, contributing member of BlizzHackers for several years now, I cannot immediately think of a single incident that would prove its notability. It seems that the media tends to avoid mentioning sites that originated with the purpose of game hacking, and for good reason. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that on the subject of Blizzard games, and specifically hacks for these games, BlizzHackers has been one of the most popular sites, if not the most popular site, for the duration of its existence. I would like to add, before someone else points out this fact for me, that this is indeed my first edit as a registered user. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time, but it had not until now come to my attention that I even had the option to register as a user here. If this article does stay, someone needs to take the time to improve it greatly. Rishodi 08:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omnibus response to above and other comments: I would first like to take the time to thank the supporters of a Blizzhackers article for remaining civil and keeping their cool; given the way deletion discussions often shake out when people start coming to them from other sites this restraint is admirable and deserves commendation here. It augurs strongly in favor of an unprejudiced deletion.
But I still do not see this site as having met the criteria. Bottom line for me (and, I think, other long-time editors here) is that we need to see some media coverage.
I am struck in favor of notability by the lawsuit Blizzard filed against the original site that shut it down for some time, which many of you have pointed to. This does not seem like a common occurrence to me, even though I am not really plugged into the gaming community. Is there coverage of this lawsuit somewhere? Where were the legal papers filed? Are they accessible online? If I get more detail on this and it is reflected in the original article, I might well be persuaded to change my vote and withdraw the nom as long as other veteran editors are satisfied. Daniel Case 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I have a feeling that legal papers were never filed, as Robert Laverick(the current owner of the site) settled out of court and before any legal procedings were attempted. Lawyers flew over to his home, showed up at his doorstep, threatened to sue, and he cooperated(which lead ultimately, but not directly, to a 5-month downtime). I'll see if I can find any non-trivial information about the potential lawsuit, though. Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the civility, I think the fact that this is Wikipedia has scared away most of the newbies from making edits(or they haven't figured out how, heh). -lord2800 -- 67.134.133.205 18:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. Something like that of course cannot be verified unless Mr. Laverick has written about for some reliable source. It seemed so promising. Daniel Case 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read all the above comments and agree with them for the most part. I think Blizzhackers is a very important part of video game culture both online and off. It has had an impact on not only Blizzard Entertainment, but on those who play the games with Blizzard produced. I am willing to bet that a large majority (At least in 2002-2004) of Diablo 2 players have heard and about and maybe even visited Blizzhackers.com. Most everyone has been affected by Blizzhackers' members and their game-altering hacks and bots. This hacking was so widespread that it started to get the attention of real-world companies. The cable network TechTV even aired a edpisode of "The Screensavers" which interviewed the notorious Syadasti, a member of Blizzhackers. On the show, he demonstrates his MephBot, Tetris and other D2Hackit modules and makes reference to Blizzhackers.com. A copy of this clip can be found on TechTV's website: http://www.g4tv.com/screensavers/features/41040/Play_Tetris_Within_Diablo_II.html Surley this mention alone constitutes a place on Wikipedia. -Clark3934 00:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's first contribution. Fagstein 01:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I basically created the entries on Rush_(band) and its related articles, mind you. I have had this account since 2003 and have made numerous edits as an unnamed contributor. -Clark3934 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should consider having your edits reassigned. Fagstein 03:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As of now, unremarkable article and organization. Not notable. Gold Stur 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The TechTv clip basically makes it meet WP:WEB, barely. JoshuaZ 07:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 10:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Almost too close to call, but just falls short of sufficient notability for an article. Some influence in regards to World of Warcraft and Diablo 2 but I don't see how its affected the gaming community in a profound manner as some have claimed. A split decision if you will, but still standing by delete.--Cini 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Added another reference of EoN/Blizzhackers from a reputable website. So far thats 2 reputable references to Blizzhackers, which means it meets the requirements.--Salgat 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nerdy, perhaps, but whether it is "cruft" depends solely on your viewpoint. You might want to check out articles such as Fhqwhgads or Alt.fan.warlord, which have been allowed to stay despite being, in my opinion, just as "nerdy" and "crufty" as the subject of this article, if not more so. Believe it or not, these types of things have achieved mass popularity within certain communities. Rishodi 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable calling something nerdcruft is rude Yuckfoo 04:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I(well, not me, but it was provided to me) found a Slashdot article where Blizzhackers(Edge of Nowhere) is explicitly linked to in the article text. Hope this helps in deciding whether or not this should be deleted. Also, to note, if the article is kept, users who have more knowledge about the website will be the primary users contributing. The current article is very poorly done because it was pretty much just plopped together before any of the site staff had any chance to have input. -lord2800 67.134.133.216 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the entire text of the abovementioned Slashdot "article" so linked: "Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Jul 19, '05 11:11 AM from the only-a-matter-of-time dept. Over the course of this morning several people have sent me tidbits talking about an exploit on WoW that allows duping of items. Apparently forum posts are being removed on official channels, but there are a few places where you can learn about the exploit and see screenshot evidence. In equally exciting news, my Rogue on Azjol-nerub is probably 2 hours away from 60 and since Blizzard will undoubtedly fix this bug soon, I'll have to finance my epic mount the old fashioned way!" The italicized section is the link to the Blizzhackers' forum. Several of these psuedononymous tidbits get linked per day. I'll leave it to you folks whether the above, in your opinion, constitutes significant media coverage. RGTraynor 15:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the article, that link was added as a reference a few days ago, so you're just a bit late. Have you looked at the most recent version of the article? There is obviously a lot of room for improvement, but nevertheless it's currently much better than it was originally. Rishodi 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Thryduulf 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now going with Keep per TechTV clip and Slashdot article. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Delete per RGTRaynor. JoshuaZ 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. meets WP:WEB, I suppose. Mystache 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 48 unique G-hits? A poor Alexa ranking? Sounds like the assertions of how much of a giant in gaming this group is are badly inflated. Beyond which, it does not meet WP:WEB on the strength of that article. If people follow the link to the article, you'll see it was just a citation of a gamecheat linking to the original finding. To quote from WP:WEB - "This criterion excludes: Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." This is trivial content, folks. RGTraynor 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor --Astrokey44 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Nearly notable by google hits, but not by Alexa. bikeable (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to the above: You apparently did not read all of the information on this page, or did not believe it. I quote: As far as Alexa ratings and traffic reports go, please bear in mind that the website was on a 5+ month hiatus when Blizzard attempted to take the site down due to WoW server emulation. Alexa rankings at this point mean next to nothing to the notability of the site. Also to note, if you do a Google search of the website's new name, Edge of Nowhere(using the search query "Edge of Nowhere forum", to remove the invalid results relating to various other things), you come up with 4,720,000 results. Blizzhackers reached its peak just before Blizzard threatened legal action and the site was taken offline. Since then, its popularity as the respawned "Edge of Nowhere" has never been close to what it used to be. I encourage you all to look at Alexa's daily traffic rate graph which spans the 5-year existence of the site. As you can clearly see, in early 2005 the site had a peak daily traffic rank of under the 10,000 mark and was on a steady incline. You can also note on the graph the point at which the site was shut down, and the relatively poor traffic rankings after that point. I hope some of you reconsider, or at least make a delete vote based on better criteria than Alexa ratings, as I have shown the current ranking of 149,905 to be a false indicator of lack of notability. Rishodi 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Beats me where you got nearly five million results from Googling "Edge of Nowhere forum"; I got three unique hits from the same. [31] RGTraynor 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, "Edge of Nowhere" forum gets 75,000, but many many of these are unrelated. it's really hard to tell. it does appear pretty close to googlish notability, which is why I voted "weak delete". "Blizzhackers" is a more unique word, and actually has quite a few hits... I may have to reconsider, although it takes a lot for a gaming forums page to achieve notability in my book. bikeable (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decent Alexa traffic suggests that a site is active, but no one who's actually looked at the forum would deny that; they've many registered users and many posts. The problem is that these folks' claim to notability is in significantly impacting the gaming world, and I just haven't seen any genuine evidence of that. I want slightly more than a handful of unique G-hits and a fleeting link on a Slashdot gamers' newswire. RGTraynor 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By nature online fora have many more google hits, so the level of google hits that could argue for notability increases. See Cruft multiple. JoshuaZ 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- with comment: it's not because Wikipedia has articles about similar and perhaps even less notable sites that this should just get a free pass. There will alway be a (too great) number of articles here that really shouldn't be, but that should not be justification to add more of them -- Hirudo 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as barely notable —porges(talk) 03:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- based on above posts, IMHO there is an insufficient consensus for deletion once the Cabal-ist votes (based on the simple premise that ordinary people should not get a mention on Wiki) are given their due weight -- Disguised pseudonym
  • Delete. Tiny, irrelevant self-aggrandising web community, apparently consisting entirely of ballot stuffers. Terminate with extreme prejudice. -- GWO
  • Comment. Unfortunately thus far most of these comments people have made have been because of ignorence or prejudice. The ract remains that Blizzhackers has been referenced by multiple reputable media sources, has over 100,000 members with millions of posts, and has legal history with Blizzard Entertainment. You would think these facts would be suffice for being in Wikipedia. And to all you who state about the Alexa Rating or the importance, please do some research before you post, ignorence doesn't help. And do you have any reason to state why this is "self-aggrandising"? And if even it was for promotional reasons, does that subtract from the fulfilled requirements Blizzhackers has provided(not to state that it is)?. And yes, if you feel that this is a ballot stuffing effort, ignore the amount of posts and just look at the content and reasons of each comment, whic is what really matters. See here for how "small" Edge of Nowhere, formerly Blizzhackers, really is. http://www.big-boards.com/board/351/-- Salgat
  • Delete group-vanity, fails WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. The media section is pathetic, and there's no way it gets around WP:V or WP:NOR, let alone WP:WEB. Melchoir 07:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unoriginal Videos[edit]

nn; 25 distinct google hits; nothing links to article Amcfreely 22:42, 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!
Thryduulf 12:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WEB. Mystache 13:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uninspiring. Hrm. There are FOUR hits on Google UK. No one's ever heard of this. RGTraynor 15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rank of 18,335 isn't as bad as I thought it would be, but it's not good enough either. -- Mithent 18:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough and advertising. --Arm 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQuest Dual Screen Tutor[edit]

Was listed as a speedy delete for being a hoax, but "hoax" is not a speedy criterion and no evidence of a hoax provided so sent here instead, No vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most hits appear to be Wikipedia content. Delete. Fagstein 06:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right REDVERS. Keep FE411 23:21, 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!
Thryduulf 12:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fagstein. RGTraynor 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know it is a hoax. I emailed nintendo and they confirmed it as a hoax. Also, like Fagstien said, 90% of all the links are Mirrors.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:29, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London street skates[edit]

Prodded as unencyclopaedia material, ... little more than a collection of ephemeral information and links to external sites then deprodded on grounds that seems like a reasonable topic) so bringing to AfD for fuller consensus. Eusebeus 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Cant really justify deleting it. Mystache 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; can't really justify keeping it. On what grounds is this cruft encyclopedic? RGTraynor 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded it, so, "seems like little more than a collection of ephemeral information and links to external sites". I must declare an interest: I'm involved with the LFNS site it links to Daniel Barlow 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Websites linked from the article indicate "200 to 800" people show up for a typical event. Pretty impressive for a rollerskate around the park, but a pretty small subculture in the grand scheme of things. Articles about recreational activities that anyone can do should really be about what rather than who and when. — AKADriver ☎ 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. San Saba 02:15, 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 19:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neu Magazine[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a magazine that's yet to print its first issue. Advertising and non-notability. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom + cyrstalballism. PJM 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a directory or a crystal ball. Mystache 13:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. RGTraynor 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —999 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is always the possibility that this subject could become notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it at least needs to have a magazine issue out first. — TheKMantalk 23:24, 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 move to Apollo Creed. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Creed (Character)[edit]

Prodded as Non-notable minor character from a notable film. Apollo Creed already redirects to Rocky, as it should deprodded as disagree with deletion. Please use regular WP:AFD process so we're bringing it to AfD. We probably do not need lengthy synoptic treatments of characters in Rocky, which has extensive detail as it is; however, the article has been the subject of considerable work. I would suggest a merge, but it is basically a narrative plot summary. Eusebeus 12:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Needless disambig. Mystache 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. Mystache 14:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful info into Rocky. I do not object to redirecting it to Rocky. PJM 13:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Notable character of a notable movie.davidzuccaro 13:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Apollo Creed. I struggle to call Apollo Creed a minor character. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Apollo Creed. As with Jeff, I have a hard time wrapping my head around calling the co-star in three blockbuster movies a "minor" character. RGTraynor 14:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo Creed currently redirects to Rocky, so are you suggesting that the existing redirect be removed and this content be inserted? Eusebeus 17:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's wxactly what I was saying.--badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's not a real person. Brian G. Crawford 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Neither is any fictional character; what does that have to do with notability criteria? RGTraynor 15:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Apollo Creed.--Isotope23 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moveper everybody else. Apollo Creed is NOT a minor character in the Rocky series. Pat Payne 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Apollo Creed. Notable character from notable films. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above. 23skidoo 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Apollo Creed, he's hardly a minor character. Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Move to Apollo Creed, notable film character. --Mhking 22:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above, and then clean it up so it doesn't read like a lunchroom conversation. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 11:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup Apollo Creed is absolutely not a minor character in the Rocky movies. The article looks a mess so it needs some structure. It should be kept though. DanielZimmerman 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Apollo Creed, do not delete. (full disclosure: I was the one who deprodded this.) Calwatch 03:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename appropriately; there's no ambiguity over the name, to my knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge per the growing consensus. He's not a minor character any more than Gandalf is in a few LOTR films. Heck, we also have virtually every Pokemon thingy with an article. Carlossuarez46 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete it if you like. Noone will know once you've deleted them all. -- Crapbiscuit 23:21, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpmysnack.com[edit]

This site was marked as uncontested delete. I consider it meets the criterea in Wikipedia:Notability (web) so I would contest it. National media coverage on TV, radio and newspaper makes it notable within the UK, if not in the USA. I should point out I am not affiliated in any way with the site, I just thought it needed an article. It's a common topic of conversation in the UK. akaDruid 13:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I suppose being covered by metro makes you a somebody. Mystache 13:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom (!) but note that you don't need to AfD an article on prod; just eliminate the prod and assert notability in the article. --Craig Stuntz 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two significant news references. -- Mithent 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:WEB. — TheKMantalk 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carry The Duck[edit]

Originally a Portuguese-language webcomic, some of its strips have been translated into English and German. It doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. The article was originally by User:Joatan, who appears to be the webcomic's author, and the text is directly from the webcomic's site. It's always difficult to judge foreign-language subjects, which is why I'll let you do your own Google, etc. searches instead of linking mine, but I can't find much reference to it outside of its own site and Wikipedia itself. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really is originally a Portuguese-language webcomic, but has a lot of material in English and German, not only strips, but cartoons and specials. It is more popular in portuguese (Pagando O Pato) then other languages, for sure, but I still consider it as a multi-language webcomic, that is why I listed in the webcomics page. I'm trying to "code" it as Wikipedia way, but it seems to be quite complicated. I did some changes, but if you wanna help me on it, you'll be welcome. []s – Joatan Preis Dutra

  • At this time, I believe Comixpedia would be a better place for this than Wikipedia. It has a more definitive listing of webcomics and doesn't have the same policies against creators contributing to articles on their own works that we do. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that this is better suited for Comixpedia. -- Dragonfiend 01:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I am impressed that the author just hasn't resorted to flaming the nominator. How do you do that Abe? - Hahnchen 23:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I don't like to "fight". If the majority will choose to delete, what more can I do? I just think that the text is quite the same to "about us" from the original webiste. So, could be anyone writing the same article... []s – Joatan Preis Dutra
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: With the only issue here being 'indiscriminate information', this comes purely down to numbers, so here goes:

  • Keep all: 11
  • Keep Way of the Weasel, Joy of Work, Dilbert Future and Dogbert's Handbook, delete others: 5
  • Merge: 10
  • Delete all: 5
  • Norway: Nul points

Result: keep WotW, JoW, DF and DH, no consensus for deletion or merge of the rest. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons[edit]

We most definitely do not need individual entries for each Dilbert book, especially when each article's description is extremely anemic. Delete. It's extremely excessive cruft. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am taking a long wikibreak effective yesterday. If this means that this vote should be withdrawn, please consider it withdrawn. However, I will not be around to address its results either way. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: This article for deletion vote includes, as a group nomination, the following articles, because of the same reason -- we do not need individual pages for every single Dilbert publication that came out:

— WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was. Well-selling books from a noteworthy comic strip is far less trivial by comparison. RGTraynor 14:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the time, I'd go through and do the Pokemon, too. Unfortunately, even with the expedited process, I'd be here from dawn 'til doomsday. Besides, "we let it go in other areas" is not really a defense to claims of non-notability. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least those articles are unique. These articles all appear to be copies of each other, with one sentence specifically related to the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantine Evans (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into an article about all Dillbert books, perhaps? Otherwise Neutral. Mystache 15:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an entertainment guide...yet. Brian G. Crawford 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment based on the level of pokemon-cruft around here I'd be inclined to disagree. We are already through the looking glass.--Isotope23 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dilbert books (or keep) --Astrokey44 17:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't mind it being merged, but I don't think we have to force it. Just go ahead and merge it if you want it merged. Mangojuicetalk 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: it appears that the only unique content on each page is a single sentence. The rest is just boilerplate. --Constantine Evans 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge) per Mangojuice. Deleting such a huge list of articles about notable books requires better grounds than "they're short." --Craig Stuntz 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point — they're not notable books or articles. Not because they're Dilbert, but because each book in and of itself isn't significantly notable to warrant its own article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines for books are here. They are not clearly non-notable by these guidelines. What you say about individual notability is a decent argument for merge but not for delete in my opinion. --Craig Stuntz 18:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have a seperate article for every Garfield book. Individual books such as these aren't terribly notable by themselves. Seperate character articles are another thing entirely, because individual characters (and individual Pokemon, for that matter) can easily be referenced in other contexts. --Several Times 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of it into a List of Dilbert books article, but be careful to keep the business books separate from the ones which are just complications of comic strips (I was considering voting Keep on those, but perhaps not). -- Mithent 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't tell if this is an error or not but The Dilbert Principle doesn't seem to have made the list, even though some of the other business books did. Criticism of the articles as identical copies with only one sentence differing does not appear to be accurate regarding the business book articles. --Craig Stuntz 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, do not merge. Notable books by a notable author surrounding one of the most popular comics ever. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. These books are actually quite well-known. The others I'm leaning a little toward Delete. æle ✆ 2006-04-27t20:06z
  • Keep - verifiable, plus, multiple listings are obnoxious. For great justice. 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mobile phone, my desk calendar, and my Nissan Stainless NCI-1000 French-Press Coffeemaker/Thermos on my desk in front of me are all verifiable, but they're not worth articles, either. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not. At least, not in the sense of the WP policy. Please read it. For great justice. 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"For great justice" is right that the stuff on Calton's desk isnot worthy of an article. But Calton does raise a legitimate point. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia, as "For great justice" seems to suggest. Wikipedia policy makes that clear. HistoryBA 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two definitions of verifiability here. The common 'folk' definition, of 'everything I can see', and the WP policy definition, which specifically excludes things like Calton's desk coffee maker. WP:V is specific in pointing out that only things that are verified by credible sources are to be included. The 'my coffee maker' agrgument is bogus here because it is not verifiable in the WP policy sense of the word. For great justice. 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. I am saying that verifiablity alone does not justify inclusion. There are all sorts facts that are verifiable by Wikipedia standards but do not get included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that verifiability is just one thresholds that information must clear before being included. It must also be significant. HistoryBA 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. 'Significance' is a terrible concept for an encyclopedia. Art history is significant to me, but not to others, local history is significant to historians, not to scientists. Nuclear physics is significant to some, not to others. Pop culture is signficant to students of pop culture, not to clasicists. That's why verifiability is the gold standard. For great justice. 21:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than significance, how about notable? I don't think there can be much argument that Dilbert is notable; the question is if each individual compilation of strips is so notable, on its own merits, as to require an individual entry. Given the stubbiness of the articles in question, I'd hazard a guess that the answer at this point is no. Thus, my vote to merge 'em all into a list. If at some future date, someone discovers the Dilbert Code in one of them, then by all means spin it out into an article. Until then, the fragmentation of our knowledge of Dilbert compilations into twenty-three four-sentence-long pages doesn't serve anyone. Eron 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Notable' suffers from all the same fatal flaws as 'significance', but I agree that Dilbert should stay, because it is 'verifiable'. Merging to a list is perfectly sane, but does not need AFD permission. For great justice. 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly retract "significant" from my edit below, and substitute "notable." If "For great justice" disagrees, he/she should take up the matter on Wikipedia policy pages, not here. HistoryBA 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, except that there are no policy pages on notability, because .... wait for it.... Notability is NOT POLICY! For great justice. 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." That's Wikipedia policy. HistoryBA 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, third time lucky, you've found something that is, actually, part of Wikipedia policy, and is so vague that it could mean litterally anything. Thankfully, there's nothing indiscriminate about a cataloguing of books. The section you are reffering to (as you would know if you had read it) says nothing about books. Thanks for playing though, better luck next time! For great justice. 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking about Wikipedia policy, you may wish to check Wikipedia:Civility. HistoryBA 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on! I've been very patient with you! For great justice. 23:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per RGTraynor and Badlydrawnjeff, and because for the majority of the articles there's considerable potential for including notable facts (e.g.: "this collection includes the strip that introduces Asok," "Catbert is named for the first time in this book," etc.) --phh (t/c) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those are, to put it mildly, notable facts. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. --phh (t/c) 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or maybe Merge with Pokemon or something. I don't really care, but I don't see any reason to delete it -- it's a pretty well known strip, the books are pretty popular, its not like the articles are need major cleanup, etc. Merging them all into one article would be OK too. Herostratus 21:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Ardenn 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pokemon isn't notable. Ardenn 22:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides the fact that notability is not deletion policy, I don't know what you can possibly mean by that. Pokemon is verifiable, thoroughly referenced, extremely popular, can be written about neutrally etc. What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? All you mean is 'I don't like Pokemon'. For great justice. 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the difference between you saying that and me saying 'Mozart is not notable'? Given the effect of Mozart on the world of music and culture -- and the world in general, I'd call that statement -- and I'm being charitable here -- utterly and objectively wrong. And given that notability is a requirement for GETTING an article in the first place, it's absurd to wikilawyer about their lack of explicit mention in deletion policy. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what, apart from 'it's obvious', is the difference? It's the number of fans? The 'effect'? What 'effect?' I'd venture to argue that the number of Mozart fans is not an order of magnitude different to the number of Pokemon fans. Sure, Mozart was a dead white guy, and, as such, has a historical head start, but I'm not sure of your point. And pointing out that your assertion has no support in policy (you're wrong by the way that notability is a policy criteria for articles) is not 'wikilawyering'. For great justice. 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • W.A. Mozart was a live white guy when he performed the actions for which he is notable, and he was a live white guy when he first became notable by WP's standards. "Number of fans" of a topic is a measure only of shallow but broad notability. Another inclusion standard worth considering is whether there was a substantial and enduring influence on that field. Hundreds of reputable books cite Mozart as one of the most influential composers in the history of music. Pokemon merely entertained hundreds of millions of kids and led to a few imitators. Is each individual Dilbert collection noted in reliable sources for more than "being popular"? (By comparison, there are citations for The Dilbert Principle being discussed by major magazines, and being required reading in university courses, as being an unusual source of influence on the business world.) 209.2.145.43 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Mozart was alive, and that he is verifiable, and that it is verifiable that he had a substantial impact on his field. It is also pretty obvious that Pokemon has had a substantial impact on its field. Hundreds of books cite Pokemon as one of the most influential phenomena in computer games and card trading games. Mozart, ultimately, 'merely entertained hundreds of millions' of people and led to a few imitators. It is simply a question of 'what I like'. You like Mozart, but not Pokemon. A lot of people share your point of view, while many do not. The mark of maturity however, is being able to differentiate 'what you like' from 'what should go into an encyclopedia. That's what 'verifiability' is for. For great justice. 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Mhking 22:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to List of Dilbert books (per WP:FICT), but divide that into separate sections for comics-compilations and business-discussion books. The vast majority of what phh asserts could be added to make these less boilerplate is trivia, not encyclopedic, and would fail the "hundred year test". The few items of any significance to Dilbert's influence on society could easily be put into the merged list or into the parent Dilbert article; it doesn't help to have them scattered twenty places. Barno 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook. The rest are cutter-cookie, unexpandable stubs about comic strip collections. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the following: Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, The Joy of Work, The Dilbert Future, and Dogbert's Top Secret Management Handbook per Calton. Most of the others consist of repeating the same information, such as the fact that the book's genre is humour, its price in the UK, and re-identifying the same characters who appear in each book. --Metropolitan90 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as Metropolitan90. The collections should go; the (pseudo-)management books should stay. See List of published collections of Doonesbury for a sane way to keep the former. -- GWO
  • Delete -- These titles can be listed (with a brief description, if necessary) on the main Dilbert page. There's nothing to justify giving them their own entries. A user above says, "C'mon, we have every single damn Pokemon monster and every damn weapon system in Gundam there ever was." I would respond that problems in one section of Wikipedia do not justify bad decisions elsewhere. HistoryBA 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Dilbert Books. Eron 15:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the comic books to List of Dilbert Comic Books. One or two lines can be added for each book, e.g., "First appearance of Ratbert," "Shift from Dilbert's homelife to office setting," etc. As a Dilbert fan, I would find it more useful to have this information collected in one place. Maestlin 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all. Sure, some are short, but are we running out of pages on Wikipedia? Does one large page versus 25 small ones really make Wikipedia a better place?Turnstep 19:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want them kept, try and make them better. Too many of these pages describe the "plot" of the book as follows:
It features around the stories of;
*Dilbert, The main character and engineer. 

*Dogbert, Dilbert's pet. 

*Asok, An intern. 

*Wally, Dilbert's co-worker. 

*Alice, Dilbert's co-worker. 

*The Pointy Haired Boss, The boss. 

*Catbert, The Evil Director of Human Resources. 

and many more.

--Metropolitan90 03:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Maestlin. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into a single article. --Polaron 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all. We do not need a separate article on each book. Hbdragon88 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We already have a list of these books at Dilbert#Comic strip compilations with dates. First appearance dates should be in each character's article (see Category:Dilbert characters). æle ✆ 2006-04-30t12:09z
  • Keep all, well-circulated books from a very popular author. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can tell, the argument for "keep" goes something like this: Dilbert is well-known, and having separate articles for each book doesn't hurt anything. But does it add anything to Wikipedia? Anything at all? I say it actually does hurt by contributing to Wikipedia's image as a collection of trivial information. To people who think it enhances Wikipedia: will you please help me understand why? Maestlin 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that we neccessarily think the articles enhance Wikipedia; it's more that we think the articles could enhance Wikipedia. Forcing them to be deleted removes that potential, and for what? They're verifiable and NPOV, and this is not a violation of WP:NOT, which are the only relevant policies. These are encyclopedic topics: they're books, some very popular, of a popular series, and people might be interested in learning more about them. Mangojuicetalk 11:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't clear--my fault. How could the articles enhance Wikipedia? In theory, what sort of information still awaits addition? It seems to me the content of each article individually is marginal, but to collect them all in one place would allow readers to see how the series developed over time. I enjoy Dilbert, and that would be useful to me. Right now I would have to go to lots of almost-identical articles for that information. This is not a rhetorical question and I am not trying to cause trouble, I just feel that the "keep" people are seeing something I am missing. Maestlin 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what specifically could be said, but I don't know that much about the books. I dunno, maybe a discussion of the running jokes in each book, or some of the longer-term plots that occur, or reaction from fans, may get them to a point where a list would be ungainly. Let me say that I personally would approve of merging them all into a single article, at least as they stand now, for exactly the reasons you say. However, I have a problem with voting "merge" on AfD unless it's a judgement that the topic doesn't deserve an article: otherwise, we should not be mandating it via process. AfD is a bad way to improve the quality of articles. Mangojuicetalk 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Surely there is cleanup to be done (although not a great deal), but just as surely is each book individually notable, even as each may, at the moment, have only a stub (for an explication, see here, where I supported "delete" for a poorly-constructed article apropos of the Dave Barry volume Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week but where a consensus later developed for "keep" in view of the article's having taken on a form not dissimilar from that of this article. Joe 16:43, 5 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 19:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born Without a Face (2007 film)[edit]

I believe this article to be a hoax created by a user with a track record for adding bogus information. I can find no evidence anywhere that this film is even in development, let alone production. It is massively unlikely that a film produced by Ron Howard and carrying an X-Men short would slip under the radar like this. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have made no mention of this. Rje 14:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V as it seems non-verifiable.--blue520 15:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. [32]. PJM 16:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No X-Men short/imdb page
  • Delete. To quote the below AFD, "bullshido". 23skidoo 21:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign it exists. --Ajdz 05:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, possible hoax, crystal-ballery at best. — TheKMantalk 23:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block of comments was left by one user, Krabs514 (talk • contribs). The user is also the author of the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep possible, but could be released in 2008
  • Keep it was mentioned in the Weekend Top 30 after the #24 song, but could be possible rumor
  • Keep maybe there is a film
  • Keep Not a hoax, heard it on the radio
  • Keep A teaser trailer of the film is expected to play before X-Men: The Last Stand
  • Keep I agree, I heard it, too
  • Keep The film is cuttently in production, but no word on the statis of filming
  • Delete Most likely a hoax article. Author is using sockpuppets to insert dubious info into articles. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:42, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido.net[edit]

Completing the listing of this page here after a DRV requested undeletion and relisting. No vote. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a serious outfit that's received play in the martial arts press. RGTraynor 16:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment can you source that claim? I see exactly 1 Google hit. That doesn't really seem to indicate Bullshido.net meets the WP:WEB criteria, but if you have sources that it does I'd be inclined to consider them before rendering an opinion.--Isotope23 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How did you manage one G-hit? I get something like 59,000. [33]. RGTraynor 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Isotope Please consult the David Race Bannon article for how a member of Bullshido contributed evidence against a criminal impersonator that had fooled NPR - National Public Radio, and a number of other institutions before being arrested. That is an example of how a Bullshido investigation had a notable impact. Please also see the Ashida Kim article to see an example of notability. --Scb steve 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm heavily disinclined to consider evidence from other wikipedia articles as sources per WP:WEB, though searching on David Race Bannon might be useful for finding press citations that would satisfy WP:WEB. I'm still investigating.--Isotope23 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment watch out for counting Ghits when you search on what looks like a specific site; Google only ever returns a single hit when it thinks you're searching for a URL. For instance, Yahoo! only gets one hit. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, that would be why I got one hit.--Isotope23 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge- bullshido.net (the web site) is already mentioned in the Bullshido article (which may itself be merged with McDojo) and the description there can be expanded if appropriate. Bullshido.net, about the site rather than the concept, appears to be mostly an advertising or vanity article. The bullshido.net site has Alexa rank 66,275 and only a dozen or so inbound Google link hits (but see below) that are not from bullshido.net itself or from Wikipedia (search) and no other claims of notability (such as cites to print media) have been made. The person pressing hardest for non-deletion (User:Scb steve) is one of bullshido.net's site ops per his user page. See: WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer for the phenomenon. Phr 16:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment On big-boards.com, Bullshido.net is second only to sherdog.net as a top martial arts site, sherdog being the top website for MMA-related content, whereas Bullshido is a more comprehensive website that not only has forums, but also generates content, particularly through investigations. This website and this article is written in the same format and is akin to the SomethingAwful article on Wikipedia. The claim to notability has been made above concerning the involvement of a Bullshido.net member (Samuel Browning) in investigating David Race Bannon.
Regarding the issue of the bullshido.net article being sufficiently different from the bullshido as a concept article, this is also similar to SA's separate articles on the website and its forums[34]. The concept of Bullshido was popularized by the website, but enjoys common usage among other communities and practitioners of martial arts. The article is in response to that already popular concept. The claim by Phr that "Bullshido.net is sufficiently mentioned in the Bullshido article" is not true, as I see it. The website appears only twice in that article: A casual reference on where the term came from in "Origin of the Term/Concept", and an external link.
As mentioned, I think it's reasonable to expand that part of the Bullshido article to say more about the web site. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are claims that this is a "vanity" or "advertising" article, then I respectfully request that it be explained how Newgrounds, Ebaumsworld, or Slashdot articles are structured to not be "vanity" or "advertising." so that the Bullshido.net article can be rewritten to comply. --Scb steve 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only slightly a matter of how the article is structured. It's mainly a matter of why anyone wants the article there in the first place. Please spend 20 seconds privately asking yourself why it matters to you whether the article is there, then see item #1 of this list and see if it applies. It also points towards vanity if the main authors of the article are associated with the site (see WP:AUTO for a related concept). To pick just one of your other examples, Slashdot has been edited by 269 distinct registered users [35] vs 3 for bullshido.net, and the Slashdot editors' motivation is to document a site that's definitely notable (314,000 Google inlinks vs. 78 (most of them internal) for bullshido.net, Alexa rank 304 vs. 66,275 for bullshido.net), while your motivation for pressing for bullshido.net's inclusion seems to be to increase the site's notoriety, something Slashdot does not need. Obviously, if Bullshido.net gets its traffic levels anywhere near Slashdot's, the question will become different and can be revisited at that time. Wikipedia features sites after they achieve notability, not before. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. The Bullshido article is the more questionable one; the term comes from the Website, so this one is the more general page. Bullshido.net is one of the most actively read web forums out there: [36] and one of the top two martial-arts related forums: [37]. Plus, it's not just a forum. I see no effort has been made to ask for {{cleanup}} on the article, so I think deletion is premature. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to MangoJuice Wikipedia has an article on both the website Slashdot and the "Slashdot Effect."[38]. Despite the fact that the general phenomenon of a popular site linking to and overloading another website is called "traffic overload", Wikipedia maintains an article page on the specific phenomenon of Slashdot overloading pages - "Slashdot Effect." I believe that this is similar to what Bullshido and Bullshido.net exemplifies: A notable website, and a concept that may have been popularized by the website, but is notable enough to stand on its own. --Scb steve 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are also multiple articles related to Google and Microsoft. When bullshido.net has as much traffic as those sites, then it, too, will probably have multiple articles. That is: after, not before. The notion that bullshido.net is presently comparable to Slashdot is simply a ridiculous conceit and I wish you'd stop using it since it is probably hurting your cause. Phr 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve: of course, we're not debating deletion of Bullshido here, so it doesn't really matter. I'll bring this to Talk:Bullshido. Mangojuicetalk 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor. I'll see if I can dig up some sources for that. — AKADriver ☎ 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously, for what it's worth. Bullshido.net is the largest and most active general Martial Arts community on the Internet according to both Big-Boards.com and Alexa.com. --Phrost 06:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per User:Phrost, user is also a co-founder and site director of bullshido.net (disclosure of interest). Contrib history is mostly related to Bullshido articles. Phr 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. But, then, I would say that, becasue I read the Deletion Review commentary. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Comment How seriously should this big-boards.com stuff be taken? Should WP:WEB be updated to mention it? Right now, it's not mentioned there; I'm far from convinced that it should be, but am at least slightly open to the idea. Per Rgtraynor above, there are a fair number (about 60k) of Google hits on "bullshido.net", which is probably more significant than the very low number of in-links. Whether that number reaches notability, I don't know. Phr 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ranks at bigboards, and DRV comments. The site also seems pretty lively, so this isn't your neighbour's 10-user forum. And I think the article is pretty good - though it may need some cleanup, but AfD isn't the place for cleanup anyway. (Full disclosure: I'm a member of the forum, though I don't think I have made more than 10-20 posts there, mostly Wikipedia-related, I think... I'm definitely more of a WP editor than Bullshido member =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on 60k Google hits that appear fairly well distributed for "bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", but only 18k for "bullshido" without "bullshido.com" or "bullshido.net", changed vote to merge. The total number of hits is reasonable but the term "bullshido" appears closely connected with the web site. I'm ok with Mangojuice's suggestion of merging Bullshido into this article rather than the other way around. 60k ghits doesn't indicate notability all by itself, but it's a respectable number. Similarly, Google search for "martial arts" gets over 65 million hits of which bullshido.net is about #80, again not a slam-dunk for notability, but certainly not too shabby. (It bothers me that two of the top 5 hits for bullshido.net are to Wikipedia). I've been studying the big-boards rankings for various sites and currently am of the opinion that they should not be considered relevant in general for WP:WEB purposes, since they're mostly limited to sites running particular types of software. I think Google rank (per above) is somewhat more informative. I'll put some more analysis of big-boards.com here or over at the WP:WEB talk page later. Here are a couple pages critical of bullshido.net: [39] [40]. While not flattering to the site, the existence of such reactions is evidence of notability. I'd like to ask that one or both of those links be inserted into the article in the NPOV spirit, but I'm probably not the best person to add them under the circumstances. Phr 19:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As to print media citations, I can point to one: Thomas Becnel, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 24th January 2004, ‘It's Greek to him ; Bradenton martial artist wrestles with ancient history of modern combat’. The specific quote is "At the bullshido.com Web site, 'dedicated to exposing fraud and b.s. in the martial arts,' anonymous contributors rage back and forth. It's no-holds-barred debate." Slideyfoot 04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No Guru 04:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Kliko[edit]

Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC as a musician. Speedy delete tag was removed with no further assertion of notability. ... discospinster 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -Dawson 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Mystache 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about a professional musician who should be able to be referenced within wikipedia. Please do not delete, just because the article is "stub" created by an inexperienced editor. Better would be to give advice on building the article to meet your standards. -Wingchundummy 16:50 GMT, 27 April 2006
  • Our standards would be for Ms. Kliko to be a notable musician per WP:MUSIC, regardless of the experience of the editor, which with exactly two Google hits on Israeli-domain websites for someone allegedly having a large Israeli fan base is just not credible. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUS. — TheKMantalk 23:28, 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 delete, and copyvio from many places:Journal of Discourses, http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml, http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q45.htm etc. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Cain/LDS historical statements[edit]

  • Delete this is source material, not an encyclopedia article. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I hope someone didn't type all that out just for WP. It's a little...excessive. --Several Times 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article these support is already too long to provide more quotes and source material within the article proper. Because there is so much debate on this particular topic, it is helpful to have as many available sources as possible readily available for readers to see and to make their own judgements. It helps with wiki civility - and it serves the purpose of Wikipedia to educate. Perhaps it could be cleaned up, but it is helpful and should have been merged with the recently deleted Official Statements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In both cases, the information needs to be kept, but perhaps in another format. -Visorstuff 19:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Can see the point about text per RGTraynor below. Changing vote to abstain, but would like to see more comments prior to deletion - and will gladly delete the article myself after more votes. -Visorstuff 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft -- we don't need a great whopping series of excerpts on Wikipedia just to flog race hatred; I'm sure one can link to all of those charming essays elsewhere, if citations to the same in Wikipedia articles are needful. I don't see any more need for it all to be on Wikipedia just for reason of education any more than articles on Biblical exigesis need to replicate the Bible. RGTraynor 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor --Ajdz 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up (radically), then keep -- this chronicles a different version to the mainstream Curse of Cain, and ought to be in an encyclopaedia. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. The material itself is good, and should be incorporated into a proper article (I'm not sure which one), but this article itself should be deleted. As a temporary solution, it could be moved to a talk page. COGDEN 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs a clean up and editing not deletion. A discussion of its relevance may aid editors in their views. As best I understand it, the LDS had an affirmative policy of debarring non-whites from the ministry (which is otherwise incumbent on LDS males aged 18 or so). The teachings that led to this discrimination are what this article discusses. As the basis of racism, these teachings deserve to be analyzed and discussed; however, the material itself needs to be available to the searcher to understand the phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 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 Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Bergh[edit]

not notable bio Robocoder 15:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC) db-bio stub removed by author (obviously contested)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Midget Fighting League (hoax)[edit]

Delete We don't need an article for this. Too uh... crufty? There are many internet hoaxes. This is not the place to write them up. Prod remover included more useful information, but not enough for me. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless seriously sourced. So it appeared in numerous newspapers and in FHM? Citations, please. RGTraynor 16:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless serious references are provided. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 16:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well referenced article about an actual hoax that was taken up by many mainstream media sources. For great justice. 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; mention on the very popular Ricky Gervais Show podcast gives it verifiability and notability typically not achieved by Internet hoaxes. --phh (t/c) 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Actually, it was the The Ricky Gervais Show episode mention that motivated me to write the article. TJ0513 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am unaware of that show, but I am sure it cover lots of subjects. Not all of them are notable and includable into WP. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, yet some are relevant. Furthermore, *your* personal (lack of) familiarity does not constitute a litmus test for deletion. You've already made your vote, now please allow others to contribute to the discussion. TJ0513 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, my unawareness of the show was not an argument for deletion, you misconstrued my comment. As for your second point, this is my nomination! We don't own articles, but we sure own nominations here on WP! It's widely done, I am surprized at your criticism. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified -- unsual hoax, and one which, apparently, was taken up unwittingly by the press. -- Simon Cursitor 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep - the story is well-known among Britons due to Ricky Gervais' mention of it. I searched specifically for this story on Wikipedia and would have been surprised and disappointed if it had not been on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.72 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri world network[edit]

nn web site promotion; db stub removed by author -- Robocoder 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — AKADriver ☎ 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 4 gHits, and a 5m+ alexa rank, nn. --Eivindt@c 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, founded less than 5 months ago. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB, Alexa ranking is around 5.6m. — TheKMantalk 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I originally prodded the article...but I want to comment that there have been three attempts, thus far, by user(s) from 63.0.0.0/10 to remove the Afd tag before discussion here concluded. -- Robocoder 15:47, 1 May 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Computer Technoloy Awards[edit]

nn web site promotion; db tag deleted by author -- Robocoder 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

post seems fine :) -- Jenkinsp 16:20, 27 April 2006
please don't delete the contents of this discussion page again (it might be considered vandalism), especially since you are the author of the page in question -- Robocoder 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and scorch the earth. Article title isn't even spelled correctly. — AKADriver ☎ 18:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, started in 2005? Give us a break. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswat & Co.[edit]

This seems to be blatant advertising. The "company" in question fails most, if not all bullets listed in WP:CORP. A google search on this company yeilds nothing. AreJay 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless someone can prove notability, and remove the POV(which is pretty much everything). Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 16:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; advert. PJM 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global islamic time[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic (see Talk:Global islamic time) edd 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research protologism. Google finds only the Wikipedia article and an Arabic chat forum that mentions it once [41]. Anyone who knows different please say so! Weregerbil 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO. Mystache 17:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant original research. Gwernol 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no sign of existence --Ajdz 05:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If verified, this would appear to be something likely to play a greater part in world affairs as time rolls on. Appears to be the Islamic equivalent of GMT -- but there are more Muslims in the world, I believe, than radical British monarchists -- ### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simoncursitor (talk • contribs)
    • Comment — I believe the proper British reply would be, "stupid git". ;-) — RJH 15:46, 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. Tawker 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HostingAnime[edit]

Non-notable webhost that fails to establish why it deserves an encyclopedia entry. Delete Ardenn 16:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They (very controversially) hosted al-Qaeda sites and videos on their servers. Did you miss that part? Keep. GT 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it notable. Ardenn 17:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifyable [42] [43]. Mystache 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An American web host with al-Qaeda clients sounds extraordinarily notable. — AKADriver ☎ 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Probably the most noteworthy webhost site I've ever heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.180.47 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 04:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knee jerk liberal[edit]

This page is poorly written and doesn't seem to have any real point. It isn't accurately defining a political stance, instead it seems to be nothing more than the heavily US-centric political views of a single User. Rusty2005 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV essay. And, non-verifiable, as the article admits: "There's no good explanation for where the term 'knee-jerk liberal' came from but we all know what it means." Eron 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into liberalism. Mystache 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Eron. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Comment I've just noticed that for some reason there are two seperate pages, Knee jerk liberal and Knee jerk Liberal. If one gets deleted, with the other be automatically deleted as well? Rusty2005 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as POV. I'd argue that the term is notible, but this is just politicruft. The other one probably won't get deleted unless someone slaps an AfD on it too. Pat Payne 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just speedied the other one. Pat Payne 17:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Pat Payne. Or is that a knee-jerk solution? --Several Times 18:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Doesn't meet WP:NOR, WP:NPOV or WP:V, so kill it with fire. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above, purge it with fire and rub down the ashes with donkey dung. RGTraynor 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go ahead and wipe it even though I think Mystache is the only liberal in here for some reason with me? <grin>. Pat Payne that's a really good laugh for me, too. I 'wrote' it, as there was no way to define what I have as my self-emaciating description in my user page. It is just something my mother called my father all of my childhood. Did not mean to cause a stink with POV. I will try to control my tears. cpswarrior 20:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete politycruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Sounds more like an Urban Dictionary definition. --Arm 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV--Mhking 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh there's no doubt this article should be deleted for all the reasons stated above. Wolf ODonnell 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knee jerk delete. Well, somebody had to say it. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rant --Ajdz 05:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I@n ≡ talk 17:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No citations. May even be a page for somebody trying to promote the term into general usage. Couple of things like soapbox, publisher, battleground from WP:NOT could apply too.In1984 23:41, 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. As always, anonymous comments count considerably less than signed comments by established Wikipedians. Chick Bowen 04:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations Cheadle Hulme[edit]

non-notable, WP:VAIN Mystache 16:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete or Redirect. Simply because there are a large number of MUN conferences on Wikipedia, it does not mean that MUNCH should not be allowed to represent itself. It is the spirit of Wikipedia, and also the United Nations, to be inclusive and representative. By deleting this page on the basis that there are other similar pages is not fair, nor in the spirit of wikipedia!

Secondly, the content in no way shape or form advertises the event. The content simply informs any reader of the inner workings of the conference and what occurs. It is honest and accurate. It does not encourage attendance and provides the official web site address, as other organisations and pages do. If this is advertising then the entirety of Wikipedia is advertising things! As for notability, Collins dictionary defines notability as 'the quality of being notable'. If MUNCH is notable to the several hundred annual attendees, the hundred plus people involved in organising and running the event, the thousands of pervious attendees, and the countless others who are in some respect aware of the event, then this event is notable and, as such, has notability. Indeed, it is very notable and should certainly be maintained on these grounds. As for the fact that is summarises MUN; this is correct. However, attendees of MUNCH may not be fully aware of how MUN works and the limited, brief and accurate description of the working of MUN is suitable and acceptable to satisfy this need for information. Further, this page should be maintained as it is useful to many hundreds, if not thousands of people who in some respect are or have been involved in MUNCH and who would look for references about it. Further more, the article is informative and interesting and, as a main organiser of MUNCH and the author of the most recent editing of the page, I can certify that the information is accurate, honest and useful! I would politely suggest that you spend your time on more beneficial activities than trying to delete an article that is inoffensive, accurate and useful! Thank You. --81.155.139.196 22:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave Alone. One of the previuos entries to this discussion mentioned that the MUNCH page was advertising and there was no sign of notability, well in under two minutes after reading this page I found a page for SAS Shoemakers. This page not only advertises the company but gives no reason why the company is notable and advertises the opportunity to take a tour of the companies factory. In my oppinion the MUNCH page acts to inform people about the event and in no way serves to advertise it because in no way does it mention how to participate in the event or encouage people to participate.

Thanks.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getmylook[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable website. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN WP:WEB, no ghits. Mystache 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website created this month. Optichan 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB, no Alexa ranking. — TheKMantalk 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability per WP:WEB └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:42, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kax Lamer[edit]

This article by Bhightman seem to be non verifiable and a possibly part of a hoax. I am also nominating the related Kax Lamer LP and My Little Thugged-Out Honda for deletion. blue520 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the midst of prodding My Little Thugged-Out Honda after merging the controversy into Kax Lamer. The lyrics may be a copyvio and trademark references to Honda/Civics may not be considered fair (editorial) use by WP, re Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robocoder (talk • contribs) 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete I also want to add that the article contains what purports to be Lamer's SSN and birthdate. According to [44], "a registration record cannot be found for this individual" -- Robocoder 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSIC and anything related. Not a single ghit. Mystache 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. And the two albums too. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kax Lamer's biography page really helped me on a paper I had been working on dealing with the origins of hip-hop and experimental music in the late 1980s. I appreciate that wikipedia has sources on rare and underappreciated artists such as Lamer that are disregarded on other sites. The internet seems to write some people out of history and I'm just glad that this page respects an important part of history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.101.16 (talk • contribs) .

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

The result of the debate was delete, and copyvio from many places:Journal of Discourses, http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml, http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q45.htm etc. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Cain/LDS historical statements[edit]

  • Delete this is source material, not an encyclopedia article. --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I hope someone didn't type all that out just for WP. It's a little...excessive. --Several Times 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article these support is already too long to provide more quotes and source material within the article proper. Because there is so much debate on this particular topic, it is helpful to have as many available sources as possible readily available for readers to see and to make their own judgements. It helps with wiki civility - and it serves the purpose of Wikipedia to educate. Perhaps it could be cleaned up, but it is helpful and should have been merged with the recently deleted Official Statements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In both cases, the information needs to be kept, but perhaps in another format. -Visorstuff 19:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Can see the point about text per RGTraynor below. Changing vote to abstain, but would like to see more comments prior to deletion - and will gladly delete the article myself after more votes. -Visorstuff 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft -- we don't need a great whopping series of excerpts on Wikipedia just to flog race hatred; I'm sure one can link to all of those charming essays elsewhere, if citations to the same in Wikipedia articles are needful. I don't see any more need for it all to be on Wikipedia just for reason of education any more than articles on Biblical exigesis need to replicate the Bible. RGTraynor 19:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor --Ajdz 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up (radically), then keep -- this chronicles a different version to the mainstream Curse of Cain, and ought to be in an encyclopaedia. -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. The material itself is good, and should be incorporated into a proper article (I'm not sure which one), but this article itself should be deleted. As a temporary solution, it could be moved to a talk page. COGDEN 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs a clean up and editing not deletion. A discussion of its relevance may aid editors in their views. As best I understand it, the LDS had an affirmative policy of debarring non-whites from the ministry (which is otherwise incumbent on LDS males aged 18 or so). The teachings that led to this discrimination are what this article discusses. As the basis of racism, these teachings deserve to be analyzed and discussed; however, the material itself needs to be available to the searcher to understand the phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 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. -Doc ask? 19:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Of The Vampire[edit]

This was a contested prod. This article is about a "secret society", and no reputable sources have been produced. I suggest deletion for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stake through the heart, nn secret society. — AKADriver ☎ 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love their rules: don't drink blood and abide by the law. They must be a pretty scary bunch of vampires. Gwernol 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Dust these NN posers per nom. RGTraynor 19:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does NN stand for? Not notable as below? Tyciol 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Mhking 23:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline on notability but lacking sources outside the Temple itself. If someone turns up new sources the page can be recreated. Maestlin 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been turned up and listed under 'External links', waiting to be incorporated into article. Tyciol 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from outside the Temple are provided. There is a reference to the site in the CoS website
Incorporate these outside sources into the article, then. Make it worthwhile and I will change my vote. I don't object on principle to the idea of including a "secret society"; Wikipedia has plenty of them already. Secrets are hard to keep. Maestlin 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not a "scary bunch of Vampires." Please delete this article.
  • Keep: I would like to know where 'secret society' is mentioned in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Deletion for lack of verifiability is not an issue, there is nothing unverified in the article.
  • Delete, secret societies are inherently unverifiable. verifiability is perhaps the most important policy on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: sources have been added to the article. I'm not sure how solid they are in terms of verifiability. Some of them appear to be blogs and forums and whatnot. I'm not yet convinced of the significance of this group, even if they are verifiable (which I'm not too convinced of yet either). Friday (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Temple of the Vampire is not a complete unknown. They seem to be one of the more stable vampire groups. (Just for the record, I do not consider myself a vampire.) I found a description of a book on Amazon that mentions the Temple as one of its topics. That might be a verifiable source, but I am not buying it just for the sake of writing up this article. This subject might be better placed as a section in a larger article on vampire groups or goth religions or similar. As long as it can avoid OR, such an article would definitely have a place on Wikipedia. Maestlin 18:20, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians from Minnesota[edit]

This was deleted under prod and then recreated. I think it should be considered by the community, whether it's a useful maintainable list, or one that would be better handled with Category:Minnesota musicians and Category:Minnesota musical groups. No vote. GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant, per nom. RGTraynor 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "This was deleted under prod and then recreated"... doesn't that make it speedy-able under CSD G4? Is it a exact copy of the original category before deletion? Kimchi.sg | talk 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes it absolutely not G4 speediable. A big part of the point of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is that prodded articles may be recreated without prejudice. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends. It could enable us to develop a list of notable musicians from Minnesota. At the start of my time here, I worked on developing the List of Australian musicians with many highly notable Australian artists lacking articles. This has been fixed now. On the other hand, it could be a target for red links of non-notable bands saying Prince is listed so we should be to. Capitalistroadster 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I would suggest that, if we just want a list of redlinks to indicate articles that need to be written, then a page at WP:MEA might be a better way to maintain that than a list article. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category is fine, but this is an unmaintainable list of musicians that threatens to generate a pile of articles about nn-bands, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 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 Speedy Keep This is more a featured article candidate than a candidate for deletion. Obviously notable topic.Capitalistroadster 01:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian_genocide[edit]

This article, which does not reflect the historical truths that are regarded as facts by hundreds of hisotrians worldwide, should not be kept as a part of Wikipedia. The article, which now stands as the sole representation of the Armenian thesis for the Armenian Allegations, is not allowed to be changed to reflect both opinions on the issue equally. Many users supporting the Armenian thesis constantly delete the parts written by supporters of the anti-thesis. In other words, the article is only a propaganda material. As the debate on this issue continues, it will probably be impossible to stop both sides of the issue from creating an article that truly reflects the past, but not the views of politicians or terrorist organizations. Therefore this article should be deleted; however, instead of it a page with only "REFERENCES" as books, websites, etc. could stay so that both sides arguments would be presented and substantiated ideas could be in place for researchers on the issue. Kayaakyuz 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. We don't want to read Armenian propaganda only. Either allow the article to be edited and stop deleting the opposing views to your allegations or delete this article. Enough for the propaganda that you have been doing with our donations to Wikipedia! --Aycan 85.108.27.212 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supersonic speedy keep. Edit conflicts over content, or article titles, should not be handled with VfD's. Obviously Wikipedia needs an article on this event. Please handle your concerns using the many appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms, AfD is not one of them. -- Stbalbach 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There are a growing number of historians that see the events as an Armenian exile which was a natural defense mechanism of the Ottoman state against an Armenian rebellion. It was proved with the latest documents from the family of Talat paşa (so called Turkish hitler) in the Turkish newspaper of Hürriyet which clearly shows it was a relocation inside of Turkey and unlike the article says "An exile to concentration camps in the deserts of Syria". It is now known that the poor,children and elderly werent a part of the exile and the intention was just the stop a rebellion against a state in war. These are the reasons this article can NOT be considered as a Genocide. (Metb82 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy delete. How dare such an article exist, it should be deleted without even voting to do so. Fad (ix) 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry Fadix, we dont want to hurt the reason of your existence which is the genocide but we have a pride too. You cant just make up the past and support it with made up references like you always do. The truth can only be enlightened by the ottoman and armenian archives but since you dont accept to discuss the events unless the borders are opened, i dont see a future in this who made the issue into a political one without caring the casulties. All i can see is that you are betraying your heritage here. (Metb82 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • You are right, I'm a true man now, I voted delete and will be creating the Turkish genocide article discribing the extermination of the Turks from the heartland of Anatolia by the Armenians and how the Anatolian Armenians took a spaceship vaccating the whole place to then blame the Turks and hide the true genocide. I've seen the light now, ben not a salak anymore. Like I said, this article should get a speedy delete. Fad (ix) 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps it is your pride that is precluding you from seeing that the Genocide, contrary to the claims presented here and contrary to the constant promulgations made by the Turkish government, is very well substantiated and evidenced. If the article's quality is being hampered, we can fix that. But if you want to delete this because it stains your pride then that cannot be helped. Germany's history is stained by the works of Adolf Hitler but their country is admired worldwide as Germany has acknowledged the Holocaust.To give equal weight to the Turkish government's version of the Genocide in the article will be tantamount to having the neo-Nazis' views presented in the Holocaust article. There are a growing number of historians that see the events as an Armenian exile which was a natural defense mechanism of the Ottoman state against an Armenian rebellion. Actually it is the exact contrary. More and more historians, Turks especially, are recognizing the events of 1915 as acts constituting the Genocide and each year, a new country, state, or organization recognizes the killings in parallel to the United Nation's definition of Genocide. Please, if anything is happening, its that the Turkish government is being squeezed into a tight, insular bubble where their version is accepted only by themselves and more or less Azerbaijan.--MarshallBagramyan 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a growing number of historians that see the events as an Armenian exile which was a natural defense mechanism of the Ottoman state against an Armenian rebellion. Actually it is the exact contrary. More and more historians, Turks especially, are recognizing the events of 1915 as acts constituting the Genocide and each year, a new country, state, or organization recognizes the killings in parallel to the United Nation's definition of Genocide. Then, you can show us how many of Turkish historians see event as a genocide and who they are. Let me guess, Orhan Pamuk. First, he is not a historian and second after a while he said that I was used as a pupet by many organization. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not just Pamuk. Although its rather ironic as how favorably he was viewed by people in Turkey prior to his comments on the Genocide only to be ridiculously charged with "publically denigrating the Turkish identity". However this includes Taner Akcam, Mujgan Arpat, Halil Berktay, Murat Belge, Turkish Human Rights activist Nese Ozan, Ragip Zarakolu whose editorial office in 1994 was bombed by some Turkish fanatics only after he was shouted down and equated to the rank of a "traitor" of the Turkish people. And don't forget Turkey's most best and most famous poet, Nâzim Hikmet, who also acknowledged the Genocide. I can go on UnSalty/UnFlavored one if you want. --MarshallBagramyan 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nâzim Hikmet, who also acknowledged the Genocide may I ask for sources of it ? I am a fun of him, but I haven't seen such acknowledge. Additionally, I have to remind you about More and more historians. The list you show doesn't contain more and more historian. Am I right ? Some of the human activity volunteer were claimed as supporter of PKK. Do you know that ? Then, we cannot say humanistic for them. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look man, i have a lot of armenian friends in Istanbul, and believe me, if this is something that is kept out of our eyes or anything, i wouldnt be talking like this. But i have seen the Ottoman documents by Talat paşa and many others about it. Its not something the turkish government is imposing me. Believe me i agree with the suffering and pain the Ottomans gave to Armenians and even if i could, i would turn back time without thinking about my life about it. But i think if we did that, i wouldnt be here with you writing these things coz there wouldnt be a republic of Turkey. Dont get me wrong we are with you in each pain that you suffered, but putting it as a genocide would not be true as i saw the last documents about the issue. (Metb82 22:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
And having friends who are Armenian translates to exactly what? And since when were Ottoman documents to be regarded as solid proof? The Ottoman Empire's archives were up until the early 1990s closed and allowed to be seen by a select few. If anything, the articles pertaining to the Genocide were purged from the archives. If all the other countries' archives attest to the fact that there was an ongoing act of extermination in 1915 and only the Ottoman government's archives said otherwise, wouldn't you regard this discrepancy with just a little suspicion?--MarshallBagramyan 22:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is actually not the ottoman archives, the documents that the family of Talat paşa keeps.they were just released 3 days ago and lets discuss after it spreads around the world. (Metb82 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
And I'm going to believe Talaat because? This man fled from Turkey before the war ended and resided in Germany while the Ottoman Army trials were condemning him and other leaders to death because of their crimes. Unlike Adolf Hitler, who was so frank and shameless on his treatment of the Jews and other races, Talaat was simply attempting to exonerate himself from any wrongdoing just as Saddam Hussein is attempting doing do so, going so far as to justify their actions. Don't kid yourself, his correspondence contribute little into the Turkish argument and only help solidify the genocide argument. --MarshallBagramyan 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually i didnt know the Ottoman Army trials were condemning him. Anyway i said said, we are not a nation that will try to free from the reality just to keep our own self-interest. All i understand is that it is easier for the West to see us like dishonest criminals because we are muslims and mostly forgetting that we are humans too. Believe me if something like this is real, we will be the first people to help the families of the victims and i am really sure about this. Actually i dont see the same reaction with Hungarians which are a Turkic tribe but only with Turks.. Could the reason be that we are muslims instead of Christians? (Metb82 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Other than sometimes in Turkey, there is almost no denial of this genocide. This nomination is a sad event. gidonb 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know that this issue is a hot potato for some people but, dear gentlemen, you should learn that NPOV is not always your POV. Behemoth 22:16 , 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Thinking the article is POV is not an argument for deletion, and the article certainly matches none of the speedy deletion requirements. If you think it's POV edit it. If you think certain users are POV pushing, use the systems in place for dealing with that. Do not delete a perfectly valid article because of POV issues. Fightindaman 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A sourced historical event that costed the lives of 1.5 million people, surely has a place in wikipedia. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the official website of the Turkish government, and this is why we can all talk about the Armenian Genocide. (Honestly, i was shocked when i saw that this article is nominated for deletion!) --Hectorian 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course! lol I suggest we also get rid of the so called Holocaust article. Wikipedia does not need these topics that cause so many disputes :)--Eupator 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - vanity, nonsense, spam. - Mike Rosoft 22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wigobs[edit]

Seems to be vanity page for very inconsequential website MPF 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (tempting to Speedy under {{db-nonsense}}) clearly vanity for an unsourced and non-notable website/prank cult. Gwernol 18:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 - group notability not asserted. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 (e) 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Winters' Stare[edit]

Not verifiable, vanity. Appear to slam an individual. Dominick (TALK) 18:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was a vocalist for this band, and thought I would giva a basic synopsis of the history and hope for it to be elaborated on by others. (unsigned User:Dvickerwoman)

You misunderstand. This is not a personal slam. Is it notable for an encyclopedia? Does it meet the vanity standard for wikipedia? Does it meet the verifiabilty standard? I am not doubting the band exists, try looking in Wikipedia:Notability (music). 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)~
  • Delete as vanity, NN. The band did exist (two of their albums have Amazon listings). The bad news is that the highest sales rank Amazon has is over 375,000. Oops. RGTraynor 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor --Deville (Talk) 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- No Guru 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 19:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Sun[edit]

The site is not notable as per WP:WEB criteria JBellis 18:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • At 527 Ghits [45], nn website. Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kimchi --Deville (Talk) 03:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 5,8m+ alexa rank. NN. --Eivindt@c 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for overall importance in online independant writing community, as well as the vital purpose it serves as a way to improve and receive criticism for independent literature. Alexa is a poor judge of a website's relevance. 209.94.176.249 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has 61 edits including this one. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for unique approach to an online magazine. 24.179.156.233 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's second edit. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:WEB. Note to anonymous users: your recommendations will usually be discounted. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nn. -- No Guru 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Converged Advertising[edit]

nn web site; overt advertising -- Robocoder 18:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The advertisers have converged on us. Delete. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is quite possibly the most annoying vanispamcruftisement I've ever seen --Deville (Talk) 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and blatant advertising. — TheKMantalk 23:34, 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 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of the Moon[edit]

This was a single line joke in one episode. It's clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 18:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BryanG 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above --Deville (Talk) 03:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it's nice to know Al Gore found something to do --Ajdz 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I created the article, I don't have time to expand it properly so I don't really care whether it stays or goes. I will just point out that deleting articles like this is NOT Wikipedia policy, and could even be seen as violation of policy. Assuming that the nominator is right in his assessment of the article and it is "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article", deletion policy says that it should be merged / redirected rather than deleted. --Apyule 07:26, 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 "Oops, I'm an admin, I don't need to vote for speedy delete" (CSD:G7) Stifle (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watapon[edit]

Yet more yugicruft, how long do I have to keep this up before it's gone? Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like Yu-Gi-Oh!, but this stuff really needs its own Wiki. If there is one, then transwiki. Danny Lilithborne 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I created the damn article but it sucks. KILL IT NOW~!!!! Weirdy 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get rid of it, is all I can say about this article. Glenn Browne 14:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per author request. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 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 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solabeat alliance[edit]

author claims to have lifted article's text from album liner notes; possible copyvio -- Robocoder 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Sent to WP:CP. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Baskin School of Engineering[edit]

Completing orphaned AfD. No vote. Tagged for AfD by anon IP with note: "This is straight copyright infringement from www.soe.ucsc.edu/general" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan-1967 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as copyvio. —porges(talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added the {{copyvio}} which I believe will take priority over the Afd -- Hirudo 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Stifle (talk) 16:30, 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 without prejedice to recreation. This article is not translated - and there appears to have been an OTRS complaint #2006042610007088 by the subject - concerning the content. Since I can't be sure this isn't an attack article or a libel, I am deleting it. This is not to prevent a recreation of a fair article in English. If an Italian speaker wishes access to the original text, please contact an administrator. -Doc ask? 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks My Friends - News Album Mauro Voconi[edit]

Per request of Mr. Voconi, refer to OTRS ticket #2006042610007088. --Paginazero 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: eh? I don't understand this reason for deletion. Also, this article seems to be a biography of Voconi, not about the album in particular. I am simply generally confused about this. --Deville (Talk) 03:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - I tagged the article for translation number of times and the tags were reverted, apparently by the originator who apparently took the tagging the wrong way. I do not want this to be deleted or anything, just translated to English. And if it is a biography, the former name was more appropriate - the current one seems to refer only to a single album - Skysmith 11:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mavo (talk · contribs) contacted me. My Italian is next to nonexistent (like apparently his English) but he stated that he cannot translate the article. I recommended that he just let the translation tag remain. Could anybody try translate? - Skysmith 12:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let it sit on WP:PNT for two weeks like it's supposed to! That's the simplest solution... From what I can understand of this article, it's a whole lot of vanity though. Grandmasterka 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So potential translator may have to tone it down - Skysmith 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What on earth does the nomintion mean? Stifle (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please speedy keep this and let it sit on WP:PNT for the proper amount of time... My gut feeling is that this won't be worth translating, but let someone who understands the whole article be the judge of that (if an Italian reader comes along.) The nomination makes no sense at all. Grandmasterka 05:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/answer: Mr Voconi wrote to [email protected] asking for the article about himself to be deleted. The ticket number reported refers to where his request is archived in the OTRS desk (where all the mail sent to @wikimedia.org is delivered). As far as I can read, the article is actually a biography, therefore (if kept) it should be moved under a more proper title. I opened this AfD beacuse I'm not aware in details of the policies of en.wiki about such a request. On it.wiki we used to delete few biographies after requests such (decision related to our laws about privacy protection). Hope this helps in making a decision. Thank you. --Paginazero 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh OK. On here, if an author wants the article deleted, just add {{db-author}} to the page. I will do it now. Grandmasterka 15:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've removed this. {{db-author}} is only usable if the author is the only (non-trivial) contributor to the article. en.wikipedia is not it.wikipedia, we have our own standards. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to WP:PNT, for the time being. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. Note to self: Always look at the history. Can someone close this? Grandmasterka 00:22, 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 wrong nomination - category deletions are proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral Homes[edit]

This category seems to consist entirely of Funeral Homes located in or near Dubuque, Iowa. This is incredibly non-encyclopedic and would border on advertising if they weren't likely in competition with one another. ES2 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies, I seem to have messed up trying to delete a category, which doesn't work with this page... will set up with group delete of the individual articles. Mea cupla! --ES2 19:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would oppose deletion of the category. I just started this category this afternoon, and had been working to add funeral homes to Wikipedia, and to this category. I've been starting out with the funeral homes that I know of and the ones in the area where I live, which is Dubuque, Iowa. I'd like to get this expanded out beyond Dubuque - Dubuque's just a starting point. If others want to add funeral homes beyond where I live, please feel free to do so.
JesseG 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Memorial[edit]

This is one of multiple listings for non-notable funeral homes in the Cedar Rapids, IA area. ES2 20:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages; they are all listings for non-notable funeral homes in the same area.:[reply]

Miller Funeral Home was listed for AfD separately before I could lump it in with these. The author has also created at least one category, (Category:Funeral Homes. --ES2 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Fan1967 20:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability asserted. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain All - especially Cedar Memorial, as it is a well known Cedar Rapids cemetery. And to follow Fan1967's logic, if we are going to delete articles because Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages means that there are probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia that should be deleted because they deal with businesses.
JesseG 20:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a large difference between a notable business, e.g. Microsoft, and a business, cemetery, or other place that no one outside Cedar Rapids has heard of. That said, you are correct; there are probably thousands of articles like this on WP that have slipped through, and hundreds more deleted every day. --ES2 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoffman-Schneider happens to be the oldest funeral home businesses in the state of Iowa, tracing its orgins all the way back to the same year that Iowa became a state, 1846. I think that makes it worthy of note, which is why I oppose the deletion of this article.
JesseG 20:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that JesseG has stated their notability. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has argued for the notability of one of them. The Leonard home, on the other hand, is about ten years old. Fan1967 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all without prejudice to any appropriate selective individual re-nomination. --Rob 00:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 23:16, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Stephanie Adams. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was speedy keep. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily userfied an amusing joke in userspace, complete bollocks in article space. Just zis Guy you know? 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotdog bun deficit[edit]

Delete Users have tried to speedy it but author objected so this has been taken to afd. This seems a pointless article, and has no google hits when I seacrhed for all 3 words together [46] J.J.Sagnella 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That joke made my day. J.J.Sagnella 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Definitely funny enough to make it into BJAODN. Also very true. DarthVader 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFT. Mystache 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete dcandeto 01:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Uh... may I ask why? It's not exactly patent nonsense (CSD G1) or lacking context (CSD A1). Kimchi.sg | talk 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN as I speedied it. —porges(talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen this article on Wiki previously, and was unaware that it had been deleted and then reconstituted. Ought this to be addressed ? No vote for the time being. -- Simon Cursitor 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean it can be speedy deleted. Tagging it as such now. Kimchi.sg | talk 11:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consaidering speedy; previous deletion was speedy as patent nonsense so not really eligible for G4, but arguably a case of patent nonsesne again. Just zis Guy you know? 13:36, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Ramon[edit]

Contested prod. Prod was taken off with no comment or further edits to the article. This looks like a vanity article on a non-notable college basketball player to me. While I agree that articles on some college basketball players may be appropriate, I don't believe this person is notable enough. No real claims to notability that would distinguish himself among other college basketball players. Are we to have articles on every college basketball player? I think not. It can be remade if he ever makes it to the NBA. VegaDark 20:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. —porges(talk) 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pitt? Let's be serious. Delete --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there. I am writing in rebuttal to the possible removal of my article specifically for notability reasons. Ronald Ramon is cureently a spohomore at the University of Pittsurgh and obviously has already made a name for himself. I already presented evidence that he has received several awards within the Big East Conference which should justify his placement as a notable individual. He has already found success on an elite basketball squad and has already been to the NCAA Tournament on two occasions. A major point I feel we must look at is the fact that team leader Carl Krauser has graduated and Ronal Ramon will step into his place. Ramon has been able to play at an elite level despite getting little or not as many minutes as he should under Carl Krauser and obviously battling with the fact that he has had his two young and least productive college years. Ramon has been a very influential player on the Pitt squad and in the Big East and for this he deserves to stay. College basketball analysists such as Dick Vitale have broadcasted for the University of Pittsburgh and have been impressed with his long ball and general athletic and basketball ability. I see Ramon as having enough importance to be on Wikipedia and his importance will only improve. If we were to remove the Ronal Ramon article we should remove any and all college basketballa rticles for the simple fact that they are worth no monetary value for their basketball at this point. To say that, well players like J.J. Redick have better records would be illogical ecause at that point we would have to set some reasonable standard for what record a player would have to set for admittance into this encyclopedia. For eample do they have to be a stat leader for 1 year against their peers, several years, all time? Obviously to have to set a standard for what an award is worth and more importantly what award is needed for entry is completely and totally absurd. I feel Ronald Ramon's performance which has been renowned by his peers and experts proves that his name deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Jeeps2009 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The extent of his notability is earning "All Big East Rookie Team Honors", and it doesn't even specify if it was first team or not. If we used this for criteria for inclusion we would be adding hundreds of basketball players throughout history that were all-conference freshmen who's careers never progressed past that. My personal standards for not nominating a college athlete's article for deletion is at MINIMUM earning first team NCAA All-American honors. I wouldn't create an article on one unless they won an NCAA award for being the best in their position, or did something equally notable. VegaDark 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point I was making through his Big East hiors as well as interteam honors it the fact that the young Ronald Ramon is regarded as a great young player. When one tries to place a standard on the requirments for a college basketball player, I feel the general rule of thumb should be does that person deserve to have an article. At this point I have already written the entire article so there is no other real "labor" if you could call writing that left. The aticle could use some cleanup using the AWS or whatever. Back to the argument about placing a standard, there are many great players who do not win the player of the year or an NCAA award. Also, why do we have pages for "newer" coaches who have not yet won an NCAA award. What makes Pitt's coach Jamie Dixon notable. It is that he belongs to one of the most elite college basketball programs in the country. So what has Ramon accomplished:
  • National reconition in respected basketball talk programing
  • All Big East Rookie Honors
  • Game winning shot in double overtime vs. Notre Dame
  • New York All City Team


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. As it is likely uncontroversial, I will also move the article to List of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team per Kimchi.sg. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entire NBA career with one team[edit]

Delete – I'm sorry, as big an NBA fan I am, I fail to see why this type of information warrants its own article. What happens if, say, Paul Pierce is traded? Then what? Considering not many players last "six or seven years with one team", it can never be that large of a list, therefore, I'm sure this information can be incorporated into the individuals' own articles. --Downwards 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is in the works - give it a chance. Right now, it is not close to completion. I hope people can incorporate a list of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team. And yes, this list will change, but I and others will be here to update it when it does so I dont see how that is a problem.
  • Strong keep, "Considering not many players last "six or seven years with one team", it can never be that large of a list" is exactly a very good reason for keeping. We vote delete for possibly-infinitely big lists. If what you say is correct, it'd be significant enough if one player manages to stay in his team for his entire career. Note that if kept, this should be moved to List of former NBA players who have spent their entire career with one team. Kimchi.sg | talk 20:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Too speculative and a wee bit of crystal ball gazing. Besides, if you're an "active" player, it's not your entire career - it's your entire career to date. Such contradictory criteria will naturally result in a list of all rookies, a lot of sophomores, and a few players who buck the current long-term trend. A list of former NBA players who have been with one team sounds like a good idea, but it may well end up including everyone who played back in the day when this was a common thing. The same thing would apply to NHL players. Fluit 21:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rookies, Sophomores, etc. would not apply here. This is a list of players who have played at least eight years with only one team. It is a solid list that will probably always hover around 5 to 15 players. As players such as Garnett, Pierce, etc. change teams, other players (i.e. Devean George or whoever else) will surely replace them on the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick81aku (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep, and definitely rename as per Kimchi --Deville (Talk) 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - What makes the fact that a certain player spent their whole career with the same team more than just an interesting bit of trivia ? -- Hirudo 03:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Well Hirudo, what is wrong with a trivial fact? Wikipedia is full of trivial facts. I dont understand why something trivial (and factual)would be cause for a strong delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick81aku (talk • contribs)
      • Comment - I'm not opposed to having trivial facts in articles about encyclopedic topics, but I am opposed to articles who's only topic is no more than a bit of trivia. That's just my personal opinion of course. -- Hirudo 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just begging to become a Category. --- GWO
  • Comment: That's an excellent suggestion. Fluit 18:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a list that is unmaintainable and of interest to a severely limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is not at all listcruft. It is easily maintainable and there is hardly a "severe" limitation of those interested in the list. Also, im not sure why this harmless, innocent, uncontroversial, and factual list is causing so much grief? If people feel that it is unverifiable, I can easily explain the rather simple process of producing this accurate list. Also, since this is a quality list, why do those in favor of a delete wish to LIMIT Wikipedia by not including this article? - User:Nick81aku
  • Keep When this is a complete list it will defiantly be relevant. It could make a good trivia type article. I sure many NBA fans would be interested in this list. Ted87 20:43, 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 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Scavenger Hunt[edit]

Clearly an advertisement. They should use some other media for advertising and only create an article if the game generates sufficient notability. Rklawton 20:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, Delete rhmoore 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spamvertisement. Sounds like fun, though. Slowmover 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Slow --Deville (Talk) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Empires[edit]

Not suitable for Wikipedia: amateurish original research, hideously oversimplified, largely unverifiable (unless one were to write a master's thesis on the subject), unencyclopaedic, soapbox implicitly promoting British imperialism, largely redundant with List of largest empires.

The brainchild of a known vandal on record as saying things like, "The Spanish Empire pales in comparason to the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE! RULE BRITANNIA."[47]

This, I fear, is beyond cleanup. Nothing can be salvaged from the page as it's been created, and with the content and direction it's been given. If more level-headed editors wish to tackle the subject in the future, I'd be all for it. Albrecht 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Arm 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:NOR. Consign it to the same fate as the British Empire—the dustbin of history. Slowmover 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR. Moreover, I thought USA Today was a newspaper, not an empire --Deville (Talk) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Deville --Ajdz 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since you put it like that I have to agree. However, it is not original research - the figures have come from somewhere, although no source is cited, and were simply pulled together (which is a permissable necessity). Most historical articles are oversimplified, impossible to verify or could be seen to be subjective if you hold a contrary opinion like Slowmover here. But... on its own this is not encyclopaedic. I may look at the idea again in the future if I can find a reputable source and an article that would benefit from graphs like this. Wiki-Ed 09:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Robdurbar 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page and continue to update it. My students are using it to study empires as well as to understand how to evaluate and compare information. The discussions and corrections are equally important. This is a new medium and, as such, we would like to continue to use it in a new way. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkraffaele (talk • contribs)
Note: Above is user's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Albrecht 20:33, 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, no consensus. SushiGeek 04:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris P. Kraniotis[edit]

spam in almost 20 Wikipedias; poorly published author; autobiography -zzz 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author has published a few (minor?) book(let?)s in Greece. A Google search didn't reveal any references to this author besides poets' self-promotion sites and some local sites of his hometown Larissa. See also AfD de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/20._April_2006#Dimitris_P._Kraniotis. ---zzz 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC) changed my mind, see end of discussion page. :-) ---zzz 14:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion. No third-party references. Corrigann 21:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. This AfD discussion was blanked [48] by 195.97.50.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and the AfD tag was also removed [49] from the article by the same vandal. DarthVader 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ran a whois research. All the 195.97.50.* IPs belong to Hellas On Line S.A. located in Greece. Very likely that we're seing Mr. Kraniotis himself at work... ---zzz 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity and NN --Deville (Talk) 03:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion, the same Domain dynamic IP. --MaNeMeBasat 10:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the article is correct! Greek poet Dim.P. Kraniotis is in the headline news in Greece (newspapers, sites, TV, big sites). See: News in the National Greek Television ERT [50], the biggest greek newspaper TO VIMA [51], the biggest greek site with news PATHFINDER NEWS [52] and another site with news [53]. ((Unsigned submission by 195.97.50.47))
    • Dear anonymous IP. We're working on an encyclopedia. Please help us improve this arcticle by providing relevant and verifiable sources. It's great that Greek online-media wrote about Dimitris P. Kraniotis. These links might be useful for readers of gr.wikipedia.org. But I'd appreciate more substantial evidence that the article Dimitris P. Kraniotis is relevant for the english-language en.wikipedia.org. ---zzz 19:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just for the fun of it, I babelfished the 4 references above. The only content: DPK is nominated for "Muses Prize". Interesting. But what is this Muses Prize? Here we go: [54] [55]. Is this prize significant enough to justify an article in Wikipedia? In encyclopedical language it boils down to:
      "In 2005 DPK entered four poems into the Muses Prize - Best Poem of Year 2005 contest, organized by amateur writers' online-magazine Muses Review. The poem Fictitious Line (2005) was shortlisted with 12 other nominees."
      OK, this might be interesting for some readers. But really important information is missing on the web page, like how many writers took part? 13? Then the information would boil down to: "DPK published his poems on a website". Not a lot of substance behind all the brouhaha. ---zzz 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, See former AfD [[56]]. Finally "de.wikipedia.org" keep the article. From a user of "de.wikipedia.org": "Mr. Kraniotis has indeed published three poetry books, all of them with very respectable publishers. Especially one of them was published by the country's main poetry publishing house ("Ikaros"); it's the same house that has published all the major Greek poets, including the two Greek Nobel Literature laureates, G. Seferis and O. Elytis. His last two books have been published by a smaller house which is sort of a fringe culture specialist but well known and still respectable." ((Unsigned submission by 195.97.50.47))
  • Delete per WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know who is the problem of user "-zzz" with greek poet Dimitris P. Kraniotis. Mr "-zzz" other greek poets (Sotiris Kakisis, Dimitris Lyakos, Dimitris Varos) are good for "en.wikipedia.org"? I don't know the greek poets Sotiris Kakisis, Dimitris Varos, Dimitris Lyakos. For the Greeks (Hellenic Literary Society, International Society of Greek Writers), Dimitris P. Kraniotis is a new great poet. ((Unsigned submission by 195.97.50.43))
    • There's no article Dimitris Lyakos. The articles Sotiris Kakisis and Dimitris Varos are also of poor quality, for the same reasons: no verifiable references. But: if you google for Sotiris Kakisis you'll find an IMDB entry [58], a good indicator for relevance. Dimitris Varos produces only poor results: wikipedia entries, webrings, homepage, all the typical self-promotional stuff -- and a deleted WikiQuote entry [59]. Thanks for pointing him out, I'll file an AfD. :-) By the way, we're writing an encyclopedia (you might want to read the Help section to learn more about Wikipedia). If the Hellenic Literary Society appreciates Kraniotis, you should be able to point us to a website with an article that explains the appreciation. Just add it to the "External Links" sections. Ah, and please sign your comments. :-) ---zzz 18:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Dimitris Lyacos is the name of the greek poet in "en.wikipedia.org" and in "de.wikipedia.org".
    • Dimitris P. Kraniotis is a full member of the biggest and plus serius literary society of the Greece "Hellenic Literary Society" [60] and his poem "Λόγχες που πληγώνουν" (from his book "Fictitious Line") is No 1 in TOP 20 of the Best and Popular poems in Greece, for 12 months. Others very serius sites in Greece for Dimitris P. Kraniotis: [61], [62]. Awards in Greece to Dimitris P. Kraniotis: In September 2005, Honorary Gold-Silver Plaquette to Dim. P. Kraniotis by the Perfect of Larissa (for first time honorary plaqette to a greek poet) and in December 2005, Honorary Gold-Silver Plaquette to Dim. P. Kraniotis by the Larissa Medical Association “Hippocrates” (for first time honorary plaquette to a doctor for the poetry). In October 2005, “Special Award in Poetry of the Year 2005” to Dim. P. Kraniotis for his book “Fictitious Line” in “1st Poetry Festival of Thessaloniki”, in January 2006, "Gold Medal” and “2nd International Prize in Literature of the year 2005" by the International Society of Greek Writers to Dim. P. Kraniotis for his book "Fictitious Line"(Greece) and in March 2006, “Gold Medal” and “1st Prize in Poetry” by the International Society of Greek Writers to Dim. P. Kraniotis in the “25th Celebration of Poets” (Greece). ((Unsigned submission 23:03, 30 April 2006 195.97.50.190))
    • Dear anonymous IP (or may I call you Dimitris?), please sign your comments (it's done with four tildes), preferably with a username. It is so much friendlier... — I find the article Dimitris Lyacos well written and I like the photo. Perfect for a personal homepage, but not for an encyclopedia. It lacks external references. However, I was able to quickly google the German edition of his poems (and added the reference), so at least the bibliographical data seems to be correct. What I miss most in this article are some links to third party reviews of him and his poetry. — The link to EEL is new, thank you! However, it looks to me just like any other bulletin board. As someone who doesn't understand Greek I was only able to find out that it was founded in 1936. And it doesn't solve my problem: I need external references about you and your work. (I assume you're DPK hiding behind the IP and ignoring what WP:BLP says about notable Wikipedians). It's great that you are a full member of EEL, but unless I know the requirements for membership this doesn't say a thing about your relevance as a poet. I'm a full member of an automobile association but don't even own a car. :-) — I noticed an interesting detail. You say you're editor of Hippocrates. Then you mention a prize you were awarded by Hippocrates. Strange coincidence... — Regarding all the other prices, I'm very well aware of the list in musesreview. Here's the problem verifiabiliy. For example: what is Hippocrates? Is it just a monthly brochure published by some doctors (you and maybe a friend of yours) in some small Larissian hospital? Is it an international journal on pathology? I don't know and I have no way of finding out. (I tried, but failed, because Hippocrates is a rather popular name for medical magazines). — The award list sounds to me like: Anna gave me a gold medal, Bob a first price, and Charlie a special award. Those names by itself mean nothing. — But if you tell me that Anna has written a bestseller on the New York Times list, Bob has won a Nobel Prize for literature and Charlie runs the weekly literature review show on Greeces biggest TV channel and you published the book with London's most prestigious publishing company, I'd take it seriously. So far I was only able to verify Muses Review (very disapointing). I tried Académie Internationale de Lutèce but found only a postal adress. — You are a doctor (at least you claim to be one), so you should be familiar with scientific standards. They apply also to Wikipedia. This includes citations aka references. Prove your claims. ---zzz 00:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dimitris, just in case you haven't noticed, I do check references. ;-) All I found on EEL is the user dkran [63], who claims to have published three books, be a doctor and a member of various organizations. I found a poem posted by dkran and some unfriendly responses to it (but this might be a misunderstanding because babelfish translates Greek poorly). Does EEL's bulletin board improve my opinion on DPK's qualities as poet? No. Is this the reason why you are so afraid of references? Because they don't stand up to your claims? (I think of the vandalisms of de:Dimitris P. Kraniotis where you, or another 195.97.50.* IP, tries again and again to remove references.) ---zzz 01:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I changed my mind. :-) I think the best way to deal with Dimitris P. Kraniotis is to do what a encyclopedia does best: compile available knowledge. I replaced the article with a version that tells the reader exactly what is verifiable knowledge about him. So if he is notorious enough that "serious" newspapers write about him, it might as well justify an article about him in Wikipedia. Not for his (still unproven) merits as great new poet, but as a future reference for journalists and literary critics who don't have the resources to double-check Mr. Kraniotis public relation claims themselves. The english-language version of this article has the benefit of being most accessible to international readers (unlike the 20 or so other languages where DPK posted his vanity spam). So let's keep this article, but apply Wikipedia quality standards. ---zzz 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) -- In the meantime I received and verified various references. Kraniotis has received only few external reviews for his poetry (just some minor awards) and definitely has an ego-problem. But his publications are for real (National Library of Greece is confirmation enough for me). And there's enough material accessible in English. In my opinion he passes WP:BIO, but just so. The one-line article spam in 19 other Wikipedias is a different story, but I think en:Dimitris P. Kraniotis has improved enough to stay. ---zzz 14:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-Assisted Writing Development[edit]

This article expresses an original synthesis of ideas and is therefore original research Corrigann 20:57, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjassassins[edit]

campus cruft Bachrach44 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect (to preserve history) to Madalyn Murray O'Hair per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Roland Waters[edit]

Madalyn Murray O'Hairs murderer. This person is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What little information this page says about David Waters could easily be merged into the Madalyn Murray O'Hair article. Merge and Delete. Arm 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little useful information and sources onto the Madalyn page. How would that violate policy? --Arm 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to keep a record of who contributed what. That contribution record is in the history of this page. GRBerry 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as there isn't enough here to be more than a stub, and if this is the only reason for notability there won't ever be. GRBerry 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen of Oriskany[edit]

WP:N, WP:V, Googled it with quotation marks and there were no hits TorriTorri 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax/joke. This gives it away at the bottom of the page: "What you just read is a mostly fictionized version of true events. If you would like to know the TRUE events, E-MAIL us at [email protected]". SCHZMO ✍ 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, vanity. A secret society limited to 4 members? How do you spell non-notable? May also be a hoax, per Schzmo, but it's not worth the effort of finding out. Slowmover 22:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an invasion of privacy. "What you just read is a mostly fictionized version of true events. If you would like to know the TRUE events, E-MAIL us at [email protected]". was written by us. Please remove this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickwhit (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete as vandalism in the form of a self-proclaimed hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is wrong in so many ways --Deville (Talk) 03:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albi Celai[edit]

Don't know how this works but this entry was a fake entry. Lincher 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was a malformed AfD. Just completing the listing. Article was speedied (no reason given) and blanked; I changed this to PROD. PROD was removed by an anon with the comment "omg find the real hoaxes...". So it comes here/was already here. Technical listing only: no vote from me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep, the guy who put this up has problems. At least say why you wanna delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.240.232 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment Please do not use inflamatory language to or about a fellow editor. Thank you. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlB1337: Yea, can I remove this header then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlB1337 (talk • contribs) .

  • Comment No, you cannot remove the header until this discussion process is finished (this takes anything up to 5 days). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense hoax. Original article was just a copy and paste from Murat Rais with the name changed (which is why there are still FR/SV links that don't work and the bad link to the external site). Author then added some political fluff. Kuru talk 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AlB1337: Murat Rais is his Turkish name, his Albanian name is Albi Celai, before he became a Muslim. The reason it didn't get any Google hits is because I forgot to add some accents to the name, as well as the name not being known outside the country very well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.149.193 (talk • contribs) .
If you could provide any sources to verify that was his original name, I'd be happy to redirect the article to Murat Rais - there would be absolutely no need for two articles on the same person. I'd also be curious as to why his name seems to be italian for "hidden dawn". Open to anything verifiable you can provide. Kuru talk 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no Ghits, no references, no dice. --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is a Murat Rais article and the whole "far right political views" part is a hoax. Behemot 23:00, 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 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Huang[edit]

Although I am impressed with this gentleman's scholorship and the fact he has achieved some remarkable things, I am not sure that he has reached the level for an encyclopedia article yet. Total of 104 Google hits, about one quarter are submitted items from hotel reviews, info pages, etc. rhmoore 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 00:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if this guy actually achieved everything the article claims, that would be remarkable and probably worth an article. But I can't verify any of this. For example, this search only returns 3 hits, and they would definitely be a ton of news articles on such a student. FWIW, creator has only ever edited two articles, one of which is this, and the other Norman Yao; I see a pattern here. --Deville (Talk) 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sufficiently notable. --Ajdz 06:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete it would be quite notable being the best U-20 in the whole world in a variety of subjects against sports-academy trained communist-bloc students, if it were not for the fact that it is a hoax. There is no record of Benedict Huang at the IMO2001 list [64], no record of him representing the United States [65] in mathematics.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax. IMO would be pretty much borderline even if verified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as almost sure hoax. Anyway, if reliable references would be given, I think we should keep. gala.martin (what?) 17:10, 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. Tawker 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian CMS Products[edit]

A list of applications only two of which have articles. No evidence that these are market specific, and all are already in the parent comparison of content management systems (only without the weblinks). The US and Canadian lists have been deleted, the European list does nto exist, leaving Asian and UK lists only. Just zis Guy you know? 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Tawker 01:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK CMS Products[edit]

A sublist of comparison of content management systems which lists only UK ones. Whether these are UK made or UK market specific is not stated, but there are only 14, of which five have articles. Unlike the parent list, this has weblinks. I don't believe these are market specific, and I do believe it should join the US and Canadian lists in being deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and previous--Deville (Talk) 02:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was not tagged for deletion until now. It may be an idea to extend its listing for a few days. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims in Space[edit]

Delete - seems like an issue that is only speculation and not notable at this point in time. Unless this turns into a big media issue at some later time, this article would most likely consist of original research and hypothetical questions. At most, this subject gets a line or two in another article. Wickethewok 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue reached Reuters [66] that make it big enough to have an article. I'd write more about it but I'm hoping a Muslim wikipedian will know more about this topic than me. grazon 23:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think a subject needs more than one media article to be considered notable. Wickethewok 23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep (possibly with a better title), or failing that merge as suggested on the page. It's a very commonly pondered question, and an issue has come up before, as there have been Moslems in space before (a Saudi prince in 1985, for instance). The following may shed more light: [67], [68], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619039/posts], [69], [70], [71], [72] ... Grutness...wha? 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's really not anything here. What this article says, in short, is: there are some Muslims training to go into space, and if and when they do, they will find it hard to figure out which direction Mecca is in. I really don't see that this article could ever contain much of interest --Deville (Talk) 02:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Salat —porges(talk) 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is also ongoing discussion about Scientologists sending pregnant women to space. As we well know, in space, nobody can hear you scream. Which would make space the perfect birthing spot for little Scientologists. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation and lack of content --Ajdz 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting topic, but not of itself enough to be a whole article: merge any verifiable content into Salat, then delete the remaining silly named redirect. -- Karada 09:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A note about this topic could be placed in Salat. — TheKMantalk 23:41, 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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Riccio[edit]

Non-notable individual Berry 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC) - sorry, should prob. have made a speedy[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Moved to userpage. Tawker 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schlichtman[edit]

oops, sorry for double post. Anyway, this appears to be a vanity page created by the subject.--Caliga10 23:53, 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. -Doc ask? 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of marketing[edit]

This article has been here nearly two years as a stub opinion piece with no references. As it is, it is WP:OR that serves no useful purpose. Any legitimate purpose it does have could be met with a few sentences in the marketing article. --23:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Blainster

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Maciag[edit]

Prodded as a vanity page (see username), deprodded, so bringing to AfD. Produces 87 distinct google hits from Google [73] so would appear to fail WP:BIO Eusebeus 23:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, dishonest nomination, since Google hits show that subject's writing appears regularly in publications with audiences over 5K. Nominator shows unhealthy preoccupation with cleansing Wikipedia of subjects whose native tongue is not English. Monicasdude 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • And another WP:POINT opinion. We all know this won't be speedily kept with 2 deletion opinions already rendered.--Isotope23 02:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 87 gHits for a Polish newsreporter seems like a fair amount to me. --eivindt@c 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't expect many google hits for a Polish newsreporter. JoshuaZ 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Eivind. One would expect not so many hits from a Polish reporter. Although I'm not sure exactly who he works for, based on this article. The article could certainly use some work. --Deville (Talk) 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First off, a publication with over 5,000 readers: that would cover hundreds of thousands of media figures, forget where they're from. This person is not primarily an author. Second: a singular reporter, less they be from a major publication and/or done major work (Matt Drudge) does not merit an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a reference desk; if you manage to run across an obscure reporter, those gHits will cover all you need to know. Teke 03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I tried some cleanup. Seems to verifiably be a significant Polish reporter covering American news. Jkelly 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy as autobiography. Just zis Guy you know? 07:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a decent stub to me. Mangojuicetalk 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per JzG, might have a place pending its expansion. Kuzaar 16:19, 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 as vandalism. Turnstep 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D.G. Wophey's Theorem[edit]

Neologism from a 100% vandalism account, zero non-Wiki Google hits. SD? Rklawton 23:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced, can't be found outside of wikipedia. --Eivindt@c 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete hoax --Deville (Talk) 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vandalism. It is non-verified / non-verifiable WP:V and as it was created by a self admitted vandalism account it seems to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopaedia.--blue520 08:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy annihilate Hoax. True, though. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_27&oldid=1081094107"