Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 27 April 29 >

Purge server cache

April 28[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 keep. While there were more delete than keep votes, most were simply "per nom", and what is and what is not notable is not established by us, so saying "only gone for 42 hours" and "kids go missing all the time" completely misses the point. If news sources (and thus a large number of people) found it notable, then it meets our standards. (Aside: not finding it in Google News and a lack of current event tagging should not be surprising for an incident that happened in 2003). The article provides multiple references to backup the notability claim, and thus, should be kept. Turnstep 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floriberta Jiménez Torres[edit]

Tried to prod, but was reverted so afd'ed as a result of this. Wikipedia is not a newssource, my opinion is that this is more or less a regional event, the person in question is not notable, and as such should be deleted. She was only gone for 42 hours, and like it or not, kids go missing all the time, many of whom are kidnapped. Bjelleklang - talk 23:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to see this article prove itself better. At the moment I'd have to support if I were forced to vote. MyNameIsNotBob 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Simply not notable. dbtfztalk 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unfortunate, but nn. -- MusicMaker5376 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - general subject is notable; individual may be notable in context of list or article about events on a larger scale. -Ekajati 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; what general subject is that? Melchoir 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definitely not notable --Deville (Talk) 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Most of the Google hits for her are Wikipedia mirrors. --Metropolitan90 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 06:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ekedolphin 07:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not last night's local news bulletin. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who in the hell is that person? 63.173.47.193 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article was an innocent child put in a life threatening situation at the hands of US governement officials. Nomination is an example of Systemic bias. The article is clearly noteworthy. davidzuccaro 16:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Shit happens. And it's very unfortunate when it happens. But it happens all the time, and this person/event is not notable enough for our encyclopedia. Wait until she becomes a leading pro-immigrant activist. ;-) Grandmasterka 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are aware of other instances of US government officials endangering the lives of innocent children through either incompetence or malevolence then I for one would want to hear of them. However I think this victim is only one one very few. Hence she is notable.davidzuccaro 05:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - How can this be non-notable?! Luka Jačov 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very small untagged stub about a current event without a current event temaplate. General Eisenhower 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I searched the major periodicals online and found absolutely no mention of her. I would suspect that the article's claim "Her case made the news world wide" is a bit of an overstatement. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If major peiodicals fail to report an event, the event and the people involved are not necessarily not notable. davidzuccaro 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • El Vocero in Puerto Rico had an article about her. Futhermore, I saw her news on online editions of newspapers in Argentina, India and Russia. If "Her case made the news world wide" is an overstatement, then "The Pope is a religious man" should be considered an overstatement too. This was a long time ago, not yesterday night. Antonio Bosnia Martin
  • Keep --serbiana - talk 23:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -per nom, nn Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 02:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --GTubio 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No googlenews hits; Wikipedia is not a news source. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Subject was major Hispanic media news. This is not a current vent , it happened more that a year ago. Hundreds of children are kidniapped everyday, not many are found inside a trunk. Florencia was. 558 Google hits. Antonio Flerencia! Florencia! Martin
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the exact reason Bottesini voted Delete: major periodicals did report the event. Note that a few of them spelled her name "Floriberta Jiménez Tomás":
Also Keep per Bjelleklang's nomination; see Jennifer Wilbanks - we do keep articles about people who were "only gone for 42 hours", or otherwise become famous through short-lived sensational news stories. Even Mexican people. AnonEMouse 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to new coverage evidence presented. It appears now that she does have major news coverage, in a less loathsome way than Natalee Holloway. And please, assume good faith. Grandmasterka 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete News coverage does not necessarily confer encyclopedic notability. Eusebeus 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it does. WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". AnonEMouse 22:00, 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 no consensus. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed Vohra[edit]

Prodded as unverified CV of a CEO, deprodded as appears notable enough [1], but a quick google search turns up a mere 14 distinct hits on his company [2] and 15 hits on the man himself [3] (which expands to 29 if you drop the middle name [4]), so we bring it to AfD for further review. Suggest Delete on grounds of nn. Eusebeus 00:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching Aftab Ahmad Vohra Thatcher131 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination, nominator omits deprod citation of articles showing subject is treated as notable in relevant national press. Nominator shows an unhealthy preoccupation with targeting figures from non-Western cultures for deletion.Monicasdude 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - this user has posted a "speedy Keep" on similar grounds under every AfD nomination from Eusebus for at least the past week. — AKADriver ☎ 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Only a few very trivial mentions in minor press sources. Most hits on the name are Wikipedia or mirrors. dbtfztalk 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reads like someone's resume, and the parts that are verifiable aren't particularly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free CV hosting service. There's no assertion that this particular CEO is special. Brian G. Crawford 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from this non-western - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in article is verified which causes the problems here. Web CVs should be subjected to utmost scrutiny, unfortunately this doesn't stand up right now. Needs the WP:HEY, which in this case would be: If verified as executive leader of a notable company, with additional influential commercial responsibility within Lahore, and article completely stripped of POV, unencylopedic info (member of Gymkhana club?) and edited for standard of English, I'd be happy to reconsider the matter. Deizio 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice effort with the research and cleanup, still not convinced that business in Lahore revolves around him but enough for a Weak keep from me. Deizio 09:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails notability standards, Monicasdude is on a "remove all PROD tags" crusade. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per WP:BIO.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Another case where it wouldn't kill us to wait a while. CEO of a Pakastani company should be as notable as a CEO of a US company of similar size (relative to the country's economy). Nomination is an example of Systemic bias. Is google really valid for a Pakastani company? I don't know. I would prefer to wait and see if some Pakistani editors can tell us that this is either not verifiable or is notable and help us rewrite.Thatcher131 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lexis/Nexis has 20+ articles in Pakistani news sources in the last two years. I will add some to the article. Thatcher131 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lexis/Nexis has 200+ articles under spelling Aftab Ahmad Vohra with 250 G'hits (vs 40 G'hits for Ahmed) Thatcher131 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He seems not to be notable as the owner of a chemical business but reasonably notable as VP of the Lahore Chamber of Commerce, he gets a fair amount of news coverage for trying to bring outside businesses and investment to Pakistan. Thatcher131 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I wasn't sure at first whether the level of notability I could demonstrate warranted a keep, but based on several new keep votes below, I agree he should be kept and hopefully improved upon by local experts. Thatcher131 15:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO failed --MaNeMeBasat 05:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thatcher131. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per good faith nomination by the nom. DarthVader 13:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kuzaar 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thatcher131. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thatcher131. Notability shouldn't be U.S.-centric. Amcfreely 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thatcher131. Quite notable. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you know something about the subject could you improve the article any? Thatcher131 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm an Indian & this is a Pakistani article. I've even heard about this guy but have no concrete info on basis of which I can contribute. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge (which doesn't need deletion tools, a redirect is fine). Mailer Diablo 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie McDonald[edit]

Nn person, nice story but person is not notable. Should be merged as a little reference into the relevant Harry Potter article, and then deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 00:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then delete as per nom. Nice story, but nn, unfortunately. -- MusicMaker5376 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom into Minor Harry Potter characters, then redirect Natalie McDonald, or even keep. Daughter of a friend of J. K. Rowling, inspiration for a minor character in Goblet of Fire, inspiration for human-interest news story... none of these things are notable alone, but together I think they come close. --Allen 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --TorriTorri 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't mean to be heartless but this nn. --Eivindt@c 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched all over google and other search engines. All I could find were various fan sites and forums which repeated this story...but not one actual news source. I think this is a hoax. I can't find anything respectable to corroborate this story. IrishGuy 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge, as per IrishGuy. There is a strong possibility that it is a hoax, so it should not be merged unless it can be verified by a reliable source (the article cites a fansite). -- Kjkolb 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character is obviously real, which can be confirmed from the book. The little girl is real: the source quoted in the article is an interview with J. K. Rowling in which she speaks of having met the little girl. If you want to go on record as claiming that JKR perpetrated a cruel hoax you had better find better reasons than "I think it's a hoax". I ckecked the website for the source—Maclean's in Canada—and they appear not to have any archives for 2000: this is why sites like Quick Quotes Quill exist: to preserve ephemeral stuff like this for when it has expired (this is even assuming that this article was ever published online: if it was paper-only, where are you going to look?). As for merging into Minor Harry Potter characters, this little girl is not a character, she is real. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 06:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Nobody said that J.K. Rowling perpetrated a hoax. Rowling wrote a book with a character named Natalie McDonald. Other people ascribed a story to this character that may not be factual. I still have yet to see any confirmation beyond fan sites. J.K. Rowling's official site makes no mention at all of this. IrishGuy 17:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the person and the story is real enough, but not notable to have an article of it's own. Would fit better into the list of minor characters, where the background of the character could be referenced. Bjelleklang - talk 11:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep JK Rowling is very very good at dispelling rumors and hoaxes surrounding her books. The Leaky Cauldron, one of the most respected HP sites out there even ran this story, however the best I can do is find the google cache of this since it is rather old. [6] from back in july of 2001. One newspaper that originally ran the story http://www.theglobeandmail.com , only keeps archives to January of 2002, hence the reason it is difficult to find the original. This is a real person and I think notability, (however minor) has been established. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. -- GWO
  • Merge per above. -- Tangotango 11:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very sweet story, and I believe it to be true. However, I don't think that a single, one-time name-only mention in any fictional work is enough for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""merge""-71.3.116.233 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep not really notable, but the character is OBVIOUSLY, GLARINGLY real. Go do original research and you can see for yourself that Natalie McDonald is in there. For the time being, keep until we can ask J.K. Rowling, WB, or whoever to confirm this story. If it's false, delete before it becomes an urban legend. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Goblet of Fire or with Minor Griffindors.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Kelly[edit]

Delete nn child artist, could be notable enough for inclusion when album is released, but not at this moment. A Google search comes up with 4 results for "Victoria Tori Kelly", and less than 650 for "Tori Kelly", of which many appeared to be from various forums. Bjelleklang - talk 00:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- decent amount of television exposure. -- MusicMaker5376 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, fair amount of coverage and appears to have been signed to a major label. Maybe look at again later to see if anything developed. Good nomination, though. Kuru talk 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it's a good idea to keep articles based on the possibility of future notability, but if we're pretty sure she's about to come out with an album on a major label, then I think it makes more sense to keep the article than to delete and recreate later. I won't vote keep, though, because I don't think there's a policy supporting my opinion on this. --Allen 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of people get signed by record labels without ever actually getting an album released. Until somebody at Geffen formally announces a release date, the album should be considered crystal ballish. Fan1967 01:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If there was more info about the album I'd be inclined to a wait in see attitude, but winning a minor television show and being on or two others isn't notable. JoshuaZ 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't a hit show, but it was a nationally broadcast show. So, it really fits in the middle, and shouldn't be called minor. It's not like she just won a local talent contest. --Rob 09:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, barely asserts notability. --Terence Ong 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has had sufficient success to be deemed notable. --Rob 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Non notable, as has been said. If she releases some albums, gains a following, and actually sticks around for a while, that is a different story. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to become a forum for bios of every minor musician on the planet---press agents would love that! --Charles 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. We can afford to wait until she has released an album. Kimchi.sg | talk 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has achieved sufficient success to be barely notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siva1979 --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees of Wikipedia[edit]

Something made up in school. Not quite patent nonsense enough to speedy. Fan1967 00:33, 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 redirected Melchoir 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alabama Theatre[edit]

This page is both a duplicate of the Alabama Theatre (no "The") entry and a copyright violation of the official About the Alabama Theatre page.

  • Redirect to Alabama Theatre. --Allen 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect since it's an obvious alternate search name. Is there a reason this couldn't have been done outside of AFD - is someone disputing that its the same theatre? Kuru talk 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect; I'll do it myself. Melchoir 01:05, 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 SDed (admin didn't close). Eivindt@c 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Koontz Novels[edit]

I used this page to create pages for novels by Dean Koontz before I split them. I don't need it anymore. Weatherman90 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - you have the correct speedy deletion tag on the article, I think this can be removed from AFD. Kuru talk 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catboy[edit]

Subject fails to satisfy notability requirement for living persons. Folajimi 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Catgirl, i.e. revert to original version. Current version appears to be vanity by User:Widdop. dbtfztalk 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Catgirl per Dbtfz. --Allen 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Catgirl which was the original and better version. Thetruthbelow 01:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Catgirl. --Terence Ong 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn - but I truly fail to see the logic in redirecting this to Catgirl. A catgirl is a girl with catlike features; they're common in pop culture, whereas male counterparts are nearly unheard of. We could move Catgirl to Cat-person and redirect both "Catgirl" and "Catboy" to that page, but, frankly, I think a better solution is just to out-and-out delete Catboy. --Hyperbole 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd like to point out that many (most?) of the characters in the musical cats were catboys, that the main character of Final Fantasy IX was a catboy, and that the term shows up enough elsewhere that it deserves discussion. However, that seems to be done in Catgirl, although that article is fairly poor in general. Captainktainer 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hyperbole. -- Kjkolb 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Dijxtra 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hyperbole. JIP | Talk 07:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Do not redirect/merge with catgirl, Catgirls are not relavent to this person. Beno1000 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn & is not relevant to Catgirl --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to clarify, I don't think any of us "redirect" voters are suggesting that Simon Smedley has anything to do with catgirls. We're saying that catboy should redirect to catgirl because catboys -- that is, male humans with cat ears and tails -- are relevant to catgirl. If you look at catgirl, you'll see that it does discuss catboys, in the fourth paragraph. --Allen 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This hasn't much to do with catwoman or catgirl or catcalls. Its just some obviously mediocre radio host. Though the bit on controversy had me enthralled.thenormalyears


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ni parolas Esperante[edit]

Yahoocruft, fails WP:WEB. Or, to be international about it, from the Italian AfD: "Gruppo di discussione su Yahoo. Non enciclopedico IMO." Melchoir 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a Yahoo group. Such groups aren't encyclopedic in themselves, but if this is significant to Esperanto it can be merged or linked to from that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a Yahoo group without any evidence or claim of notability, and it seems to have 184 members? That seems quite small for a Yahoo group. --Deville (Talk) 02:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google just got about 600 hits. It is not very notable yet.--Jusjih 05:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website. --Terence Ong 06:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable Yahoo group. JIP | Talk 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mets501talk 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:15, 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) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloguje.cz[edit]

Non-noteable. See: Wikipedia is not... Ich 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was merge into Genetic fingerprinting. - Liberatore(T) 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Lee Andrews[edit]

Prod was: "insufficiently notable criminal. somebody had be the first rapist convicted by DNA, and I don't think too many people want to know exactly who that was." Deprod was: "Object to prod, nomination does not state valid grounds for deletion, Wikipedia includes many subjects notable as 'firsts.'" Well, maybe some of these firsts oughtta get deleted. The article communicates nothing new about the history of DNA in crimefighting, and is about an otherwise routine criminal. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per that crazed Russian dude. Conflates news with notability. Eusebeus 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and this sounds like newspaper material. Second, He may merit a mention in genetic fingerprinting, but he's not important enough for his own article. Brian G. Crawford 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously the article sucks, but the subject has potential. He does four times better on Google than Colin Pitchfork, who has a decent article. If you want references, there's Written in Blood: A History of Forensic Detection and The Casebook of Forensic Detection: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Crimes. Melchoir 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be fine with a merge if it helps reach consensus...--Isotope23 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Melchior. Genetic fingerprinting is a revolutionary technique in forensic science; this seems like a big enough event. --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a cursory mention in an article about genetic fingerprinting is all he deserves -- Hirudo 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to genetic fingerprinting, he is a common criminal only notable in that context. JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, well, that's really what I meant. I have no qualms with a sentence on Andrews being added to the article on the technique, and I think it would be perfectly proper. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is already a mention of him on the Genetic fingerprinting page. It has been there some time, although I recently updated it. Ted 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JoshuaZ. —porges(talk) 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems no different than Colin Pitchfork. And, from the citations, came before him as well. I'd hate clogging up main articles with such things. Ted 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Joshua; this will have the result of keeping his name as a redirect, which I think he is notable enough for (though not his own article). Thatcher131 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point about the redirect. JoshuaZ 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:JoshuaZ. Under no circumstances should this comment be interpreted as my suggesting that an article on this person should not exist in the future if there is enough verfiable information to spin off from genetic fingerprinting. Jkelly 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to genetic fingerprinting. --Terence Ong 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a separate article. Wikipedia should include firsts when they are already notable as such. (To take a rather extreme example, we wouldn't write off the Wright Brothers for just being another pair of amateur pilots.) I also don't care for the "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper" argument: sure it isn't, but if the article sounds too much like a newspaper, just rewrite it. --Saforrest 06:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per JoshuaZ. The difference between Andrews and the Wright brothers is in their history — were this an article about the person/people who came up with fingerprinting, then it'd be an easy keep. Outside of being the first to get nailed, there's nothing really notable about Andrews. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. He's a small part of the history of a wider subject. Friday (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Doesn't deserve it's own article. Could use a mention in genetic fingerprinting, though more for the date that it was first used than the actual crime.
  • Merge per JoshuaZ --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting and notable person. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rimstead[edit]

De-prodded, one-line article. Subject appears to have been an opinion columnist for a Toronto tabloid in the 70's and 80's [7]. 79 unique, 253 total hits on google is low, but de-prod asserted meeting the 5k+ readership standard at WP:BIO. That standard applies to "authors, editors, and photographers" but pehaps not "Page 5 columnists", so another debate that should be given the full treatment. Deizio 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, well done to Robocoder for the WP:HEY effort, I think most concerns have been addressed. Just a wee bit of POV watch and fact citing to go. Deizio 19:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stub clearly fails any attempt at being an article. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. I'm not convinced that 5K+ readership should be extended to newspaper columnists.--Isotope23 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objections to the latest version.--Isotope23 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails to provide the context to be a stub article. No prejudice against a subsequent version that is at least a stub is intended. GRBerry 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Keep - new version at this time is a good start. GRBerry 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Isotope. If it did apply every small town newspaper writer would be in here. In any case, I don't like the 5k guideline anywsy. No prejudice against recreation of a version that makes a good argument for notability. JoshuaZ 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Need to think about the new version, will abstain for now. JoshuaZ 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prodded, but I'm throwing a wrench into the Afd works. Please review the latest edit. -- Robocoder 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the "RIP" per WP:NOT a memorial. There are definite POV issues here. I will look at it more closely tomorrow to see if he meets WP:BIO based on the new version.--Isotope23 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably a published author and columnist. Not obvious to me what the problem is beyond the article needing cleanup. Jkelly 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original article read simply, "A popular writer for the Toronto Sun." -- Robocoder 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Deizio, even the current version. He does not appear to be exceptional and only the smallest of newspapers would fail to meet 5,000 readers. -- Kjkolb 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 08:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Robocoder's valuable revisions; clearly meets notability standard for published book author (Prentice-Hall) as well as having award named after him at major Canadian university. Monicasdude 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have located significant sources through Lexis/Nexis (which has a longer memory than Google) and will be updating accordingly. Thatcher131 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The revisions are good enough to verify notability, in my mind, and if Thatcher131 can make some adjustments to the article to make it more encyclopedic, I don't see why we couldn't keep it. ekedolphin 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite ... and I really like WP:HEY. AnonEMouse 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep not very notable, but rewrite is solid and subject squeaks by. Eusebeus 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep New version is much better and demonstrates possible notability. JoshuaZ 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten edition. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep somewhat notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:52, 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) 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Siegel[edit]

This article is obviously a vanity article. This person who first created this article is "ESiegel." This page should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy pertaining to vanity pages.--Wikster72 01:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - vanity article. -Ekajati 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, reads like a resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If he was really nominated for an Emmy and the musicians he allegedly worked with are notable, he might be notable. But I could not verify any of this. dbtfztalk 02:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was puzzling to me too. There's an IMDB entry for an Eric Siegel, but he's an actor and not the same as the current subject (and has no awards or nominations listed, either). A search on the official Emmy website for the subject's name doesn't yield anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanishizzlespamcraftisementastic --Deville (Talk) 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can overlook the WP:VAIN issues, but it falls very short of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. SorryGuy 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable biography article. JIP | Talk 07:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity article. ekedolphin 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hopeless vanity. Note the 'charitable' stub. - Richardcavell 09:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete vanity --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Vanity article. — TheKMantalk 23:44, 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 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium embassy girls[edit]

prod stub removed by author w/o hangon; factual & grammatical errors; no source provided; event incorporated into Child abduction -- Robocoder 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It did happen, as the BBC reported [8], but the article title does not really seem to represent an accepted or suitable name for the event. Is this the only article we have about this story? Could be included somewhere in the wider context of Belgian-Iranian relations, or international tug-of-love cases. Deizio 02:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, good work David Sneek and Fan1967. Needs to be renamed, I would personally go with Yasmine and Sara Pourhashemi, with redirects from their names, their surname, the current article name and also "Belgian Embassy girls" for good measure. Deizio 15:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have cleaned up the formatting to at least make it readable. Looks almost like it might have been a copy and paste. Fan1967 02:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into something appropriate. I don't know what would be in this article other than, "One day, this happened". --Deville (Talk) 02:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already merged into Child abduction by another user. Not encyclopedic on its own. GRBerry 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GRBerry and nom. SorryGuy 06:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a rewrite and name change, possibly just to the names of one or more of the girls. Any sort of diplomatic incident like this would surely have attracted significant press coverage, especially given contemporary Western attitudes about Iran and the whole Not Without My Daughter hubbub in the eighties. --Saforrest 06:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's been merged, so kill this as its never-gonna-be-more-than-a-stub. -- GWO
  • Delete - since it has been merged. Needs a rewrite anyway. - Richardcavell 09:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, expand and move to Yasmine Pourhashemi (the name of the elder sister) or Pourhashemi sisters. The girls lived in the Belgian embassy in Tehran for almost half a year, which caused a diplomatic crisis between Belgium and Iran (according to Belgian law they were Belgians, according to Iranian law Iranians). Big story in Belgium for months. David Sneek 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I prodded this article and did the merge into Child abduction because while the event was newsworthly, I don't believe it is noteworthy as an encyclopedic entry. (See WP:NOT re: news reports.) Anyone interested in the case can search news archives. Under Child abduction, the event serves a purpose to provide a historical example and outline the complications of international child abductions. -- Robocoder 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I appreciate the effort to merge the story into Child abduction, I do believe it is somewhat out of place in that article. I also can't help thinking that if this had happened to two American sisters, we'd have articles on both girls, another on the legal issues, one on their parents, and a complete timeline of all events. (See Joran van der Sloot for an example of the detailed treatment stories in the US news get here.) David Sneek 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment First, there was no abuse, and second, the girls were nabbed by their father who under Iranian law recognized he had legal custody. International child abduction is not unusual. The article mentions that the US State Department's Office of Children's Issues counted 904 abduction cases by U.S.-based parents in 2003.[9] Are those cases encyclopedic too? Meanwhile, Ronels is disputing my merge in Child abduction. -- Robocoder 18:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Obviously it is not the abduction that is notable, but the events that followed it. Two minors lived inside an embassy for over five months causing all kinds of diplomatic and legal problems, their case got intense media coverage in Belgium (and made the news in many other countries too), two foreign ministers and a prime minister had to get involved to find a solution: that is what makes it very different from other abductions. David Sneek 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I dont know that the article isn't encyclopedic as one editor stated -- as noted in another, the situation was news in Belgium "for months." That alone qualifies the situation, I think, for some encyclopedic treatment. As I note in my comments at Child abduction, however, the case isn't that signifcant in terms of child abduction or international child abduction. Ronels talk 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then perhaps this is better incorporated into Kamal Kharrazi or Guy Verhofstadt as notable achievements in diplomacy? -- Robocoder 23:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirectto Pitchfork Media. Mailer Diablo 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Schreiber[edit]

Contested prod. Subject is nn. Eusebeus 01:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn hipster doofus. dbtfztalk 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as hipster doofus, per below. dbtfztalk 06:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeRedirect to Pitchfork Media. No reason for a 1 liner and a picture to be a standalone article and not a lot of potential for expansion here.--Isotope23 02:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Pitchfork site seems to be notable enough, having an Alexa rank of 3834, does that notability carry over to the guy in charge? In any case, there's gotta be a better picture of this guy. --Deville (Talk) 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and never look at the pic again. Deizio 02:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as a redirect per Isotope. Notability would not carry over to the man unless he has been written about in multiple non-trivial reliable source-type publications. Thatcher131 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should have been redirected as an editorial decision. Bringing it here wasn't necessary. Jkelly 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jkelly, and remind nominator to be bold in cases that don't really need consensus. Kuzaar 16:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. The person has no notability aside from being Pitchfork's editor, so he certainly doesn't need his own article when there's already content about him in the Pitchfork article. -- Kicking222 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable hipster doofus that meets WP:BIO guidelines, with press coverage outside of Pitchfork [10] [11] [12] as well as being one of the lucky few to nominate for the New Pantheon Award [13]. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Isotope23. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FotoPrint[edit]

This page is pure advertising, so it qualifies for deletion. If you are the author of this page, see Wikipedia's Deletion Policy Bogdantudor 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant advertising for nn business. dbtfztalk 02:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. SCHZMO ✍ 02:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly no claims or evidence of notability --Deville (Talk) 02:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising Ted 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. --Terence Ong 06:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising/vanity/useless except to market the company- Richardcavell 09:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment - if your software is worth a mention, let other people do it... Don't add yourself - NickSentowski 19:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a free advertising agency for your products. Beno1000 22:35, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizer (music)[edit]

Nom didn't fill out AfD page. Completing nomination.--Isotope23 02:42, 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 yep, delete. DS 15:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Echo Comps[edit]

I speedied this before and it's back. Let's review it properly. Looks to me like non-notable softwarecomputer company, I mean. See WP:CORP for guidelines for such pages. Chick Bowen 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When the website for a computer company still has "under construction"-type tags on it, you know they're not notable. Fan1967 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan --Deville (Talk) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under CSD G4 Gwernol 04:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While it perhaps could be speedied under CSD G4, I think it would be better to run this through AfD so that it won't be created again. Although perhaps it's against policy, I prefer to see something that initially got speedied and then recreated go through AfD instead of CSD G4. DarthVader 13:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely. I don't feel comfortable putting a protected {{deletedpage}} on it until it's been through AFD. Chick Bowen 16:27, 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, after discounting sockpuppets . Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Diamond Clan[edit]

Non-notable online clan. Clans are only generally considered encyclopedic if they compete in sanctioned organizations like the Cyberathlete Professional League. FCYTravis 02:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the only way for a gaming clan to be notable is to kill a bunch of people, commit suicide or have extremely notable members, like heads of state. -- Kjkolb 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:Kjkolb. JIP | Talk 07:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. --Terence Ong 10:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forum --ES2 13:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,I believe we are notable considering we are the biggest successful DS Online Clan as well as one of the first(not the first). -ptfreak
  • Keep,I think 600 members is considered notable. We would just like to get the recognition we deserve as possibly the largest Nintendo DS clan on the internet. -N64BOY39
  • Keep,I personally see the Blue Diamond Clan as one of the best video game clans and most succesful of all time. There should be no reason for deleting an article on one of the the greatest and most successful clans.If you do not belief us check us out. bdc.clan.pro

- golferwerd

  • Delete,I personally believe that there is no point in having this article here, as it was purely created to advertise their clan. Also, it is just a Wifi DS Clan. Maybe the best (in golferwerd's opinion [but not mine]), it's just a Wifi DS Clan. You could hardly get a clan to be any smaller and specific yet be of any importance.

- James Vanderbilt

  • Keep,The Blue Diamond Clan may seem unimportant to those people who do not play DS Wifi games, but the importance of articles is relative. To people involved in the Nintendo gaming community, this article holds value. Therefore, it should not be deleted. - Lynn
  • Keep,I dare you to find another DS Wifi Clan that is:

1. More Populated and 2. More Successful than the BDC. This Webpage should stay on because the BDC is the best DS Wifi clan out there. The BDC has a unique arengement of people and each and very visit to the BDC is always fun. There is always something to do there be it games or talk about random stuff. All the other DS Wifi clans have already collapsed but the BDC is as strong as ever. Also, commiting suicide does not make a clan notable. Just.....dangerous. Again, digg.com must have found the BDC notable because the gave the BDC a 10, but its just only the perfect score right? ~Crazyforkillua[BDC's Sheik Smasher Expert]

  • Keep,The clan is large, and still growing, showing great potential. I can see why one may not want every single clan to write an article, but this clan is very successful. As for it not being notable, like was said, if you personally don't care about online gaming, then you probably wouldn't think is was noteworthy, but that's an opinion. Anyone interested in online gaming may find it interesting. Also, I didn't find this article to be an advertisement any more than any other Wiki article that has a link to the source. Anyway, why would one advertise on Wikipedia instead of a site more heavily frequented by video gamers? -Thorn
  • Keep,BDC is the biggest WiFi clan on the internet. Period. Also the most successful. And quote from the top of this page "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" So, how does it hurt Wiki to have MORE information? Explain that to me. -Nintendofankid
  • Keep,BDC is one of the best clans I have ever been in. I have been in tons of clans before for different reasons, but this clan actually... How you say it touched me. (Not like that pervs <_<) Anyway without this clan... I don't know maybe I wouldn't be here. This clan is just more than a ds clan to some, but a part of some peoples lives. Before some other person comes and flames that last sentence I just said I would like to say... I know it may seem nerdish or whatever you people say is wierd and not common to you. Just remeber that a person is a person no matter what. Plus I'm going off topic and just probably blabbing stuff out, so I would like you to remeber that BDC is more than a clan, but more like a family - Zuto
  • Keep, I agree with Nintendofankid and Zuto - Bacon&Eggs
  • Keep,the Blue Diamond Clan is the most successful and most notable Wi-fi clan out there. We have 600 members and if you call that unnotable then your opinion on here shouldn't matter, as you wouldn't know much about a wi-fi clan. You can go on the BDC to play games, or to just hang out and chat. And as Zuto said to some people the BDC is more then just a clan, to some it's family. It will be a serious injustice if you delete the Blue Diamond Clan article. After all, more articles mean more visitors for Wikipedia, which means more success. And that's what is wanted, right? ~ Joe, a.k.a JoeWise6
  • Keep,this clan is great. I joined the day I got Mario Kart DS. I came across this clan on gamefaqs. Someone was advertising so I joined. I expected it to be one of those "other clans" that usually dies because of non-active members. I thought to myself, "I'll just use this clan to make wi-fi friends to play on Mario Kart." Little did I know that this clan would take a piece of my heart with it. I am now very active and the clan is thriving is ways I didnt imagine. I love it so much I sneak on at school (shh). If you were to chose a wi-fi clan, chose BDC. I promise you that you WILL make friends and that you WILL have a great time. - abc123
  • Keep,as Lynn has stated, this article holds value to those involved. The Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection community is a relatively new community, with plenty of clans being created each day. The Blue Diamond Clan is among the oldest and is currently the most populated clan of this type. This article holds valuable information. If an article about the most popular clan of a certain online service is not valuable, then what is? This clan deserves an article, especially for being a quintessential Nintendo Wi-Fi Clan, and for being the apex of these clans in general. - Katie, a.k.a. "Valkyrie"
  • Keep,BDC is a threshold in Nintendo's growing online community. It has brought hundreds of Nintendo's fans together to meet and share everything from memories to funny videos. It's an online community where everyone knows everyone and where we stick together like a family. The goal of the article is not to advertise, but to inform, as does every other article on Wikipedia. BDC has pioneered and helped shape Nintendo's WiFi community, and is guaranteed to only expand and become more notable, especially when Nintendo Wii is released. I really hope BDC can keep its article, it means a lot to me. -Nick a.k.a. phoenix
  • Keep,I was SO bored until I found BDC. I always have someone to talk to or play against. And I'm sure people will appreciate this page as much as I appreciated the article on Digg. This shouldnt be deleted just because noone commited suicide or noone in this clan is famous. You guys call this an encyclpedia right? I think an article like this should be included in an encyclopedia. What harm did this article cause? I dont see anything wrong with this being here. -KopyKat I can see you
  • Keep,BDC is a clan I have become a part of. I didn't know anything about clans at the time I joined. But the friendly community sucked me right in. This is probably the NICEST, ONE OF THE MOST THRIVING, and SUCCESFUL clans I have seen compared to many others. I made so much friends in BDC and if you decided to delete this article you might be preventing many other people to have new good friends. And so what if no one commited suicide in the clan? What if Arnold effin Swartchinager isn't in here? That is not what makes a clan notable. What makes a clan notable (Preferably a wifi clan) is the community, challenge, and relationships. This clan ain't some clan that has any boundaries to join either unlike some clans. We came right from the start of DS wifi with a good history and you know what? That seems like a pretty long time for it to deserve an article. Thank you.

-metroixer the metroid mod N_N

  • Keep,I don't have many friends at school... no good friends are in my class. I get picked on occasionally. What does this have to do with the BDC? I know that when I log on here I won't be picked on. I will be accepted for the person I am. The BDC is a part of me, and I'm sure others feel the same way. Please don't delete this article. - WiiMonkey
  • Keep,I agree with all you guys-Naruto
  • Keep,the Blue Diamond Clan should stay up because without it, the DarkSnipers Clan would have no real competitors! The Blue Diamond Clan is the inspiration that makes other clans want to try harder to be successful! The BDC (Blue Diamond Clan) is the root reason for other clans to exist... If the Blue Diamonds go down, then the entire Nintendo Wi-Fi clan community will have nothing to work towards unless another Clan is good enough to match the popularity of the BDC.

BDC is to Nintendo, as E3 is to the Gaming Community in general! -Kurayamiblack(DSC)

  • Keep, this shouldn't be deleted. It is in no way an advertisement but a way for fellow gamers to come together and accomplish something greater. If we were advertising we would have only included our positives. We are a group of dedicated gamers who care a lot about each other and want a way to be able to remember ourselves for what we have done for each other. -Jermtastic
  • Keep, the fact that more than 600 people have registered makes it somewhat noticeable. That so many members are protesting deletion proves just as much.

Video games are considered "of note". Otherwhise, there wouldn't be nearly as many articles on them as presently exist. Small to medium sized communities are considered "of note". So is the internet. This is all three combined into one confusing myriad of a microcosm.

Personal value doesn't matter, but numbers do. And teacher tells me that 600 is a large one. --Genus

  • Keep This clan has helped me a LOT of times of when I was in need. So I would want to keep this site, even in times of trouble, we still were able to help ourselves. And for that, I would really appreciate it if you guys can keep this.- LJkaRma
  • Keep The clan seems to be growing at an alarming rate. Why take it off a growing website? It has become a part of my life, not just because of the games, but because you grow along with the site, and everyone on it. -Cyeo
  • Comment: By far the most of the above "keep" votes were added by users who have only ever edited the Blue Diamond Clan article itself and this AfD discussion (as if you couldn't guess). JIP | Talk 11:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't care about the site, why did you look up the article? Wikipedia is THE PEOPLE'S encyclopedia for THE PEOPLE to edit. If you don't want to find this, don't search it. Even advertisements could still live, just for the fact that you can't find a page without searching it. But even so, I don't believe this is an advertisement. I feel this is a page that has potential of detailing the history of this fine establishment that somehow, despite a low in recent Nintendo online play, despite seemingly endless pushbacks to the release of brawl, still survives. If you don't care, you don't have to come.

teej116 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Pathchirp[edit]

advertising - content is identical to linked website Jamoche 02:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also AfD PathChirp which has nearly identical content - if these aren't deleted, one should be a redirect Jamoche 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. (If it isn't advertising it's copyvio.) —porges(talk) 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No copyright notice on the original page. Fan1967 03:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content is automatically under copyright whether notified or not. Read copyright. —porges(talk) 03:28, 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) 00:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cone dodger[edit]

I am impressed that they managed to get this topic to 5 sentences but Wikipedia is unfortunately not a dictionary. Recury 02:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - though maybe add this article to a motocross list of terms if that exists. Wickethewok 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete primarily because I am concerned about verifiability - glancing over the 69 unique Ghits, they do not appear to define this term. --Hyperbole 05:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it could be useful, though I suspect that it will morph into something else. - Richardcavell 09:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --eivindt@c 12:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it's going to become something else then it should presumably be recreated under a more accurate name. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn slang, can never be more than a POV magnet for people who don't like autocrossing. — AKADriver ☎ 18:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus + cleaned up. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon region solo2[edit]

A region that runs autocross events. Unencyclopedic. Recury 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you expand it with? Right now it's just a short description of autocross and the club's schedule. Any info that would be added to this article would be more at home on the club's webpage. Recury 13:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedic discussion of the region's history, activities, etc. could easily be written. The club organizes one of the oldest amateur road races in America, the "Rose Cup Races." Frankly, the Oregon Region SCCA is far more encyclopedic and has far more lasting impact on the world around us than, say, LUEshi. FCYTravis 18:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per FCY travis Dspserpico 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, not quite notable SCCA region. Unless the Oregon Region has some claim to notability distinct from the SCCA as a whole, which there doesn't appear to be, though the Rose Cup Races are close. — AKADriver ☎ 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete events of the year 2006, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 09:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Said events are no longer in the article, as it's been cleaned up. FCYTravis 04:00, 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, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nintendo Zone[edit]

Nonnotable forums and website, was PRODded but prod was removed. Delete. _-M o P-_ 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forumcruft. —porges(talk) 02:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum. Doesn't even show up on Alexa. Hardly any GHits. The site is down right now, but a cached copy on Google from last week shows all-time total of 12,500 posts, 399 registered members. Most members ever logged on at the same time was 25, last December. Fan1967 03:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan --Deville (Talk) 03:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 09:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dont even go here, but I think as long as the entry is appropriate everything has a right to be on wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.11.39 (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, but unfortunately, what you think doesn't govern Wikipedia. Sorry, but we have rules, too. _-M o P-_ 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. IP voting not counted, but rationales are considered. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Ivy[edit]

This is a well-written article, but what damns it prima facie is the opening sentence: The "Jesuit Ivy" is a nickname given to Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. So, basically, this article is about an institution's nickname. Can you imagine anyone writing a "Penn State" article this size, just because it happes to be the nickname of Pennsylvania State University? This smacks of academic boosterism (which is not welcome on Wikipedia); surely no one's contributed a thing to this article aside from BC students and affiliates. What makes it an even graver crime than Southern Ivies or Public Ivies or Little Ivies or Bakersfield, California-area Ivies is that it's just a nickname for an institution with a separate article on Wikipedia. StarryEyes 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 02:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any usable content to Boston College and redirect. —porges(talk) 03:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge usable content per porges, but no redirect. I agree with everything you say, Starry, but there is some worthwhile and objective content here. We have to get rid of the "nickname page", though. This is like having separate articles for Joe DiMaggio and Joltin' Joe. And as for a redirect, it'd be lending credence to said boosters. After all, "Jesuit Ivy" -wikipedia garners a whopping 111 hits on Google. Raggaga 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and no redirect per Raggaga --Deville (Talk) 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful with Boston College. Redirect is probably needed per GFDL, but the page could be moved to a less boosterish title before redirecting. u p p l a n d 04:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC) On further thought, there is no reason not to redirect from Jesuit Ivy, as it is obviously a real term with a story behind it, as Hoopydink notes below. u p p l a n d 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Uppland: redirect is needed and doesn't really do any harm. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uppland and Future Perfect at Sunrise. JIP | Talk 07:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Uppland Keep per the lengthiness of the Boston College article and upon reflection, the validity of the article to stand alone Hoopydink 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • A note to the nom - probably would've been better to start a discussion on the talk page rather than propose scrapping the article in its entirety, as you said yourself it is a well-written article and I'd be hard-pressed to eliminate any of it when merged onto the Boston College article, as there is no blantant academic boosterism, as you label it. Perhaps next time, try to assume good faith. Plus, your Penn State comparison is a bit off, as there is a story behind the name "Jesuit Ivy". Had there been a separate article entitled "BC", your comparison would've been right on point. Hoopydink 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There's a story behind lots of nicknames. We don't have separate articles for Marilyn Manson and Brian Warner, do we? No blatant boosterism? Calling youself the X Ivy, as the nom alludes to, is booster pratice number one. Also, while I'm not assuming bad faith, I do notice a predominance of Boston-related edits, Mr. H, particularly for a certain Boston College High School. Raggaga 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that the proper comparison to BC being called a Jesuit Ivy would be The U and The University of Miami. The U is a disambig page which leads to an article describing the story behind the nickname that has been conferred to the University of Miami. Since Boston College or the insular community did not create the name, but rather an outside source (John F. Kennedy), there is no boosterism. The article does provide reasoning behind the name. If there's a bias or err in judgement on my part being suggested, I'd refer you to the Boston College High School article in question, as I'm probably the primary editor and take a look. You'll see that there are no weasel words or boosterism. It's written in respects to the NPOV policy (much like the Jesuit Ivy article). Also, if you do check it out, why not stay a while and edit it a bit? Hoopydink 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Boston College, keep it as a redirect. Its just a nickname of that place, what's the big deal? A mention in the main article is enough. --Terence Ong 11:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye, but it's not a real nickname. It's entirely self-styled. If someone wrote an article called The Best College in America and it was all about Boston College but it had some usable content, I would happily merge, but I'd be loath to redirect. Boosterism must not be countenanced. Raggaga 19:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "self-styled" as you claim. This is pretty clearly stated in the article. Droitet 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Since this is not just a name for the college but of JFK's actual speech. I also think its significance goes further than BC, so it would be wrong to jsut merge it to the BC article. The Jesuit Ivy speech was an important turning point, addressing the status of Catholics in public life, Church-State politics (and Kennedy's own future as the first Catholic US president), the role of Catholic universities and their position relative to American higher education. Perhaps these issues, which are touched on in the present article, should be made more explicit. 216.236.252.235 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Anon user, most of whose contributions are (surprise!) Boston College-related. Raggaga 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it should be kept as a separate article since it's the name of the speech itself. Also the nominator's objection that it's academic boosterism doesnt really hold here. It's not like BC woke up and decided to call *itself* the "Jesuit Ivy." Kennedy did. --Sader07 06:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the boosterism problem is not so much in the actual nickname, but with having that nickname as a separate entry. Redirecting it and mentioning Kennedy's speech in its proper historical context in the BC entry would be just fine. u p p l a n d 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add more context here. Most of this article would be pretty tangential in an article about Boston College itself. 216.227.122.37 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Boston College article is already too long and should probably be broken down into sub articles. -136.167.255.119 03:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above... Also, adding a section in the BC article about specifically this nickname wouldn't really make sense in the main BC article. The speech is notable for BC and warrants a mention in the main article, but not as long of a mention as the Jesuit Ivy article is. The information in the Jesuit Ivy article is worthy to be kept in Wikipedia and doesn't belong in the main BC article; thus, it should be kept in a separate article. Moreover the article is very well written and it would be a shame to lose all that hard work. Also, many things would need to be removed such as the wikisource link and the excerpt from the actual speech. PaulC/T+ 07:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Doesn't warrant its own article. Eusebeus 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This "nickname" doesn't have any significance outside of the conext of the speech, which in turn is too detailed/tangential for the necissary elaboration in the Boston college article. Invincoli 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The reasons for deleting this article (that it's just a nickname, that it's boosterism, and that it's self-styled) appear to have been misguided/misinformed. The reason for merging it (again that it's just a nickname) is inaccurate/inappropriate. Droitet 15:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. "Jesuit Ivy" has more historical legitimacy than Little Ivies, Southern Ivies, etc. and should be explained in its own article. 140.247.241.128 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD A7. Capitalistroadster 05:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Yao[edit]

non-notable student, see Benedict Huang by same author Deville (Talk) 03:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete × 2 —porges(talk) 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under CSD A7. Gwernol 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jni.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Intellects[edit]

Non-notable school organization Nv8200p talk 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - so very non-notable. Wickethewok 03:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - couldn't possibly be less notable. dbtfztalk 04:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it could possibly be less notable, but not by much :-) Gwernol 04:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete beyond non-notable --Ajdz 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete non-notable and the original editor has authored at least one fictitious article so it may not even be true. Ted 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment The user who made this, User:WCHSStudent is probably an acount on a school computer. All of it's edits have either been vandalism, or have to do with some high school. School's be allowed just to post all their crap on wikipedia. Furthermore, the vandalism from an acount like this probably comes from some but not all of the users who make the account. I think we need some sort of policy for school acounts. We have had alot of school junk lately. Tobyk777 05:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. DVD+ R/W 05:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, less notable than the lint in the bellybutton of any cast member of the Mary Tyler Moore show --Deville (Talk) 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete by {{db-group}}. Nationalparks 06:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete now tagged.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:46, 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 delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon The Evil Inside[edit]

Non-notable gamecruft. Created by an individual using RPG Maker. Won non-notable awards. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 03:42 UTC

  • Delete - agree with nom. Wickethewok 03:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for The Misao Awards is incorrectly connected to the RPG Maker page. Does this mean these awards were fabricated by the articles author? Mordecai121 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - there are comments and a link in that article regarding these awards; however, they do not see to have any validity or importance behind them. For all the information on their website, it could be some arbitrary guy. Wickethewok 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a brief mention of the awards at the end of the RPG Maker article. I don't know enough to say if that mention should be removed (if it is also non-notable), but having won one of those awards certainly doesn't seem to make a game notable. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 04:02 UTC
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only slightly better than fanfic as far as notability goes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pokemoncruft. --Terence Ong 11:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. "Pokemoncruft". Beno1000 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment, It's a fangame but there's a few other fangames already on wikipedia, so I would consider that, too. And for god's sake, "pokemoncruft", you people and that godforsaken word! Toastypk 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Kickoff Classic[edit]

Delete - non-notable rivalry between two marginally notable high schools. Wickethewok 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gwernol 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No Ghits --Deville (Talk) 06:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random nn football match.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 12:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is true. It was not a nationally recognized event, however, was a big state and local attraction. This even was called "The Desert Kickoff Classic" and was in fact played between the two schools for quite a few years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cfconroy (talk • contribs) .
Comment you might like to read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and guideline on notability. Just because something is true, doesn't mean there should be an encyclopedia entry about it. Good luck, Gwernol 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinombre[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, but it looks like deletion isn't need anymore now. Mailer Diablo 03:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV Single Dads[edit]

Original research delete —porges(talk) 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (See below.)[reply]

Note: the list as it stands now is not the article I nominated for deletion. Compare [14] and [15]. I hereby recommend the article is moved to something along the lines of "List of television shows featuring single fathers", and the current one deleted with no redirect. —porges(talk) 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per my original comment and revised nom. Nom: why not redirect TV Single Dads to your recommended list? "TV Single Dads" is not the most unusual search term and it is certainly relevant to what that list would contain. Also please consider when nominating articles for deletion under "No original research" whether the article can be made to exist as a valid entry with no original research. Sometimes this is not the case (for instance List of the best-tasting ice cream flavors) but in cases like this OR is a reason to fix the article, not delete it. —GT 00:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article as it was in the first place had no list but was just a commentary. See [16]. The list was added later by different editors. Also agree to redirect, it's not that unusual ;) —porges(talk) 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it seems as if, in a strange convoluted way, this is actually an example of successful collaboration! Tyrenius 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current form it's an obvious keeper and violates no WP stds. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --Rory096 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldilocks and The Three Bares[edit]

Non notable film. About 9910 Google hits, but many seem to be duplicates, and many are about something called "Sinderella and the Golden Bra." Rory096(block) 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Has IMdB entry here [17]. MyNameIsNotBob 04:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IsNotBob. Gwernol 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable low google hits due to age of film.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears harmless -- perhaps spoilerish, for those pedants out there. Keep -- Simon Cursitor
  • Keep, definitely notable with IMDB page. --Terence Ong 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aw, Herschell Gordon Lewis is one of the infamous schlockmeisters of 1960s cinema! RGTraynor 15:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. To reject a 1963 film on that kind of google count invites systemic bias. Deizio 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deiz. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Upstate[edit]

Was speedied and came back; submitting here for review. Seems to be just getting going and does not meet WP:CORP. Chick Bowen 04:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks like we get 9600 Ghits, which seems like a lot for a wrestling school. --Deville (Talk) 06:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excluding duplicates and Wikipedia mirrors, it gets about 200 Google results. Also the article does not make an effective claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google hits does not test notability. Richardcavell 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for all verifiable, recognized branches of the NWA. youngamerican (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete under WP:CORP --ES2 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 22:02, 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. Shanel § 23:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Juggernaut Bitch[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

Delete Regardless of the previous AFD. This is not encyclopedic (be sure to check the link for the video). Also, being a popular video for a while doesn't merit inclusion (will anyone remember it 1 year from now? 5 years? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, merge with Internet phenomenonand redirect as someone proposed. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user had less than 15 edits prior the comment, and nearly all of them from past week.
why does it deserve a page? that's the core of the issue. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 05:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons that were discussed the first time this came up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Juggernaut_Bitch ; as for the misleading comment about my number of edits, I've been using wikipedia for almost a year and often making minor edits without signing in. But thanks for the ad hominem attack. Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
drini probably pointed out the low number of edits made by your present account because it indicates that you are a new member of the community and, as such, it is only fair to assume that you are still learning about Wikipedia policy. This kind of note is standard practice on AfD. Melchoir 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low to no verifiability. Perfect fodder for any shock journalist trying to discredit Wikipedia. Appears to contain nearly a complete transcript of the video (oh thats been recently removed, no doubt leading to the above comment on the plot summary section). Furthermore, our link to the video itself (which is a clear copyright infringement) is contributory infringement, but remove the link and the article is totally unverifiable. --Gmaxwell 05:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per others.--Sean Black (talk?) 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a million videos on google video, few of which are notable in any way. There is too much webcartooncruft out there. Are we to make a page for everyone? I don't think so. Sasquatch t|c 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; being a somewhat popular amateur animation does not make it notable. The fact that it is on Google Video is meaningless, since they accept nearly anything that is legal and appropriate; see the Google Video upload page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. This article doesn't even claim that its subject is notable. No verification by reliable sources. Melchoir 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per everyone. We don't need articles about non-notable copyvios. --Hyperbole 05:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many others, this is extremely non-notable. --Deville (Talk) 06:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would say the fact of this eing on Google Video makes it less notable not more. Nothing to see here, move along please... Just zis Guy you know? 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should only consist of material that can be verified from some outside source, however obscure -- no outside source, no article. We should never consider how informative, well-written or interesting the content of any page is on its own terms. That is utterly immaterial in light of THE RULES. We should only stick to the narrowest possible interpretation of the THE RULES in all circumstances, without any exceptions for any reason whatsoever. All articles should be composed in the dryest, most soulless manner so that we can all pretend that they are written in a way that offers no point of view, even though all history has shown us that such is humanly impossible. We must ignore the examples of such utter trash as the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and dozens like it, which included and continue to include POV from its writers and articles on obscure subjects, since we know that those encyclopedias never achieved any serious critical or popular recognition or excellence. Indeed, we must also be sure to insult and dismiss the value in any articles with which we personally disagree or dislike, because that helps wikipedia's reputation for lack of POV among its writers. Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption. Above all, we must NEVER, EVER allow anything into wikipedia that would not exist in a regular encyclopedia, as that would put wikipedia in danger of turning into something unique and distinct, which, as good Marxists like us know, is evil and selfish. We MUST DELETE this article and all others like it before young, impressionable minds begin to disregard THE RULES!!!! RiseAbove 07:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know a lot of people who have heard of this, and have come to Wikipedia looking for info on it. Other people must be looking for info on it as well, because this page ranks pretty high on the Google search rankings. Also, I was reading the requirements for notability, and on the proposal for Internet Memes it said there is currently no consensus for what consititutes a notable meme. With that in mind, in my opinion, I don't feel notability should be a factor in this debate. StarNeptune 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has less than 50 edits.
    • Someone's always going to say notability is invalid, so I repeat: No verification by reliable sources. Verifiability is not a proposed guideline; it is bedrock policy, and it is not satisfied by someone claiming to know "a lot of people". Melchoir 08:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this can stay (which has nothing in the way of verification besides a link to the video), then this should, too. StarNeptune 08:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a mistake. More to the point, the inclusion of one allegedly-yet-unverifiably popular internet video on Wikipedia does not open the door to every other video for which someone pops up and says "yeah, my mates and I have heard of it". You can add all the footnotes you want, but unless you can find a reliable source to cite, this article is just as worthless to us as the other. Melchoir 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per advocates of guerilla ghetto over-dubbing: I find it interesting and funny. I think that counts. stylistic choices were made. certain characters or universes were used at discretion of artists. hence, art. hence, you delete it equals you'r wack. more seriously- dry & soulless- did that for a while. it was fun. I'm feelin a skotch more soul in 'pedia in general starting with this article. dryness is cool, but perhaps not as a rule. perhaps not as an argument to delete this. and riseabove- minds be young. the rules are cool. but this article?

and

Also, we should be especially sure to find reasons in the THE RULES to delete anything that's popular or identifiable with youth culture, political and economic conservatives or moderates, and/or anybody or anything not susceptible to being included among those subjects we would approve for our own intellectual consumption.
I don;t get it. and why youth culture? Ka-zizzlMc 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RiseAbove was the page creator and is being sarcastic. Melchoir 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
k. hehe. I did think for a sec that he had to be kidding.
  • I change my vote to Strong "Meh" (regular "Meh" is even more indifferent than neutral). I viewed the video. I added to the article for the record. I realized even if it's funny and well done, I don't care terribly if it has an article here. It's on the net. it's not going anywhere. I can tell my friends to check it out. however, to those who feel this article is valuable/worth saving: I would recommend (and wikipedians don't seem to EVER do this) find or create another wiki for the kind of content that you would like to see! If you really want this type of content to live there's probly a wiki for it somwhere. there's gotta be a compendium of internet phenomena somwhere. Ka-zizzlMc 04:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain the timing of this proposal, given that there was active discussion on the talk page about overhauling the article? Why not wait until the dicussion is complete before proposing deletion? Doctofunk 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source in sight, no amount of overhauling an article can save it. The AfD process does not target articles that need cleanup; it targets articles that are beyond cleanup. Melchoir 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't this come up the first time deletion was proposed? Doctofunk 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one asked? Melchoir 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , non-notable. --Terence Ong 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... and this is coming from someone who was brought to tears laughing while watching it. Funny as hell, but it's just not verifiable by outside sources. It would make a good addition to an article about this trend in general, as I'm sure there are some sources for the general concept of things like this, Kung Faux, etc. Wikipedia doesn't hate youth culture. It just depends on verifiability. — AKADriver ☎ 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--Nilfanion 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Heavily mirrored' is not the same thing as 'notable'.--InShaneee 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep* Definitely keep this article. It helped me in more ways than one in receiving an A+ on my in class presentation concerning internet phenemona for my Anthropology 247 class. This encylopedia is for exchanging information, and regardless of the content of the article it does provide information for people interested in the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.146.77 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Above user had only 5 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Encyclopedias are not for exchanging information; you must be thinking of a blog. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; we summarize information that has already been published by reliable and reputable sources. What is so hard about this concept? Melchoir 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Verifibility is not an issue with this article. It's become a notability issue, and instead of hashing out a consensus keep on the talk page, a user has decided "No, I'm just going to AfD again to get my desired result." --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, possible venue shopping and WP:POINT issue. This belongs at WP:DRV if anywhere at all. The last AfD was a consensus keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted" Melchoir 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, DRV is there for contested AfD's. According to the opening paragraph "It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." This is a contested AfD result, and bringing it back here constitutes forum shopping to get a desired result, IMO. On another note, this type of article is EXACTLY why we need a meme-specific guideline. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, DRV includes reviews of recent AfDs, but this is a new one, opened three weeks later, which is an eternity in the lifetime of a meme. Articles get renominated like this all the time, and often the result changes if only because more people are watching. And it is hardly forum shopping to return to the same forum! Melchoir 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You apparently don't understand the lifespan of notable internet memes. And most certainly, a less than 3 week lapse between AfDs and not bothering with the talk page or DRV suggests otherwise. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you're the expert, then, how long should we wait? And why should anyone bother with the talk page of a doomed article? All I'd be able to say is Attention: find some sources in the next month or your work will be in vain. I think {{not verified}} on the article makes a better statement. Melchoir 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article's only "doomed" because people would rather keep nominating it to get a desired result than actually work on the article. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is so special about this article that gives it an exemption from verifiability. How can anything ignore that rule?--86.139.225.84 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP had only three previous edits
  • Strong Keep--I am unclear as to how this article is unverifiable. The question of "legitimate" verification requires resources that are not available to Internet phenomenon (a realm in which, one must be reminded, Wikipedia itself belongs). Further the very purpose--I believe--of Wikipedia is to allow verification by way of open source and access to information that is not readily available elsewhere (let us be reminded of articles like "Skateboard Tricks", and "turntabilism") and this certainly includes Internet media and other esoterica. If the issue is that the article belongs under a larger "tree"--as part of "internet phenomenon" as suggested above--than it is simply a question of information taxonomy. If there is a question of content (i.e. revision) than this is not cause for deletion it is a request for clarity. One is immediately struck with the strangeness of deleting an article that provides information about an object that is not only a member of the same media as Wikipedia but is created in its very same spirit. And as a final note on verification, one merely must do the most basic of web searches and find an easy and quick link to the video and from there scrutinize the article in view of its source. In terms of that which is forgettable (the issue of timeliness) much of what is available on Wikipedia that relates in any way to pop culture will be lost--some in quicker breaths than others--but this does not, nor should it, preclude inclusion. The very possibility that it may be forgotten is the very reason to include an article: We are the archivists of the Internet, and without cataloguing that which occurs--monumental or not--we may lose or forget what the internet is--or is meant to be--in addition to its waves and ripples, its own peculiar movements. The question of whether the thing is worthy of an article is foolish, this is an open source popularly edited source of information, this is thankfully not scrutinized by the academy (think of what would be lost on Wikipedia if it were, or what we could easily lose by continuing this line of argument). Further articles such as "Juggernaut Bitch" are meant for the specific searcher, such as the individual above who was researching "internet phenomenon". The inclusion of such articles keeps Wikipedia democratic, and though edited popularly, not populist. As to the idea that Wikipedia is not an exchange of information, this is fallacious. Wikipedia, being that it is made up of a series of editable documents, is nothing but an exchange of information that--depending upon the users' level of interest in participation--can either be a one or two way methodology of exchange. The very idea that the article is commonly accessed through google seems enough for it to stay afloat, but those opposed to its existence are more than welcome to edit it.--RevNet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.145.160 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The above IP had never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT many of those things. Melchoir 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • RevNet FTW! "Popular without being populist" is exactly what Wikipedia should strive for. RiseAbove 20:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, Malo. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article requires revision but the fact is that this video is a big enough internet phenomenon that it warrents an article. The original version on Youtube has something like a million unique hits. NightShade 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube claims it's popular, ergo Wikipedia must make stuff up about it? Melchoir 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube has claimed no popularity for the video. Youtube has registered it. If you take issue with the veracity of specific content on the page, this is not an excuse to nominate it for deletion. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate those of you on this page who are voting Keep, you do yourselves an intellectual honor. However, I don't think there are enough of us to compete with the sheer weight of the doctrinaire Wikipedia Inquisition that's watching to make sure there aren't any rules violations. They put up this new AfD about a week after the last AfD was consensus keep. If this one is keep, they'll put up another one in a few days. And again, and again. There's nothing stopping them from doing it as many times as it takes to get the page deleted. It's not a question of the rules, or decorum, or wikipedia's reputation, it's only about a certain, sad group of martinets which seeks to discredit anything which it does not approve of. So, rather than get into arguments with those same martinets, I advise you to save your effort. As Schopenhauer said: "The ability to think from one's own resources is the prerogative of the few. The rest are guided by authority and example." That's a fact of human existence that we simply cannot change, no matter how rational, clever or outright true our arguments are. And yes, for those haters voting delete, I think The Juggernaut Bitch is brilliant AND I just quoted Schopenhauer. Wrap your ivory tower minds around that -- that is, if you even know who Schopenhauer is. If I ever meet any of you in real life, I will be sure to hit you with your own pimp. Peace. RiseAbove 08:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR


  • Strong Keep BTW, just in case anyone actually thought I was being serious with my "Delete" comment above.RiseAbove 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is very notable as a video Yuckfoo 20:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A large percentage of above account edits belong to AFD space -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The creed of summarizing that which has been previously published by reliable and reputable sources is a fair guideline for an enyclopedia, in general, to follow. The obstinate adherence to it, in open hostility towards common sense and the will to inform, is the act of an obsessive compulsive and a philistine. Unfortunately for the authoritarians behind this grand inquisition, knowledge is an unruly beast and the scope of notable sociological phenomena far exceeds what spills down into the neat compartments of academic journals and "reputable" (whoever's presuming to define this dubious term for the rest of us) sources. As has been pointed out above, the nature of internet memes prevents their notability being "verified", as defined by the martinets, in the same easy manner as more traditional subjects. Of course, all of the information on this page is verifiable by watching the video, which the million or so people who have viewed it (as recorded by google and youtube statistics) will be happy to attest to. But to a certain kind of blinder-sporting absolutist, the very idea of accepting such wildly unruly data as evidence is anathema. Unfortunately, these people are often in a position to make the rest of us suffer. Is it the mission of an encyclopedia to hold fast to an arbitrary rule of content as a public exercise in intractibilty? Or is it the mission of an enyclopedia to educate, enlighten, and disseminate? Are we to sacrifice valuable data which a mass of people derive use and benefit from, because of the inability of a few to adapt to a world where information does not always make itself known through state approved channels? To those who support deleting this page because of its alleged "unverifiability": the forest you're looking for is over there, right behind those trees. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has only five edits previous to this discussion -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Note SpotlessMind does not exist as a user. The signature is falsified. —porges(talk) 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC):: The above IP had never edited before ::I accidentally signed my name with a capitalized M instead of lowercase. I have corrected this, and clicking on my name, you will find I have been a member of wikipedia since last year. Spotlessmind 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :::Thanks for fixing that :) If you always sign with four tildes you shouldn't have this problem in future. —porges(talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above debate: This is not the place to debate policy. If you would like to see WP:V and WP:OR changed or rewritten, please do it somewhere else. As it stands, this article directly violates (two-thirds of) what is accepted content policy on Wikipedia. —porges(talk) 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. —WP:V
the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources —WP:OR
Edit: someone notified me I sounded a bit organizationalistik here :) I didn't mean to, what I meant is that several of the posts here are irrelevant because what they're arguing isn't really whether or not to keep a page, but whether some of the core policies need to be rewritten. —porges(talk) 21:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is intended as a repository of all subjects of any notability.
-By the guidlines you so literally cite, which apparently decline to recognize tracking and usage statistics as a valid source, *no* internet memes may qualify for submission to wikipedia.
-Internet memes can achieve, and have achieved, notability.
So we have a problem. And we have two choices: we can censor information so that Wikipedia delineates only that body of knowledge fortunate enough to have been reproduced through channels which a few self-appointed arbiters of knowledge artifically designate as "acceptable". OR: We can choose not to carve large chunks out of the social and historical record for irrational and bureaucratic purposes, and admit that RULES are an imperfect contrivance, subject to constant scrutiny, revision, and exception, and that they *do not apply* to all things at all times. Are you saying you are unwilling to allow basic common sense, practicality, efficacy, and the evolution of informational transmission, to supercede THE RULES on an individual, merited basis, without another RULE explicitly stating that this may be done? If this is so, then I have to ask, and I ask this non-rhetorically and in all sincerity: of what benefit are you? Spotlessmind 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is where we have a problem; namely, that there are no agreed guidelines on how much of an internet presence a 'meme' needs before it warrants its own article. At the moment, everything seems to be getting funnelled into internet memes, which is hardly an ideal situation. But here I am, crossing the boundaries of what I've said above. This isn't the place for this discussion. It is a place where the outcome of such discussion, as and when it takes place, is required. I do think you're getting a bit hyperbolic here, excluding (what is an admittedly minor manifestation of) this internet meme from Wikipedia at the present time is not "carv[ing] large chunks out of the social and historical record". —porges(talk) 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hyperbole, it's extrapolating to a logical extreme. The argument to me is not about this page, specifically, but what this page represents, and the idea that there are now, and will continue to be even more, subjects of note on the internet that must and can be verified differently from Plato's Republic or the Battle of Antioch. If this page is impermissible, then there are a LARGE number of Wiki pages that must also be so. Spotlessmind 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Spotlessmind, I see you're new here. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not everything you want it to be. We are not in the business of describing previously undocumented things for posterity; you can start your own wiki for that. Or you can try Wikinfo, or Everything2, or h2g2, or Uncyclopedia; these sites do not share Wikipedia's content policies. Melchoir 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melchoir, I see you confer length of association with unwarranted moral authority. Please keep in mind that if I were interested in turning Wikipedia into everything I want it to be, I would be campaigning for the comprehensive inclusion of a porn star database with extensive photo and screen capture galleries. If you are interested in removing from Wikipedia things of an undocumented nature, then I suggest and wholly support your finding such a thing. In the meantime, feel free to click on the link at the bottom of the article, where you will be directed to a page documenting the existence of one "Juggernaut, bitch!" video. Spotlessmind 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moral authority? How ridiculous. I'm not saying the article is bad; I'm saying it doesn't belong here. As for the Google video page, I've seen it, and all it says is "The Juggernaut!!!". There is nothing that does or could support this or any encyclopedia article. Melchoir 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Melchior, you could simply Google "The Juggernaut Bitch." You will find that the results include not only numerous pages leading to the video, but also a listing for the wikipedia article itself at around number 5 or 6 on the list. But yet, somehow this page is not notable enough to remain on wikipedia. Spotlessmind is absolutely right. And not just in the above posting, either. RiseAbove 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first thing I did, and I didn't find any reliable sources; it appears no one else did either. Melchoir 20:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of those Google results are of either people on various forums and personal blogs (apparently neither format is criterion for notability and/or verification for an article on an internet meme...go figure.) quoting lines from the film, or mirrors of the film itself. If this film was not notable, I doubt it would have that many people quoting lines from it or hosting it on other servers for other people to see. The only things we have for verfication and reliable sources are the link to the MySpace account of co-creator Xavier Nazario (where he discusses the video, and where people who have seen the video posted how much they enjoyed it), and the video itself. Seriously, what more does an article of this nature need? It's an article on an internet meme, not an article on some groundbreaking scientific research project. StarNeptune 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, notability standards in all categories require nontrivial sources independent of the subject, and blogs and personal websites are never reliable. Neither of the links supports the original research going on in this article. Articles on all topics are held to the same standards; it would be ridiculous to lower the bar for memes just because you want more of them to have articles. Melchoir 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge summaries with X-men and Juggernaut or an article dedicated to derivative works of them.In1984 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' If you're going to keep all the other articles about internet memes then this should be allowed to stay aswell XSpaceyx 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We delete alleged "memes" them all the time. Melchoir 21:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems a bit long, but I feel that this is certainly notable enough for wikipedia Ryanfantastic 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has less than 10 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not a voting. It's a debate. Being popular doesn't equate to encyclopedic. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong Keep" Extremely popular internet phenomena, which is nonetheless a form of entertainment. All other forms of entertainment here are allowed legitimate background information and plot summaries; this is no exception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkage (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The above user had only three edits previous to this afd
Wikipedia is not an entertainment website. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are haters. people know how to check contribs. it's not that serious. if nonies show up & what they say isn't weighted, it isn't weighted. it's not like you have to bring it to everyone's attention every time. (approx my 1583rd right here) Ka-zizzlMc 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's faster and easier to read the note than check contribs yourself, especially if you're a fellow newbie unaware of the tool. Melchoir 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think the subject matter is worthy of inclusion due to it having the potential to be a popular internet fad, which are chronicled on this site. Beastdog75 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user has less than 10 edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that AFD is not a vote. And having potential to be a fad is not an argument pro merit of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's "not a vote"? Ka-zizzlMc 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see note at top. This is not a voting process t osee which gets more "votes" either keeps or deletes, which will decide what will be done with the articles. It's about arguments, and so far, arguments like "it's fun! it's popular! I like it!" are very weak building a case pro-keeping the article. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above user has less than 20,000 edits -- Ka-zizzl Mc 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
generally, clearly, number of votes and quality of arguments both matter, but in this case - you'r right, anons/extra fresh noobs' votes don't weigh so heavily, even if their arguments seem smart. Their overall good intentions at 'pedia are have not been demonstrated. Ka-zizzlMc 04:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all the significant aspects of the article are original research. No opposition to recreation when significance can be better established. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn until Marvel or Fox sues creators for copyvio -- Robocoder


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William James Timmins[edit]

Was speedied, then prod'd, has some use so going to a proper AfD Tawker 05:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup or Delete This looks like a notable bio. Also see Annie Brighton Thornley. I think that if they should kept around, then they obviously need a cleanup. It seems to pass notability after my cursory glance over them though. joshbuddytalk 05:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fascinating vignette of history. Wiki has space for this. I agree needs cleanup. Tyrenius 14:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced bio violating WP:V of someone who seems non-notable anyway; alright, so he was (allegedly) the engineer at the first beet cannery in Utah, but what exactly is notable about that? My vote may change if I see some backup for this, but sheesh, could I put in a largely spurious bio for one of my ancestors as long as it was spicy enough to be plausible and interesting? RGTraynor 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Don't criticize the user because s/he hasn't mastered the markup quite yet. WP:BITE Seems the author is quite articulate, but WP can be overwhelming for non-techies. Brownsteve 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if the article were cleaned up, its subject would still lack any notability. -- Kicking222 21:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. The details of the subject's career are fascinating but he is hardly notable merely for being a good engineer. David | Talk 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reconceive article. I am the original (reluctant) {db-bio} guy. All places have local legends and locally significant people; this is too close to Wikipedia-as-genealogical-record. Author also has created similar articles on this man's wife, for example, which was speedy-deleted. Outriggr 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eusebeus 22:03, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spidda hest[edit]

An advertisement for a non-notable software company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOT. ekedolphin 05:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. joshbuddytalk 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 8 unique Ghits for a software company? No way. --Deville (Talk) 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even my company gets more than that (14) and I don't consider it notable. JIP | Talk 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanityspamadrubbish - Richardcavell 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Spidda hest" actually means "stab the horse" in Swedish. Lol. TH 12:53, 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 userfied as self-admitted autobiography whle author considers WP:AUTO and WP:BIO.

Lee P. Nelson[edit]

Self-authored article about someone who is standing for the Florida House of Representatives. To stand for the FHoR, you need to be 21 and have lived in Florida two years. We have articles for less than 9% of the FHoR, and those are the ones that are elected. Article was speedied after I explained why the article wasn't warranted, then recreated. Brought here. —porges(talk) 06:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Can the author vote on this? I rewrote the article because Porges was no help at all. I'm a newbie and a serious contestant for the florida house seat. I have kept the article to state only facts and cut out everything Porges couldn't deal with. I had to resubmit it because he deleted the 45 minutes worth of work I put into the first one so i couldn't go in and 'edit' it. If you all get so hung up on 'self authored' articles you are going to create an environment that will encourage people to lie about their identify when they write articles here. Leenelson 06:29, 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) 00:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pesathon[edit]

This is a garden-variety neologism. {{prod}} tag removed by creator. NatusRoma | Talk 06:17, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkyan[edit]

What on earth is this? A self-confessed neologism being a variant of another neologism. Reads like nonsense - original research at best. -- RHaworth 06:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Otaku[edit]

While people described in the article do exist (and can be quite ugly about it), this however is a rambling mess tainted with POV and original research. Paul Soth 06:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Otaku as one brief NPOV section, something like Criticism of otaku or Social reactions to otaku, then make this into a redirect. LambiamTalk 08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, would be much better in the main Otaku article. Tangotango 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as rambling, POV-ridden, crufty OR. RGTraynor 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Lambiam --Deville (Talk) 23:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Lambiam, but please put some intelligence into it *shakes head at cruft* - Hobbeslover 03:18, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marketroid[edit]

mostly a dicdef, but also a snide dig at marketers, supported by the linked article criticisms of marketing also up for AfD. I don't consider the Jargon File a particularly reliable source. Just zis Guy you know? 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too biased to be transwikied. —porges(talk) 07:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I don't know a lot about the wikitionary policies. Is presence in a major version of the jargon file enough to justify inclusion? If so, transwiki otherwise delete.JoshuaZ 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 23:35, 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 no consensus/keep Turnstep 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociated press[edit]

copy and paste of Press FOLDOC, no reliable sources cited (Jargon File is ot a reliable source). Just zis Guy you know? 07:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emacs certainly does have such a command.[18] However, in my opinion the topic that needs an article is markov-chain parody generation, not particular implementations. No vote Gazpacho 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems valid, and I'd take the Jargon File as a more reliable source than, say, UrbanDictionary any day. JIP | Talk 07:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UD is not a reliable source either. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something like Markov chain parody generation and generalize. —Keenan Pepper 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Emacs Dissociated Press mode is a significant diversion in hacker culture history --Dunstan talk 11:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Emacs Dissociated Press mode is a significant diversion in hacker culture history, but wikipedia is not a list of significant diversions in hacker culture history. Probably deserves a sentence or two at Emacs. -- GWO
  • Comment - is there any reason this hasn't been blanked as a copyvio? RGTraynor 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Jargon File is in the public domain. The article even has an attribution at the bottom. —Keenan Pepper 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it GFDL like Wikipedia? -- Mithent 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If so, somebody better change Template:Jargon. —Keenan Pepper 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a rather confused situation - this copy is public domain. -- Mithent 13:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Gazpacho, MC parody generation is notable, particular implementations are not. But it seems clear to me that this article is about the general concept, and that the name Dissociated press is genericized even if it was originally popularized by the Emacs implementation, so I don't see any reason to either delete or rename. —Blotwell 14:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, GWO.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Four options are on the table, keep as is, merge with a more general list, convert into a category, or just delete. Merging into a more general list probably means annotating the entries which use the DVD-9 format (and I cannot be bothered to do that now, but if anyone thinks that is a good idea, go ahead). Conversion to category would mean losing the redlinked entries until we get articles on them. With no consensus for any of the four options, I will default this to the outright "keep" result without prejudice against a relisting later. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of PS2 DVD9 Games[edit]

Listcruft Computerjoe's talk 07:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my nomination, I'm going to quote Wikipedia:Listcruft as my grounds for deletion The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. Computerjoe's talk 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or change into a category or something :P —porges(talk) 07:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep might help somebody 63.173.47.193 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anon user. Computerjoe's talk 16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. I can't imagine who, if anyone, this list could possibly help. -- Kicking222 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A silly and useless list. Thunderbrand 22:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Beno1000 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as prime listcruft -- Hirudo 07:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I know of many people whom this list would help! Read the updated/expanded list introduction to see why it is relevant. This info is made more useful because PS2 games disk formats are NEVER provided by Sony or the game makers (though CD-based games can USUALLY be identified in stores since they often display the special CD logo on back). PS2 lasers are by far the most common failure on the system. Since the dense DVD-9 format requires dual-layer focusing and has only been in use since 2003, these disks have common read errors when switching layers. This list is a great complement to the extensive PS2 CD-ROM game list created 6 months ago List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games -- Rory77 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 91 edits. This is first to this namespace. Computerjoe's talk 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm feeling inclined to put List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games mentioned above up for Afd as well if this one results in deletion, unless anyone sees any additional value in that list -- Hirudo 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well. I never look at it. Thunderbrand 01:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
???!??!! I never look at 99.9% of articles! Pcb21 Pete 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloated Response This is not useless information, but I can see I won't convince any of you serial-information-destroyers of this. The fact that we have a 20 year old admin commenting on this list means I'm 99% sure you will delete this list and probably the other (CD-ROM) list I mentioned above. I knew full well your deletion fetish may lead to the CD-ROM list being axed as well, but risked it to provide you with more info. The PS2 is one of the only systems in history where games have confusingly been released in more than one medium. Additionally, there are VERY FEW conceivable high-level/obvious lists or classifications for PS2 games, but among them would be such things as genre (there are many pages for game genres that list game examples for each system), developer, release year, networkability, and disk media. There are currently 2 lists for PS2 networked games. You guys better delete both of them while you are at it too. Since none of YOU have ever looked at these lists before, I'm sure that means they are useless information. Seriously, a list only takes a few kilobytes on the Wiki-drive and each of these lists I mentioned are NEARLY COMPLETE (I personally flagged both lists as "incomplete" to encourage users to update them and not take them as 100% definititive). The lists don't even show up on the Wikipedia search listing yet, so please allow users some time to find and utilize them before they are deleted as cruft. Please re-consider your actions. -- Rory77 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This list belongs on a PS2 fansite, not on Wikipedia. Especially the DVD9 and CD-ROM part of it. You may be able to find more support for just a general list of PS2 games (which could then have DVD9/CD-ROM annotations), but personally I don't think we need one of those either -- Hirudo 14:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a comment, but I agree with what Hirudo said above. Thunderbrand 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think those voting delete have presenting their arguments very poorly. Saying "listcruft" is not enough. The content is clearly useful to some people and should be merged into the broader article. Pcb21 Pete 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Useful is not enough to be worth a Wikipedia article. A lot of the things in WP:NOT are useful to plenty of people. -- Hirudo 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why should we expunge this content from Wikipedia? Pcb21 Pete 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion because it's just not important enough (especially the distinct DVD9/CD-ROM lists, as stated above). -- Hirudo 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Would you support my idea of merging, so that the merged article has a "critical mass" of importance. It'd be sad to lose verifiable information like this. Pcb21 Pete 09:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct about eye of the beholder. I see that enough people seem to care about this, so I'll be happy enough if you can merge the two media lists into one. -- Hirudo 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it the redirect page that is up for deletion, the page that is referenced redirect to a different titled page. I would say to keep as it the list has a clear purpose and scope. Ansell 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List_of_PlayStation_2_CD-ROM_games into another PS/2 article or transwiki or something. Don't just delete it because you don't like it. It's useful and IMO quite encyclopedic, based on what Rory77 has said above. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMO, listcruft is not uncivil despite claims made on my talk page. However, AFD is not the place to discuss civility - if you wish to discuss the civility of my nominations please use my talk page. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 14:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious KEEP. There is nothing in this article (or list) that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. "Listcruft" is a lame attempt to circumvent the need of presenting any real argument for deletion. "Not important" is a dubious claim, as the material on this list probably has vastly greater influence on today's society than, say, Bertrada of Laon (just a random example). – Timwi 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category. This sort of thing is exactly what categories are intended for; lists aren't supposed to have minimal entries like this. --maru (talk) contribs 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn listcruft. Eusebeus 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category. Does not present much scope for additional structuring, so a category is better than a list. Loom91 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Firstly read Wikipedia:Listcruft again: the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor, which means that almost all of the "delete" votes above fail this test; I would remind you furthermore that Wikipedia:Listcruft is not policy or even a guideline, it is a personal essay. Second, the calls to convert the list into a Category miss the major differences between categories and lists: the former are not capable of referencing yet-to-be-written articles, which the latter can accommodate in addition to further annotation which increases value. I call upon the closing admin to take these points into serious consideration when evaluating the votes above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Keeping this list would open the door for things like List of G-rated PC Games on 3" disks, List of R-rated PC Games release on both 3" and 5" disks etc. (And yes I'm obviously exaggerating of course). Since enough people seem to want a list of games (though I still don't understand why), I've changed my vote to merge the DVD9 and CDROM lists. Can I convince you to do the same ? -- Hirudo 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Comment: that might be a possible compromise, although I would be more inclined to support this proposal if it went further. From a quick perusal of the various lists on offer, it would appear that unifying the various "by format" lists into List of PlayStation 2 games, adding much annotation as to format/networking/etc, accompanied by splitting that list into sub-lists by initial letter (List of PlayStation 2 games: A, etc) would be the best long-run solution which subsumes all other possibilities. In the even-longer-term, this is a possible application for wikidata or something similar. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of PlayStation 2 games per Phil above, and/or convert to category. Both would be fine. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Technical information on gaming formats and hardware of the present day, becomes useful for hobbyists, collectors and enthusiasts for decades to come! 21:34, 29th September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I spent 1 hour looking for solutions online, and this would only take me 3 minutes, as much as it is informational, it appeals to hobbyists so it is not a waste of space. 00:00, 3 June 2011(UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting Our People[edit]

I absolutely admire Mr. Smith's initiative and ambition, which follows the tradition of groups like Ben Franklin's Junto society. But I think more time and some wider public recognition are needed before this group is encyclopedic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Baby Bedding[edit]

Originally the article was nothing more than an advert for the company as seen at this point. It was speedied, removed, proded, also removed and then was then turned into an article on SIDS, here, with no mention of the company at all. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, No.8, Instruction manuals. It is a fact sheet on SIDS prevention.--blue520 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither version deserves to be there. JPD (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I changed the original CSD nomination to a prod as it didn't meet the speedy criteria but didn't seem notable to warrant keeping. That hasn't changed although the article has. Capitalistroadster 11:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It reads like an instructional pamphlet and I don't see any encyclopedic value in it. PJM 12:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encylopedia article and not referenced, which material of this importance should be. Tyrenius 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SorryGuy 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blue --Deville (Talk) 23:37, 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 (CSD A7) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Klemme[edit]

vanity page Cdh1984 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7.--blue520 08:51, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-relativity[edit]

See also the talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Anti-relativity.

Writing an article about reception of the theory of relativity and its opponents (besides those handled already in our article Deutsche Physik), perhaps taking de:Kritik an der Relativitätstheorie as a starting point, would benefit from starting with a blank sheet.

Pjacobi 08:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a large article, with a number of active editors who seem from the talk page not to get on terribly well. I don't know the subject well enough to assess the content, but wouldn't an RfC to get the attention of more physicists be more appropriate than Afd? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has already been brought to the attention of physicists on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. The issue is that there is one very obnoxious person, with a poor understanding of Wikipedia, who is using the article as a springboard for his (apparent) original research; the rest of us have been toying with fixing it (with massive rewrites), but there's not enough there to make it worth it. -- SCZenz 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : refers to activities of scientists not satisfied with the present state of the art of modern theory of relativity.
Are any scientists satisfied with the present state of modern relativity? I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be much happier if it could be replaced with a consistent theory of gravity at the quantum level. And what the hell does Essien's religion have to do with it. I don't like the idea of focusing on self-styled "dissidents". It doesn't sound like good science to state your point of view, and then do the experiments. Oh, and the article is POV, badly written, rambling, has a tone that smacks of original research and doesn't seem to serve any great purpose that isn't covered in the better article. General relativity#Alternative_theories. -- GWO
That looks like it is for real theories, not crackpots. We probably would need to add another section to talk about the crackpots and their claims. --Philosophus 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or a new article with a clearer title, something like Opposition to the Theory of Relativity. -- SCZenz 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Article is rambling rant with quite a bit of original research. In points it can become quite offensive, like apparently implying that researchers at DESY murdered someone for some cabalistic reason (if I were involved with DESY I would probably be ask for WP:OFFICE to be applied here). And of course, we have the editor who constantly adds these things to it. From previous experiences with such issues, it seems that deleting the articles can be an effective method of getting these editors to stop. I am not even sure how notable the topic really is (outside of sci.physics, of course). Although a google test might give a large number of results, crackpots often manipulate these results. --Philosophus 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite attempts to clean it up, it's fundamentally still an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. A clean slate at a more appropriate name would be better than this. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Craig Stuntz 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete with Merging what can be salvaged or (following Squiddy), RfC (and perhaps a change of name) - just as we already have "history of relativity" etc. Harald88 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not sure there's anything to merge here, but merge it if there is. But I skimmed it and I can't say that there's any content here at all. And at the very least any such information should be at an article entitled Criticisms of the theory of relativity. But this is just a bunch of rambling junk. --Deville (Talk) 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although a potentially interesting topic, all of the interesting stuff is presented as hearsay, and it appears unsalvegable. NB User:KraMuc appears to be the source of the drivel, added during a three month campaign. Another possibility is to revert to the version of 18 January when it was an ugly but bearable stub. linas 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: my experience with similar situations suggests that trying to educate User:Kracmuc (apparently aka various anons from Germany) in wikiculture and wikiskills, much less trying to reason with him regarding the issue of creating a balanced and WP:NPOV article on anti-relativity cranks, would be way more trouble than it's worth to any of us, and is unlikely to ultimately result in any resolution which serves our readers well. ---CH 05:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: POV pushed rubbish of no value. --DV8 2XL 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The topic has some interest, but mostly from a psychiatric standpoint. There's an inherent problem trying to present only material from reputable sources when the subject is, by its nature, mainly to be found in unreputable sources. Without the guide of reputable sources to govern content, it becomes a free-for-all. Wikipedia is not a good place topics like this.ELQ22 22:07, 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. No Guru 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Nesser[edit]

Being married to a famous person does not equal notability. It's enough to mention her on the Billie Joe Armstrong article. The El Reyko 09:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Richardcavell 09:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article contains no encyclopedic content, as far as I can see. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JPD (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Tangotango 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 11:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SorryGuy 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. There's 19,500 google hits on her name, so someone out there keeps on mentioning her.Tyrenius 17:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she is only married to someone notable. To answer Tyrenius, there are a lot of hits there, but only 363 are unique, and as far as I can tell every single one is either a Wiki of some sort, or a page which states, in the Google blurb, that she is married to her notable husband. If she has done anything else on Earth, Google doesn't know about it.--Deville (Talk) 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, that's an argument for merging then. Tyrenius 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll find everything worth merging is already in Billie Joe Armstrong. The El Reyko 01:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, although I suspect the only information to be merged in this case would be "This dude's wife is named Adrienne Nesser," which I'm sure the article already contains --Deville (Talk) 01:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found rather more to merge, which I have done, for the benefit of Billie Joe Armstrong's fans and other sociological musicologists, so this article can now be used as a redirect. It's quite a touching story really. Tyrenius 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like this article. It is informative, and it is the most you will find on Adrienne Nesser on the whole entire internet!! Please DO NOT delete it!!!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LawHelp.org[edit]

Prod was removed by an IP. I don't think this forum meets WP:WEB or any other relevant notability threshold. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete US-centric non-notable website. - Richardcavell 09:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, nothing notable here. FWIW, creator of this page has also worked on exactly two other pages, Pro bono net which looks like more of the same, and adding links to lawhelp.org to legal aid. See here. I do see a pattern here, and I think that perhaps this user doesn't quite yet know how Wik works. --Deville (Talk) 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: This user User talk:Cconstantine works for the organization and so this is WP:WAIN as well. --Deville (Talk) 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Friend Society[edit]

Non-notible web content as per WP:WEB. The site has the following URLs http://thefriendsociety.com/ & http://www.thefucksociety.com/ which have respective Alexa ranks of 356,800 & 1,675,728 (Wikipedia:Search engine test). Does not seem like there is anything worth merging with Banana Phone - CopperMurdoch 09:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - both non notable and rather unpleasant --Dunstan talk 11:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. After deletion, suggest redirect to Society of Friends, which is another name for the Quakers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Andrew's redirect is logical, I'd prefer if it were not done :-) Dlyons493 Talk 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. I don't see the need to redirect to Society of Friends since I've never heard anyone refer to them as such. --Bachrach44 14:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanispamcruft with a felling axe, then track down everyone responsible for such an unpleasant forum and delete them too. (I likewise have no liking for the notion of a redirect to the Quakers, who do not deserve even a tacit, vaporous link with these PWT.) RGTraynor 15:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and YIKES. To paraphrase Count Tyrone Rugen, I do believe that's the worst thing I've ever seen. --Deville (Talk) 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge a sentence in Porfirio Diaz. - Liberatore(T) 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberty, Order, Progress"[edit]

Slogan not sufficiently notable to merit its own article Dunstan talk 11:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NPOV/WP:V. Content and assertions are non-verified and seem to be point of view.--blue520 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per PJM.--blue520 12:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any verifiable and useful into Porfirio Diaz. PJM 11:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per PJM, though I don't see anything in that article worth merging short of the mere fact that Diaz used that as a slogan. RGTraynor 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or not really, as per RGTraynor --Deville (Talk) 23:56, 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 moved to RFD. PJM 12:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MACROBIOTIC[edit]

This is a redirect page to Macrobiotic diet, in capitals. I do not see why this is necessary, since macrobiotic already exists. Selfinformation 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:MACROBIOTIC


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa gujarati parishad[edit]

Non notable company Berry 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very worthy aims of publicising bad effects about drinking smoking,chewing tobacco etc. But unfortunately not notable. Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, 4 Google hits. Article doesn't even make clear exactly what this is or what it does, vaguely "...promoting awareness for national integrity,communal harmony,to initate drives for spreading awareness about evils..." etc. Seems to be some sort of charity, and as a charity must be held to the same verifiability standards as other subjects, if not moreso since false charities are a common scam (not that I'm necessarily saying that's the case here). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please note that India is nowhere near as wired a country as the United States or Western Europe, and that a lot of organizations affecting tens or hundreds of thousands of people in India (and thus notable) are not reflected on Google. I agree that it should be deleted, but I thought I'd point out the very Western-biased nature of the Google Test. I would encourage you not to use it for topics outside the heavily wired world. Captainktainer 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 14:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I originally marked it for cleanup, but in retrospect I guess I was being too kind!  ;) ekedolphin 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BJPcruft --Deville (Talk) 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not per notability or some sort of "BJPCruft" guideline. The article is completely unsourced, unverified, and badly written. Without sources, we can't establish notability, so we should judge the article on other merits or lack thereof. Captainktainer 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Spent 15 minutes searching for the "registered" charity. Did find one with very similar name (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), but completely different goals. Regardless, since we can't find any other source, the article is uneditable for lack of knowledge and the article really really needs to be edited. MartinFloyd 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, seems suspiciously like the "Born 1956, Science Graduate" put it up herself. Also, I suspect the registered address has an additional role as someone's shop. Hornplease 08:19, 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 withdrawn. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Roi Ching Lan[edit]

It cannot be kept in its present form. Eixo 12:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio of this. Sounds notable enough for an article though, if a real one can be written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I thought I wouldn't bother, but then I did anyway, so ignore above and keep. (Oh my God, I just wasted 15 minutes of my life writing an article about a Thai game show...!) Eixo 14:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, well done! So you're withdrawing the nom now? Tyrenius 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, it should be ok now. Eixo 17:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now see, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Although I empathize with the horror of realizing one has just spent 15 minutes researching a Thai game show  ;-) --Deville (Talk) 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, now what can you recomnend me that will get me drunk, with or without alchoholic drunkenness??! Eixo 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)(Please see my user page...)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EQuake[edit]

This source port as of version 1.0 gives out an illegal copy of pak1.pak, a file that's required to run Quake.[19] Basically the creator's doing illegal activity, and this should not have a Wiki article. TonicBH 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia is not censored, within reason articles about illegal activities or things are fine. But how notable is this? For looking at Google it is not clear, the homepage gets first hit but there are hits for at a quick count 4-5 other software/projects with the same name.--blue520 14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Likewise, what makes this "illegal?" Is the creator selling it? Is this modification s/he pushing malicious? Game Manufacture Not Wanting Their Codes Cracked /= Violation of Law. In any event, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GPL Quake source release only includes the engine code, not the game data, which still remains proprietary to iD Software. If a player wishes to run original Quake, or mods that depend on original Quake data (which would be the majority), they need to install the files from the original CD first. This would be different if they'd be playing a mod that would be built ground up using only free content (such as Nexuiz). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's not a mod, it's a pack that uses portions of Quake that are illegal for distribution. As I said, he's basically distributing warez. -TonicBH 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't need articles for every repackaging of something. This, according to the article, is merely a repackaging of existing fork. May warrant a very very very minor mention in FuhQuake. And no, WaR3z1ng something is nasty, but not a reason to delete an article in itself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of General Relativity of Art[edit]

Under WP:NOR. The article is a new theory, which has no mentions at all on google. It is premature for an article. The author needs to gain wider acceptance first. Tyrenius 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hountain[edit]

neologism. Google has no hits for Scarfell Pike hountain. Bachrach44 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. PJM 14:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --blue520 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the google hits I found seemed to be mis-spellings of 'mountain'. --BillC 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Beno1000 23:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism --Deville (Talk) 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Uncensored[edit]

Tagged for speedy but contested. And you just know that if it's speedied or prodded it will be contested and re-created. A podcast with no evidence of notability, produced by two people ditto. Looks to me like Vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, if we have to go through the whole process for an insignificant blip on the blogosphere. The site has no Alexa rank, their alleged "weekly" podcast hasn't been updated in nearly two months, and there are 31 unique G-hits. RGTraynor 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete If you would check iTunes then you would see that the show has just released the 63 Episode (26. Arpil 2006). The iTunes music store has onece featured GamingUncensored in a GamingPodcast spotlight. How needs Alexa ;-) ? The Page is not that up to date, that's true but anyway. Nik the swiss 16:42, 28 April 2006 (GMT)
  • Don't Delete Last I checked Gaming Uncensored has a subscriber base of 5000 a week. The URL tracked on Alexa is a forwarded domain (to Jamiejordan.net)
Comment -- whose own claim to fame [20] is "I’m Jamie Jordan and this little corner of the web is mine. Why should you care? Well I’m not sure. I have no job, no girl, and no life." RGTraynor 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- neither of which qualify this podcast under WP:WEB. RGTraynor 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Check your Alexa [[21]] again. Nik the swiss 17:02, 28 April 2006 (GMT)
      • Check it yourself: [[22]]. A list of hits isn't what we use Alexa for; we use it to gauge traffic data. RGTraynor 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to "vote" or taking this seriously but I chimed in. If I'm in the mood, I would say delete but I don't care if it stays or gets deleted. I'm the starter of the KWTS article that which the article links to and have heard of this show. The show is still alive on-air in the Texas Panhandle if you guys are wondering if it is still "alive." (Don't know about the current status of the podcast.) Just don't see the signifiance having an article about it. The show is produced by a student-run small state university campus station. Not just only two students. The show was featured in the Texas A&M System's press release, [23] but still not important in my opinion. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 20:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with KWTS. After thinking about it, the KWTS page is a stub and needs to be expanded. Some parts would be good in that article after just Google search, "Gaming Uncensored" + "podcast" came with 30,000. Granted that is not a good measure. However after browsing through many page results with the combination of those two strings, a lot of non-major websites mention it. Although, it doesn't deserve an article. Still no problem with deleting it. If deleted, will still briefly mentioned in the KWTS article. --Who What Where Nguyen Why 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is an intravenous line straight into my deleting jugular --Deville (Talk) 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Gaming Uncensored is one of the longer running Podcasts available in a disposable world where things start and finish quickly. Whilst Ricky Gervais has a mention regarding his podcast in Wikipedia, yet having done only a handful, here is a show with 63 episodes having been available on iTunes for over a year that is being doubted and marked for deletion. Quotes used above pertaining to the shows hosts appear irrelevant to me, whilst comments relating to KWTS linking are the valid ones that ought to be valued. Please note, I have never worked for KWTS nor have I been fired by Ricky Gervais so these two references are purely intended to relate to parity and fair representation on Wikipedia. A historic tv show such as Mind Your Language has representation on Wikipedia without having been shown for 27 years. Should Gaming Uncensored be represented as equally? I'd say so . . . PPD 21:55, 29 April 2006 (BST)
  • Delete, nn podcast. --Rory096 07:54, 6 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 deleted by me as CSD:A7. Pepsidrinka 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zartash Afzal Uzmi[edit]

Hi - unfortunately, this subject is non-notable. Its a mere bio about a Pakistani scientist without details of what makes him notable to an encyclopedia. Rama's Arrow 14:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rama's Arrow 14:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete, A7, no assertion of notability. RGTraynor 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep It’s a new article and will be expended with the passage of time. Should we delete all the new articles? Dr. Zartash A. Uzmi is a prominent researcher and produced many good results in MPLS traffic engineering field. I want to refer to this page while expending MPLS related articles because he has multiple valuable publications in that field. I think it is much better to refer to this page instead of external links when expanding MPLS and creating Traffic Engineering article. ---- Faisal 15:27, 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) 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Anderson[edit]

Not notable 142.217.6.163 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as NN. So he acts in plays at his college. Good on him, but that's painfully unremarkable. RGTraynor 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because its not notable, but let's have some courtesy for someone who's taken up Wiki's invitation that anyone can edit, and fallen at the first of Wiki's many rule hurdles. Tyrenius 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, {{nn-bio}}. Tagged. Grandmasterka 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, assertion made, untagged. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.... assertion is made, but seems much short of the bar to me. --Deville (Talk) 00:07, 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) 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Surfing[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Article's only claim of notability is its own website which doesn't even show up in the Alexa rankings. TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:25, 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) 00:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporeal[edit]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, transwikied already Colindownes 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Gillespie[edit]

Not notable; hoax; unsourced. The claim for notability involves Gillespie receiving the "National Award for Student/Teacher Excellence" for defeating a child abuser with his Israeli martial art. The only evidence [24] for his even receiving the award (Is there such an award at all?) is the Wikipedia article on the high school. Wikipedia is not a place to tease your math teacher. Septentrionalis 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nominator vote. Septentrionalis 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the article's talk page did make me laugh. Tyrenius 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --BillC 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete Image:Gillespie.jpg along with it; also a hoax as it has been changed between two different individuals. --BillC 09:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, though maybe BJAODN, at least the talk page. --Deville (Talk) 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified, hoax. Jonathunder 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Marshall[edit]

Delete Subject not proven to be notable. Michael Dorosh 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, not only is he the most notable Canadian sniper in history, prior to Afghanistan, he was the subject of a widely publicised photograph during wartime. Nominator for Deletion is also a user who has repeatedly inserted WP:NOR into the article, and AFD-ed...apparently in response to being told that if sources call it a machete, he can't present his opinion that it's not, in the article itself without reference. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am very surprised to find this fascinating snippet of history in AfD. There's not much point having Category:Snipers, if you don't have articles on snipers to go in it. Tyrenius 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no evidence that he was ever even employed in his trade - the only historical facts on record are that he was in the Army in 1944 and had his picture taken once. So tell me - what else does anyone know about him? He's simply not notable other than for having a picture taken. Beyond that, what makes him notable? No one has listed any reasons. Incidentally, I am the webmaster for the Calgary Highlanders website and have access to the War Diary of the battalion. I don't mean to denigrate his service, but I can safely say there was nothing to distinguish him from the hundreds of other Canadian Army snipers that served in the Second World War, and absolutely no basis to describe him as "the most notable Canadian sniper in history" - in fact, that would go to Ducky Norwest or Pegmahbow or one of the other First World War snipers. The First World War snipers have easily verifiable kill records - there is no evidence out there that Marshall ever even shot anyone. So no, my objection is not to the misidentification of the kukri on his belt (my analysis is based on discussions with regimental museum staff and examination of the photo enlarged to 3 feet square, so please, sherucij, let me know what examination you have done besides looking at an internet picture), but rather to the fact that the entire article is a waste of bandwidth based on the fact we don't know anything about him, nor, frankly, are we like to given the lack of information available in the public record about him. He's simply not encyclopaedic.Michael Dorosh 17:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is that it's not the job of Wikipedia to examine enlarged photos to draw our own conclusions, it's to report what is WP:Verifiable, and your personal opinon isn't. If it makes you feel better about his notability, The Government's "Military Heritage" website has a painting of him. I'll concede that the first world war did bring more repute to Canadian snipers than Marshall's role in the second world war, but that still does not give any reason he should be AFDed. Look at Mary Ann Vecchio, she's a runaway teenager who happened to be photographed reacting to the Kent State shootings, but it would be ridiculous to claim she's therefore "not notable". Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dorosh's arguments make the case for articles on Ducky Norwest or Pegmahbow to be created, not for this one to be deleted. Also there may be a need for revision of the article, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. And I'm afraid Wiki does require verifiable references, not personal research. Tyrenius 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you were interested, we have Francis Pegahmagabow and Henry Norwest...now, back on-topic before I bring cocktails! :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Subject seems reasonably notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Beno1000 22:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the actual criteria for notability. See below.Michael Dorosh 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get 47 Ghits on him and that seems like a ton for a WWII noncom --Deville (Talk) 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only four of them refer to him, and all four are from websites I've created. The rest do not even refer to military subjects, let alone him in particular.Michael Dorosh 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY CRITERIA So far, no one has actually posted what criteria they feel Marshall meets. So far all we have is

  • Was subject of a famous photo. (Like millions of others)
  • Was in the Canadian military in the Second World War. (So were approximately 1 million men and women).
  • Was employed as a sniper. (So were thousands of soldiers).
  • Shows up only four times in a Google search, all four from pages produced by the same webmaster.

So honestly, what else is there?

According to: deletion guidelines I don't feel any of the "arguments" here are done in good faith. Especially inflating 4 google hits into 47, the majority of which have nothing to do with the subject.Michael Dorosh 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the aspersions on my integrity to be unwarranted and unfounded, and would be grateful if you could stick to the argument, and not what you think the motives are of the people who have a different point of view to you. I am quite entitled to like this article and want it kept, without that meaning I am not acting in good faith. Tyrenius 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sniper who was the subject of a famous photo is a good enough reason for me, and the statement "a famous photo. (Like millions of others)" is self-contradictory. It's either famous, or it's like millions of others. Tyrenius 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with this - the photo is famous, not the person. If the photo is notable, then it should be shown on Ken Bell's page, rather than meriting it's own.Michael Dorosh 12:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should change your delete to merge vote then, but I think it's splitting hairs. It means if the article were titled "Photograph of Harold Marshall" it would be a notable subject.Tyrenius 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, I'd recommend that article be deleted also.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're making an entire movie about the Iwo flag raising - the difference is that we know a lot about the guys that raised the flag, Ira Hayes, etc., and the flag raising itself was a notable event. Marshall is photographed... standing in a field, posing for a picture. See the difference? There is nothing notable about standing in a field posing for a picture. Raising the flag on Suribachi is infinitely more notable for reasons that should be self-evident.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the photograph that made the flag-raising a notable event, because it was a striking image. Without the photo, the event would have been not known about and entirely forgotten. A notable event (e.g. the assassination of Lincoln) is remembered in its own right, even though there is no photograph. In both cases, of flag-raising and Marshall, we are recording the power and notability of an image which is symbolic. Proof of this is that no one bothers about the fact that there was an earlier (and smaller) flag raised at the same spot on Iwo Jima. That was the more notable event—but not the notable image. The photo of Marshall embodies values, equivalent, for example, to the tomb of the unknown soldier. Marshall is an individual, but he represents much more than that. To just talk about him standing in a field is reductionism. Tyrenius 16:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point you are missing is that the other photos cited were taken during notable events; a non-notable person standing in a field is not notable. The photo itself is notable and should be included on Ken Bell's page, the Calgary Highlanders page and on the Sniper page, but Marshall is not notable himself. Nor is the photo all that remarkable; it is often reproduced, but there is no history to the photo the way there is to the flag raising on Suribachi. If anyone can identify the location that Marshall is standing in please post it here. You can't, because even the photographer didn't note the location - it wasn't noteworthy. It's a cool picture, but nothing more, and if you want to start an article on H.A. Marshall Photo then your argument might hold some water. If you are lobbying for an article on H.A. Marshall then you have still not presented any of the wikipedia criteria for notability.Michael Dorosh 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel this response answers my points, so I will leave it for others to judge. However, there is a blatant contradiction in the statements just made between "The photo itself is notable" and "Nor is the photo all that remarkable". Tyrenius 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say is that the photo is all that is remarkable in the case of Marshall, but the photo does not show anything notable. The photo of the Iwo flag raising is not just notable for being a famous photo, it actually shows a famous event - the 2nd flag raising on Suribachi. The men involved have well documented histories, including an upcoming movie. Nothing has entered the historical record about Marshall other than he posed for a picture once and the picture was really cool. Ask yourself - if you can't even type out where Marshall was born, how old he was, or when he joined the Army, much less what he did in the service, how is he notable? On the other hand, Ira Hayes' postwar history is well known and one could probably fill a few paragraphs on his history alone, not to mention the dramatic impact of the flag raising(s) - they came early in the battle but the ships at sea and men on the island that witnessed the flag then and in days after had much to say about the event. Marshall's photo is notable only for being cool - no one knew that it was being taken and it didn't see widespread publication until after the war. It was not an EVENT the way the Suribachi raising or the Kent State shootings were. It is only notable in that it has been widely reproduced despite the subject being not notable.Michael Dorosh 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interesting "event" in the case of Marshall was World War II in which he lost his life, as did many others. The photo has obviously come to symbolise things about that war, in the same way that the flag-raising photo has. You've put the horse before the cart. That photo doesn't show a famous event. It made the event famous. The only reason the event is famous is because it's a great photo. The only reason the men involved have "well documented histories" is because the photo generated interest in them. They are just ordinary soldiers otherwise. A photo doesn't have to show an "event" to be notable: it can, for example, symbolise values, character, etc. The photo of Marshall is well known and it is only right to give him the dignity of acknowledging who he is. As you say yourself, it has been "widely reproduced". This fact alone justifies the article in wiki terms. Tyrenius 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HE DIDN'T DIE during the war. DHH website incorrectly lists him as dead but see the list of fatal casualties at www.calgaryhighlanders.com - he's not on it. He lived through the war. I guess he's so notable that no one even knows he lived, eh? Besides I never said the photo wasn't notable. Marshall himself isn't. Doesn't merit an article. The photo can be discussed on Bell's page, the Sniper page, or any of a thousand Second World War related pages. There is nothing to populate a page on him alone.Michael Dorosh 02:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't strike out my comments. A Canadian Government site states Marshall was killed. Wiki goes by existing sources.
This AfD strikes me as increasingly bizarre. An earlier stage of discussion was:
if the article were titled "Photograph of Harold Marshall" it would be a notable subject.Tyrenius 14:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
No it wouldn't, I'd recommend that article be deleted also.Michael Dorosh 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This is followed by:
if you want to start an article on H.A. Marshall Photo then your argument might hold some water ... User:Michael Dorosh|Michael Dorosh]] 18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems unhelpful to quibble over whether an article Harold Marshall or Photograph of Harold Marshall is unacceptable, but H.A. Marshall Photo might be.
Furthermore, it is stated on the Calgary Highlanders website run by Michael Dorosh, "This photograph of Sergeant Harold A. Marshall, a Calgary Highlanders sniper, is perhaps one of the most famous Canadian images to come out of the Second World War." This is a strong claim. As the article history shows, Michael Dorosh was one of the two editors working on the article and did not express any concerns about notability etc, until there was a difference over what sort of knife Marshall was carrying. Sherurcij stated it was a machete, referencing a page on a site run by Michael Dorosh. This page was then suddenly unavailable (but is archived here). It was replaced by one with modified information more favourable to Michael Dorosh's argument.Tyrenius 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrenius, you're REALLY not getting the fact that any information on the Internet regarding Marshall is a result of my putting it there. The DHH site has a painting of him, and inaccurately notes that he died. Anything else was my doing. And I am stating from a position of authority that this guy, as far as is known, is not notable. I had my reservations from the minute I saw this page was created, but I followed WP guidelines and presumed good faith, thinking that perhaps there was some original research out there to shed light on him. That didn't happen - what happened was someone tried to create an article on a person based solely on a picture caption. So yes, there was questions about notability all along, but because I was presuming good faith, I didn't voice them until it became apparent the article creator had absolutely no evidence of notability - which was evidenced by his bizarre decision to argue the kukri handle. The photos of Canadian machetes are clearly shown on my website. I've examined large blowups of the photo and discussed it at length with museum staff at the regimental museum. Kudos to Sherurcij for being bold; unfortunately in this case, it has come to a dead end in an article about someone lacking notability.Michael Dorosh 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you know full well that Marshall didn't die during the war becuase you yourself posted at the User Talk for Marshall's page that there is a photo of him taken in the 1970s. So who's not arguing in good faith now?Michael Dorosh 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found the 1970s photo reference only after I made my last post here, and put the info where it could do some good on the article talk page, so please again do not make implications. I don't see it as relevant to the AfD debate particularly, nor what kind of knife he was carrying for that matter. It's irrelevant who put the information on the web sites referenced: the fact is that they can now be used as a reference. I would like to congratulate you, however, on your research and your very informative sites. Also the Canadian government has seen fit to give him a page, as a separate source for reference. However, I find it odd that you are "bigging up" the prominence of the photo on sites you run, and arguing the opposite here. I think this discussion has covered the points of view more than adequately, and suggest we agree to now let editors make up their own minds, based on what has been said to date. Tyrenius 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - He is the subject of a famous photo. Someone may want to know about him someday and disk space is cheap. Cjrother 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And they'll be sorely disappointed by the article here if they do, because all that is known is that he served in the military in 1944, was photographed once, and wore a Denison smock. They can gather all that just by looking at his photo. :-)Michael Dorosh 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to Wikipedia deletion guidleines, articles shall be deleted if they are (1) not neutral, (2) not verifiable, (3) are original research or (4) are subject to copyright. This article does not seem to violate any of these guidelines. As to deleting because the subject is not proven to be notable, I can't see where that is a criteria that has to be considered when determining whether or not to delete an article. Regards, Roozal.
Wikipedia:Notability - try reading here. You can't write an article about your baby sister, even if you 1) wrote a neutral article about her, 2) verified the article, 3) did original research and 4) waived copyright. An encyclopedia only includes notable figures. Read the page on Notability for more info, but I should have thought that would be self-evident. From that page:
Deceased people
People who have been deceased for some time pose the simplest question, because history is usually clear about the nature and extent of their importance. With historical perspective, there is less controversy about the facts of their contribution. The basic test in this case is:
  • Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?
Marshall does not pass the test - what contribution has he done other than pose for a picture? The enduring historical record was altered by Bell, for taking his picture; Marshall himself was simply a soldier who did his duty. If he performed any extraordinary acts, it is not in the historical record.Michael Dorosh 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable, as previously stated, for being the subject of "one of the most famous Canadian images to come out of the Second World War", as stated on the Calgary Highlanders website run by the same Michael Dorosh, who is arguing so vehemently that he is not notable. If someone's image is disseminated worldwide, then that bestows a notability for that fact alone. Tyrenius 15:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing then that he is passively notable? Incidentally you've quoted a "Doresh" a couple times now - who is that in reference to? I refer you back to the notability guidelines - you can argue that he has altered history and I will grant that the photo itself is notable due to the impact it has made - but still argue that the man himself is not provably notable given how little we know about him or are likely to see reproduced. Perhaps in 5 years if the proposed centennial history project comes off (which I hope to write) you can quote from my book, if there is anything of note in our archives about Marshall that is, and I decide to include it. :-) Michael Dorosh 17:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for incorrect spelling—I have changed previous mentions. There are plenty of people whose main claim to fame is being in front of camera lenses for images which get well known.... Tyrenius 18:35, 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) 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tall Moustache for Men[edit]

Originally WP:SD but user removed. Article is nonsense (obvious joke - google search for "Tall Moustache" aftershave produces 0 results) My vote Delete - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (same reason as above) NawlinWiki 15:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--blue520 15:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, hoax. The anonymous editor who removed the speedy is from a college that the original author has edited and he did not note in any form why the speedy was removed. Kuru talk 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ho ho ho not. Tyrenius 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable hoax. I do not know who the anonymous editor is, but he was correct to remove the speedy deletion tag. Elaborate articles like this one are best considered in AFD. There have been incidents in the past where articles on unusual subjects, thought to be hoaxes, were found in AFD to be perfectly legitimate; for this reason we usually do not speedily delete them. Obvious "joke vandalism", on the other hand, may be speedily deleted, as may patent nonsense. —Encephalon 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probable hoax? Have you read it? Ahem: "Tom Selleck's Tall Moustache for Men...Originaly intended to be a novelty item for the Magnum, P.I. toilet bag for the christmas of 1982...its catchy advert with a jingle written by Travis McQueen and featuring a spoof of Raiders of the Lost Ark...the most popular aftershave in Wales, Germany, China and the USSR. The aftershave was taken off shelves in November, 1983 when it was discovered that the aftershave was being produced out of Cuba.?"! Pretty funny really in its own right - except US didn't even had any trade restrictions with Cuba from 1975-1992 :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm thinking the "featuring a spoof of Raiders of the Lost Ark, produced by Andi Peters and Ewan MacDonald" would have been a bit of a clue. Andi is a British media personality that would have 13 years old at the time, and Ewan is a Scottish curler who would have been 8. This passes my "obvious joke" test. Can you help me understand why you think it isn't? Kuru talk 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - after re-reading my comment, it sounds kind of snarky and that was not my intent. I am truly curious if there is something you're seeing here that seems legitimate. Kuru talk 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kuru. I was speaking from a policy point-of-view. This article is a probable hoax: it's a pretty elaborate tale woven around half-truths, with the intention to mislead. Past experience has shown that suspected hoaxes are best dealt with on AFD. While most suspected hoaxes will probably be dealt with correctly by administrators working alone, all too often, the eccentric, unusual, or technical appear to be hoaxes to people unfamiliar with them, and can be wrongly deleted—I remember seeing articles on rare medical conditions nearly deleted in the past because people thought they were hoaxes. Editors and administrators of WP come from all over the world and from different backgrounds, and things that may be familiar to you may not be familiar to another. The above article is somewhat illustrative. The people who believe it is a hoax, i.e., all of us, think so because we are aware of certain facts that cause us to suspect the veracity of the article as a whole. Some of these are better reasons to suspect it than others—the conjecture that a British media personality could not possibly have produced a short ad in his teens is actually a pretty bad one, by the way: it is only really useful if one knew for certain that the individual in question did not, in fact, do any such thing. By opening the matter for discussion on AFD for a period of at least five days, we are less likely to make a mistake than a lone administrator considering the matter by himself for a few moments, without the benefit of other eyes and brains. I do not want us to do anything that will encourage that type of deletion of items suspected of being false, which is what we'll be doing if we start speedily deleting suspected hoaxes, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to some of us to hang on to it for a few more days. Speedy deletion is for material of whose unsuitability there is no doubt, and which does not require much research or interpretation. —Encephalon 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the very comprehensive answer - you have changed my way of thinking about this aspect of the deletion process. I'm afraid that with the enormous volume of malicious articles popping up each day, it's very easy to fall into the habit of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Kuru talk 22:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, although a shame because this would've been extremely awesome --Deville (Talk) 00:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of that, there is no doubt. :) Kuru talk 22:58, 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, goodness. Mailer Diablo 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myran[edit]

NN, very few Google hits, vanity page. ??? if you type in MYRAN RAPPER IN GOOGLE YOU GET SO MUCH INFO ON MYRAN BEFORE YOU WRITE THINGS SEARCH PROPERLY look http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=myran+rapper&meta=

.rhmoore 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, very non-notable per WP:MUSIC. The five best rappers in the world? Myran, Myran, Myran, Myran and Myran. He spits hot fire --Deville (Talk) 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's also a copyvio from his homepage. --Eivindt@c 05:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has previously been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myran. I have reverted the article to a previous non-copyvio version. If deleted it should be protected against recreation. --Eivindt@c 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-he is featured on YAHOO LIST OF RAPPERS AS WELL AS HAVING A CURRENT FUED WITH MASE. WHICH IS RELEVENT TO THE MASE ARTIUCLE AND HE IS NOT A REGGAETON ARTIST WHERE DO WIKIPEDIA GET THIS FROM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.51.90 (talk • contribs)
  • DELETE FAILS WP:MUSIC CRITERIA. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears on yahoo list of rappers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.61.24 (talk • contribs)
  • In reference to the comment added to my original comment: 191 hits (per the link you added) of which about a third are the Myran homepage, encyclopedia, answers.com and other "self published" sites. Opinion, Delete..Non Notable, fails the WP:Music Criteriarhmoore 18:12, 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 AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Dewey[edit]

Please see also related past AfDs on Harmonics Theory, Cycle synchrony, and past CfD on Category:Cycles, and see current AfDs on Cycle theory/Cycles Research Institute/Unified Theory of Cycles and Edward R. Dewey.---CH 04:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a question of the purpose of Wikipedia. Dewey is not notable; 10 ghits[25]. The most notable thing about him is that he asked $350 1955 dollars for a correspondence course, and may have gotten it. [26]; but do we want to include this as a warning and public service? Septentrionalis 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That search brings up 223 unique ghits for me once I enclose his name in quotes (many more without). (Fewer if we discard Tomescruft and Wikipedia mirrors, of course.) The issue comes up once again, though, of whether Google is a good tool for assessing notability of people whose careers preceded the internet. I say not very. · rodii · 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Do we need every quack numerologist? Septentrionalis 15:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:No, but it's good to keep the famous ones. --C S (Talk) 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most likely a non-notable crackpot. It seems very difficult to verify claims that he worked for the US government. You might want to mention this AfD somewhere, though. I've mentioned it on the AfD for Cycle theory, which should result in more discussion here. --Philosophus 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Article could be improved but he did publish a number of books [27] Dlyons493 Talk 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That search returns zero hits for me. · rodii · 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) Oops, clicking the related searches link brings up 17 books, most self-publshed pamphlets but a couple not. · rodii · 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the problem is - works OK for me but maybe its cached. Its Just an amazon.com search for Edward R Dewey which returns 6 titles. Dlyons493 Talk 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be properly referenced. I have put an "unsourced" tag on the page. Tyrenius 16:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up. I detest the profileration of cycle articles, but if the claims of this article are true and can be sourced, he seems notable enough. If not, well, not. If the article strays too far into his pseudoscience, it should be cleaned up, not deleted. · rodii · 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Due to authorship of several books, some self-published but others published by Holt, a real publishing house still around today, and publishers of books by Thomas Pynchon, Salman Rushdie, and many others. As with all similar articles, care must be taken so that Wikipedia doesn't seem to be advocating Dewey's positions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I get 664 for '+"Ed Dewey" +cycles' similar number for 'The Foundation for the Study of Cycles' the long running institute Dewey founded. This cycle stuff may or may not be nonsence, but it has been one of the major fields of study in economics for the last century and Dewey seems to be an important figure in that study. --Salix alba (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and verifiable per WorldCat, see the article's talk page. Thatcher131 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but needs crazy massive editing, every sentence in this article has a qualifier! I mean, look, either he worked in the Roosevelt administration or he didn't. --Deville (Talk) 00:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, please see the associated AfD on Cycle Theory. Motivated by my contribution to that, I completely rewrote the this incredibly awful version of Edward R. Dewey to this version, which includes a section sketching some things which the modern theory of dynamical systems have to say about (valid) notions of cycles, precisely in order to demonstrate the sharp contrast between a mathematical theory and Dewey's vapid numerology. We are in a pickle here, because while I do not feel that Dewey is notable for his accomplishments in life, he may be notable as a kind of posthumous hero of a somewhat noisy contemporary crank organization. To wit, a passionate fan called Ray Tomes has been enthusiastically championing Dewey's loony obssesive claim that "cycles are present in everything which has been studied" for many years in UseNet postings, and more recently their websites and now at Wikipedia, where he or persons apparently belonging to his organization have created a half dozen or more extremely cranky articles, including Harmonics Theory, and more recently Cycle Theory and some others. For that reason it may be that conclude that two things are required of WP:
  1. an article which:
    • contains only verifiable biographical information (if any can be found--- Deville, the reason for the qualifiers is that all information about Dewey which I could find on the web appears at one of Tomes's websites, and cannot be considered as independently unverifiable until reliable, independent, and unbiased sources can be found),
    • points out that so-called Cycle theory and Harmonics theory promoted by Tomes are not theories at all,
    • points out that in the modern theory of dynamical systems, a real theory of mathematically defined notions of cycles can be found, and then some dynamical systems contain no cycles whatever,
    • point out in particular that Dewey's alleged claim that
  2. continual monitoring thereafter to revert cranky pro-Tomes POV-pushing edits.
I am of two minds about this because I dislike the idea that simply by being very noisy at (among other places) the WP, some crank can promote himself to notability, but on balance I tend to think that creating and maintaining a balanced article which points out specific problems with Tomes style pro-Dewey propagandizing may be a good idea, as a service to our readers. ---CH 02:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect and nominate for featured article It's perfect in its current form e.g. "apparently an economist who allegedly worked in the Roosevelt administration" -- I wouldn't change a thing! Ewlyahoocom 05:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears to be a notable person. I found this article, which suggests to me he is of importance historically. For example, it states that Dewey wrote three chapters on cycles in Ellsworth Huntington's book Mainsprings of Civilization. Also mentioned is his role in research for the government. --C S (Talk) 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. In order for this article to satisfy WP:RS, it needs to be based on references other than the web site of the Cycles Theory crew. --Christopher Thomas 23:48, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniloc[edit]

This article does not meet the WP:CORP criteria. In addition, it appears have issues associated with WP:VANITY. The article's creator User:Ricricho corresponds to a principle of the company and the user's only wikipedia activity is this article. A "prod" of the article was disputed and removed by an anonymous IP from southern California, which has never edited an article before this time. JonHarder 15:23, 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) 00:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_actors_and_actresses_who_won_a_US_film_award[edit]

Listcruft. Long listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate list --ES2 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as indiscriminate list of information, original research, extremely hard to verify, suited more to a Who's Who type of directory than an encyclopedia. Brian G. Crawford 21:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, holy crap, no way. Persumably there is a list for each and every one of these awards (or there is if the awards are notable). No way do we need a superset of all such lists --Deville (Talk) 00:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a category for the lists that all of these should be in (as User:Deville said). —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:11 UTC
  • Delete: let IMDB take care of this tedious tosh. --die Baumfabrik 05:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too broad and already covered by the various articles on said awards. A list of US film awards (if one doesn't already exist) makes more sense. 23skidoo 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete US awards come in so may flavors some of them are pure vanity; therefore this list has no real meaning. By the way, I hereby award Flipper the Carlos Suarez pure-California couch potato award for the best water mammal actor in a 1960s show filmed near water. Ready to add her to the list? Thought not. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyse[edit]

Neologism, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day --ES2 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism WP:NEO--blue520 15:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather too local in its use... Tyrenius 16:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. SCHZMO ✍ 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT. -- Mithent 16:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I don't think it's just at Urbana High school. Kids will be curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.165.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. This word has spread way past the orgin of Urbana High School, people in different states and countries are familiar with the word. It's not just a word it's a way of life.
  • Don't Delete. I believe if this posting can benifit the kids at the highschool, keep them well informed and not hurt anyone, there is no basis for its deletion!
  • Don't Delete. There are many articles with less basis in fact. The word gyse is quickly spreading, and youngsters everywhere need to stay hip to the new slang. Older people who are not so knowledgable about teen popculture and slang could use this article to understand what kids are saying these days.
  • Don't Delete. You can't delete gyse, it would be an atrocity to future generations.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Schrader (writer/director)[edit]

Yet another contested prod. This page was originally flagged as a non-notable bio to which the prodder could have added borderline vanity page. Deprodded on grounds that the subject is obviously notable as (the) director of (a) film commercially released by Lions Gate. So we are bringing it to AfD for review. Here is his IMDB entry [28]. Personally, I think simply having your film picked up for a direct-to-video release by Lion's Gate is not obviously grounds for notabality. The film received all of one review from the extensive press covered by Rotten Tomatoes [29] and almost none of the top-billed actors have appeared in more than 2 films (except the co-director, a minor TV actor). Of the subjects other claims, his 2000 spoof generates some 300 hits, many of which however, are either ifilm spawns and the great Oz himself saying that Being Ozzie Osborne is great, but I don't sing about the f*&^%$ devil or bats or whatever. (Love that quote.) The Spike Jonez claim made on the page is unverifiable, and deceptively worded to make it look it was delivered in the context of the film winning an award. Which it didn't. In fact, a search on the film + awards, without the ifilm guss produces 0 hits [30]. Of the other claims, script tune-up for the Simpsons and South Park is both unverifiable and not notable (he could have been adding commas). Good wishes to David for future success, but in my view he does not yet meet notability standards. Delete Eusebeus 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD appears to have been melded somehow, has no main link, and keeps shifting to the end of whatever's last. Could an admin fix it? I'm not certain how. If the link were showing it'd be David Schrader (writer/director). Taken care of while I was adding this. --ES2 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, that a directing spot on a direct-to-video release is his only claim to fame smacks of NN. When his career has blossomed and he becomes the next Spielberg (or even Aronofsky), I'll welcome his article with open arms. Kuzaar 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see if the claims can be verified and referenced by editor(s) on this article. I am not happy with the nom stating "deceptively worded" as this does not Assume good faith - likewise "he could have been adding commas". Tyrenius 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ambiguously worded" is the phrase we're looking for, I suspect. Average Earthman 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very much NN by any standards, give this guy a couple of years --Deville (Talk) 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets notability precedents per imdb. Note also that the nominator is misrepresenting the press coverage of the release, since both IMDB and Google show more reviews, e.g. [31] Monicasdude 20:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not happy with what seem to me to be "attacks" on someone who has done something at least, and why not have two paragraphs on him. It increases the scope of Wiki, as far as I'm concerned. Tyrenius 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Distinctly minor-league, and the simple existence of a listing on IMDB says as much about notability as does a listing in phonebook. --Calton | Talk 11:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does have notability (as per IMDB and other GHits). But the page needs more refs. --soUmyaSch 11:06, 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) 00:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Panther[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC . Probable vanity page. No Google hits on any of the artist's albums except for this Wikipedia article. Grover cleveland 15:37, 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. No Guru 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Bocci[edit]

Looks like someone's resume. Page was created by Dominicbocci Bachrach44 15:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles/biographies on people have looked like resumes. What is the difference between someone's resume and a biography? A 'resume,' by definition, is simply a summary of facts, which I hardly find different than an encyclopedia article. If Bachrach44's intention is to imply that the author of the article is using wikipedia for the sole purpose of applying for a job, then it would appear that the article is a resume. However, the details included are not thorough enough to be used as a resume.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomer99 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 April 2006

On the other hand, I have expressed interest in learning more about the present/past Presidential Interns at AUC. My interests are fueled by the desire to know what the past/present year's fellows have done professionally and academically, both in their past and at their time at the American University in Cairo. Whether the user created a page about himself or not, such information provides further important and detailed insight to those that work as Presidential interns and at the American University in Cairo. {{--Zoomer99 16:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)unsigned|217.52.14.105}}[reply]

While it is a good suggestion to merge the information, maybe it would be a better idea to create a sub-article for the Program. The people picked for the program are the leaders of their fields in Middle Eastern Studies from the recent college-graduate pool of students. If 'merging' means to include the specific interns biographies into the AUC site, the AUC site is not developed enough to include that information as of yet. I still think that separate articles are necessary for the interns.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomer99 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 April 2006

  • I don't, not remotely close; how exactly do "Presidential interns" at a university qualify under WP:BIO, especially since their mentors may well not qualify under the Professor Test? Strong Delete under WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is an oversight to assume that the intern's supervisors 'may not' qualify under the Professor test. After reviewing the WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, it is my belief that neither the inclusion of the interns nor their supervisors would fail the terms of either test. Just because the interns or their supervisors may not qualify in your personal standards (RGTraynor), that does not mean that they do not warrant their own articles. Within the AUC community the interns' supervisors act at the highest level of University adminitration and the interns are under the ultimate supervision of the Office of the University President and the president himself. AUC, a major international institution, has significant importance within the Middle East. The sub-articles and articles' lack of development (both of AUC, the administration, the interns' supervisiors, and the actual interns) will be attended to. The interns are published authors, as well as award recipents (all of which is verifiable). Only time is needed to develop the articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomer99 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 April 2006

  • Delete per WP:BIO and urge the author to explain how Dominic Bocci meets WP:BIO, or even WP:PROFTEST. The awards must be notable awards and published works either need to be books with demonstrably more than 5000 readers or an extensive number of papers greater than the average professor (if you choose to apply WP:PROFTEST). AUC is important... its interns/supervisors are not.--Isotope23 17:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is simply that the intern's supervisors are noteable within their cultural context (e.g. Egypt and the greater Middle East). The interns might merit their own article by the virtue of a 'notable award,' but i can see how at that point it is better to be merged with the American University in Cairo article. However, I still maintain that the interns by virtue of receiving a 'notable award' are validated. however, that's a subjective point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicbocci (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 April 2006

Comment, OK, what notable award has he won?--Isotope23 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- and, beyond that, while I hear the argument (unsupported by so much as a lick of evidence, as to that) that the interns' supervisors are notable, I have yet to hear anything but speculation and supposition why the interns are. The burden of proof is on the editor to demonstrate why they are, not to float conjectures that they might be; WP:V. RGTraynor 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note the username on the last unsigned comment. Fan1967 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the editor is attempting to do is fine. it "should be" the situation where the supervisors' profiles are being created as we speak. however, time is the main constraint here. i believe the editor is suggesting that for AUC, the Presidential Internship program is the 'notable award' (as far as AUC is concerned). So, the question becomes how 'notable' does the award need to be? Just because someone knows the difference between a Rhodes scholarship and a Fulbright, doesn't mean that either is more 'notable' than the other. I say, give the 'wiki'-writers time to develop the AUC site. Hopefully, what we're posting is being helpful and will greatly inform the writers' skill when writing these articles. as far as the last comment about the supervisors' notarity...after reviewing many professors 'biographies,' the articles do not adequately (as per wikipedia's requirement) really pass the Professor Test. So, give the writer's time...i'm sure it will all work out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomer99 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong delete, this guy is nowhere near notable. Also a bit annoyed by the attempted gaming of the Afd --Deville (Talk) 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROFTEST and WP:AUTO and other delete votes. Considering the subject as an academic, he is relatively junior in the academic ranks, having apparently received his bachelor's degree just one year ago. The internship he is currently participating in may well merit a mention in the American University in Cairo article but that does not mean its interns need to be discussed in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i made some changes as well as changed the category. is it better?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.14.105 (talk • contribs)

Comment It doesn't change the fact that basically it's an article about a graduate student. Fan1967 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And beyond that, an unnotable grad student who possibly should be informed about sockpuppets; take a look at the contribution list for Zoomer99, for instance, pretty much identical to that of 217.52.14.105 and User:Dominicbocci. RGTraynor 17:18, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Holt[edit]

Notability not established, he's an extra in a couple of minor films. Usrnme h8er 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Holt is a working actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.149.66 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nomination. Yes, he's a working actor but not every working actor is notable enough for Wikipedia, and Mr Holt certainly is not. Madman 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good luck to Nathaniel in his career, but three uncredited film appearances doesn't merit an article at the moment. Tyrenius 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Three uncredited appearances in unnamed roles (such as "Audience member"), one job as a stand-in. Does that make him a "working actor"? I guess so, technically. Does that get him an encyclopedia entry? I don't think so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. The guy doesn't have one credited role EVAR. This could even be a hoax, but at best it's "goat-flingingly non-notable" --Deville (Talk) 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deville. "uncredited" listings on IMDB have been shown to be unreliable in the past, and even if true they generally mean "third guy from the right in scene 37". Fan1967 17:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was obvious merge, but where to? Right now I'll stick it in Miranda's biography in the main article- Starblind's right, more detail would be nice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jules and Mimi[edit]

This is about a fictional soap in a television series. Its been on VfD in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules and Mimi) and ended in no-consensus. Since the afd last ended, there has been 2 edits to the article; one to further sort he stub, and one to mention when in the series it first appeared. Besides the fact that this isn't notable (some fictional series are, this one isn't), no one is interested in expanding the article.

  • Delete. Pepsidrinka 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sex and the City and keep this page as a redirect.Tyrenius 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Can anyone familiar with the show elaborate on whether this was a one-episode thing or did it reoccur? We do have other articles on shows within shows, such as Tool Time and Itchy and Scratchy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Tyrenius. To answer Lenahan, Tool Time especially and I&S to some degree are major plot elements of their respective shows; this, on the other hand, generated only "snippets" in Sex and the City --Deville (Talk) 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tyrenius. Eusebeus 22:14, 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 deleted at request of creator. Haji Abdul Qadir to be moved to the title. Capitalistroadster 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qadir (Afghan leader)[edit]

I started this article. There was already an Abdul Qadir, about a cricket player. Then I discovered an earlier, existing article - Haji Abdul Qadir. The only problem with redirecting [[Abdul Qadir (Afghan leader)]] to [[Haji Abdul Qadir]] is that Haji is an honorary title, and, conventionally, honorary titles aren't part of the names of biographical articles. I thought moving the existing article to a name, like the one I picked, was desirable. AIUI, moving an article, with its edit history, requires the new article name to be un-used. Therefore deletion seemed in order. Geo Swan 16:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this should have been an obvious candidate for speedy deletion. The article creator requesting its deletion a few hours later. But both {db} notes I put on the article were removed. -- Geo Swan 16:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry. I was one of the people who removed it as it seemed a reasonable article. I should have checked the history and the nomination or the article talk page should have explained the history more clearly. I will speedy delete it now so as to save any further problems. Capitalistroadster


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funender[edit]

Looks like a made up word. Lots of google hits but none seem to be about this meaning. Tango 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Since it seems to be about an actual person, and doesn't assert the notability of that person, it could be speedied. It definitely should be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. Tyrenius 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incidentally, I think the reference to a person is just the result of a poorly written "for instance". PJM 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, it's about a real specific person, probably someone with the internet nickname "funender". Note in particular the part that says "When he created that name he knew then that something special was going to come out of it a long time ago. This was way before he even thought about creating a website." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I see what you mean. PJM 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or even speedy per nom --Deville (Talk) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this is obviously vandalism. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 15:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism requires malice - this is just vainity by the looks of it. --Tango 16:08, 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) 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Debt Experiment[edit]

Obvious personal research. No claim to notability. --soUmyaSch 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is notable, and in the press—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianlenney (talk • contribs) . Brianlenny has been blocked for 48 hours for vandalism of this page and continuing to remove the AFD notice from the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment author has removed AFD tag twice, and changed statements in AFD discussion J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, vanity, spam. David Sneek 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hopeless spam, probably copyvio since it looks to have been copy-pasted from somewhere (note formatting). Not even the slightest attempt was made to make it look like an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant spamvertisement. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless editor is able to verify claims of press coverage and notability, and until (if ever) it does become notable. Tyrenius 18:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. ... discospinster 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy Delete spam --Bachrach44 19:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. The El Reyko 23:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanispammycruft --Deville (Talk) 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly --Ajdz 05:03, 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) 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside automation[edit]

Advertisement Charles 17:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Factual and able to be verified User:Totterdell 17:05 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Regardless, it is an advertisement for a corporation---not an article. --Charles 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication that Riverside automation meets the criteria for inclusion laid out at WP:CORP.--Isotope23 17:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's just a puff for a small company. Tyrenius 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like a company advert. Kuzaar 18:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an advertisement. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an ad for a company that does not come anywhere near meeting WP:CORP. The El Reyko 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious ad for an obviously nn company --Deville (Talk) 00:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. No Guru 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Clark[edit]

Although the subject could be considered notable, the entire article is so over-the-top POV and hagiographical towards the subject that all there is for it is to scrap it and start anew. Pat Payne 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn as there's no need for it now. Pat Payne 23:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy it into the author's space for improvement. Additionally, this article sounds as if it were copied from another source. Deleting the POV in this article would leave maybe a line of information. As much as I liked his singing in Fatboy Slim's "Song for Shelter", this article needs a major overhaul before it belongs in articlespace. Kuzaar 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nom is self-defeating by stating that the subject is notable. In this case it needs rewriting, not deleting - even if all that is left is one line. A badly-written article on a valid subject is not grounds for deleting of the subject altogether. Tyrenius 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't know about his notability but I've NPOV'd it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I withdraw my AfD. I overreached in the matter and apologize. Pat Payne 20:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem - it's quite obvious you were acting in good faith. Tyrenius 22:36, 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, then redirect. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films 2006[edit]

Delete per a number of points in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not blue520 17:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is hard to know where to begin to say what is wrong with this. --Charles 17:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a film review blog. Kuzaar 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unfortunate misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of Wiki from an obviously enthusiastic editor, whose good intentions should be praised. Tyrenius 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good first article from a new editor but does run counter to WP:NOT Dlyons493 Talk 18:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to 2006 in film. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to 2006 in film as per CanadianCaesar; there's an argument to be made that there should be a Wikitainment site. However, this isn't the place to make it. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 19:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kuzaar, and redirect per CanadianCaesar. The El Reyko 23:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others --Deville (Talk) 00:36, 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 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superdon[edit]

Delete. I find no evidence that the word 'Superdon' actually exists anywhere except in this article. No examples or citations are given in the text of the article. No examples appear in Google except for the article itself and a crib from it on another site. In these circumstances the article is just an invention.--Smerus 17:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Maybe userfy it to whoever created it, seems fairly well-written. Kuzaar 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to TV dons and keep the list. Tyrenius 18:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I ain't never 'eard of it, and I read the Guardian and listen to Radio 4. --die Baumfabrik 06:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing for keeping the term - just the list of such people who appear in the media. It is a recogised phenomenon. Tyrenius 22:41, 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) 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Tourism[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) 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Instinct[edit]

This article is about a made-up game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, or even at a friend's house. NatusRoma | Talk 18:12, 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 03:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe Street Outreach Resource Center[edit]

Delete, great program,however, nn enough to be included in WP or any other encyclopedia San Saba 15:32, 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!
No Guru 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly NN and maybe hoax. A Gsearch doesn't seem to hit anything that's not Wikipedia or a mirror --Deville (Talk) 00:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not assert notability. Metamagician3000 10:55, 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 speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr_sanders[edit]

Vandalism. brabblebrex 18:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense (previous version)/empty (current version). I tagged it as such. --Elkman - (talk) 18:29, 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. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smell my fingers[edit]

Delete. Wikpedia is not for things made up in school one day. What Google hits there are for this don't appear to relate to this. BryanG 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pages like this are what afd was designed for. --Bachrach44 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK...next?. PJM 19:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thanks for the laugh man, I needed it ;) - NickSentowski 19:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep

I believe I've read of this game, or a variation of it, in Chris Lewis, The Dictionary of Playground Slang, (Allison & Busby, 2003), ISBN 0749006072. Not sure what counts as suitable publication, but it's ranked on Amazon at 245,382th, so it must have sold a copy or two... Though the dates are then inconsistent; might have the common thing of game reinvention. Harthacanute 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NFT --Deville (Talk) 00:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of those strangely unfortunate notable-type things. Used constantly in books, movies, George Clinton has an album named Hey Man, Smell My Finger, etc. It certainly wasn't made up in school one day, so let's keep it to what it is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, unsourced. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, I have indeed heard of this game, I came onto Wikipedia searching for The Game (game) which i also believe to be of similar relevence and came across this game too, if it is indeed a growing social trend, crude as it may be, then surely it is elegable for inclusion to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.247.143 (talk • contribs)
Note above user's contribution history. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The game has begun to appear as a social trend in many areas of the UK and has just as much credability as an an entry asThe Game (game) which appears to be in the same area of creation, that and its hilarious to play as me and my friends found out djfishstik 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Note above user's contribution history. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is believed the game was invented a long time ago, believed to be as early as late 2005 where a group of friends... Delete, unless the validity and widespread pupularity (if any) can be verified by the provision of verifiable information taken from reliable, third-party sources. Not a similar game, not a reincarnation of another game. This game, as described by this article must be reliably sourced and verified before I will reconsider. -- Saberwyn 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Eldarone 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is one of those situations where a case might be made that the subject of the article barely meets notability criteria (e.g., George Clinton), but every single word in the actual article is garbage and should be nuked, and then we'd be left with just a title and no content, and that just wouldn't be any good at all, would it? --phh (t/c) 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many people have heard of it, certainly (I have), however unless someone can find a reliable source, it's original research and should be deleted as such. --Tango 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. my edit above on inclusion in published work. Much of the article could do with rewriting so that it's clear that this game isn't something that was just made up in school, but is something that is listed in a publication.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) .
You mean "The Dictionary of Playground Slang"? If you can confirm that reference, then please add it to the article and make sure the article fits what is said in the book. If you can't confirm it, the article has to go. --Tango 22:36, 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 speedy delete at request of author. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Jordan[edit]

This article was speedied for CSD-A7; however, the ownership of several patents is probably an assertion of notability. Switched to PROD, but tag removed immediately without comment, so sent here. Article created by the subject himself, so certainly WP:VAIN applies. Note: technical nomination only - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Four patents is not enough to establish notability; unless there is some evidence of significance for other reasons, or these are particularly notable patents, there must be tens of thousands of individuals with that claim. --BillC 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy, non-notable, and why I am not surprised to see that all the edits to this article were made by User:Rdjordan? --Deville (Talk) 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:VAIN the man hasn't even the wit to format the article so that any potential employer will read it. --die Baumfabrik 06:11, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important U.S. cities[edit]

Hopelessly POV. (Personally I can't believe they ranked Orlando higher than Chicago.) Bachrach44 19:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE Unless source is cited so POV can be evaluated -NickSentowski 19:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Important based on what? According to whom? Scrapes WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. PJM 19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How does Irvine get a spot and not Denver?? Very POV, and could be expanded to include any City in the US. I sa Conifer, Colorado should be added because one of the creators of SOuth Park came from there, and Mary Cheney lives there!EnsRedShirt 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There are too many important cities to count --Caldorwards4 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, delete. Jaberwocky6669 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently subjective --Deville (Talk) 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too POV, no source for this list Crazy4metallica 00:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - numbered but in no particular order? Useful npov articles already exist at List of United States cities by population and List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population --Ajdz 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are people so bored that they'll make up nonsense like this? 23skidoo 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For flip's sake, I wish people would polish their keyboard with the power OFF! Besides, everyone knows that important US cities are those which have ICBMs pointed at them. --die Baumfabrik 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no criteria listed and unsourced --Polaron 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objective criteria to determine which is in and which is out. I was trying to figure out how Irvine (nice place) made the list and numerous cities with many more people didn't. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 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) 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon_Phenomena[edit]

This is not a common enough term to need its own article. Perhaps add a footnote to Pokemon describing the Phenomena. NickSentowski 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; .... WP:NOR applies. PJM 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification, I didn't quite get that portion of it! - NickSentowski 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. WP:V and WP:NOR swim in the same pool, if you will. PJM 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but more along the lines of WP:N. (Well, WP:N is not a policy, but this is certainly non-notable, and would be even if it was verifiable.) —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:14 UTC
  • Delete, it looks like something somebody wrote, and I particularly don't see any use in merging it either. :( Toastypk 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no real reason for this, and prob. fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Chris Chan {t|c} 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to keep. Mailer Diablo 18:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Vali-Cave[edit]

WP:BIO does not apper to meet 'Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage'. Vegaswikian 19:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on above quote of WP:BIO. A mayor is a major political figure. AFAIK, she's the biggest political figure in the community. An aldermen would be an example of a minor figure, that would usually be deleted (or maybe merged). Also "Upon incorporation on July 1, 2001, she was elected by her City Council colleagues to serve as the City's first Mayor.".[32] I think being the first mayor of a city, gives her a permanent degree of notability. --Rob 20:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. The El Reyko 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mayors are notable --Deville (Talk) 00:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the first mayor, it makes her a little more notabble than other mayors may be. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Aliso Viejo, California, the city has only 40,000 residents, I don't see how she's notable outside of her neighbourhood. --Eivindt@c 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Aliso Viejo. According to WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. A mayor of a larger city would most likely receive significant press coverage, but Aliso Viejo is not that large (I was just there a few weeks ago...everything closes at 9pm). OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per EivindFOyangen and Ohnoitsjamie. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the top political figures in this town. -- JJay 19:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not understand what Vegaswikian has against Ms. Vali-Cave, but he seems determined to delete this poor woman's article. And without any solid reason that I can find. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:29, 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) 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Amsterdam Cafe[edit]

No assertion of notability, and it seems to be non notable too. 472 Google hits. Rory096 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, despite an earlier {{importance}} tag in January '06, which didn't even result in a revision to include what little notability this place might have. Fluit 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN --Deville (Talk) 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumahoy 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article reads like advertising copy. --die Baumfabrik 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.165.34 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudani[edit]

Family tree of unexplained notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Contested prod. Weregerbil 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Material for a personal website, not an encylopaedia. --BillC 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although coincidentally I know another guy named "Teck" Singh. Although this of course has no bearing on anything --Deville (Talk) 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --die Baumfabrik 06:24, 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) 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Livejournal Accounts Jack Thompson has used on Gamepolitics[edit]

Was speedied as patent nonsense. It isn't, but its reason for existence in an encyclopedia seems, er, limited. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page for gamepolitics was usualy updated minutes after another account was made, and that really isn't the purpose of it. Ace ofspade 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Er, come again? ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention on GamePolitics.com is sufficient; I'm not sure that a list adds anything more to either GamePolitics.com or Jack Thompson (attorney). Also, given that Jack Thompson has already made legal threats against Wikipedia, the issue of libel is a possibility. --Elkman - (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedaic - and that's 11 letters more than necessary. Dlyons493 Talk 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eh? Come again? This is a list of sockpuppets of some guy on another website? We wouldn't put a list of Wikipedia sockpuppets in namespace, why on earth is this here? --Deville (Talk) 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I get the lurking suspicion that someone is making a WP:POINT violation about listcruft. Perhaps not. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:16 UTC
  • Delete. This is silly, and harms attempts to keep valid Jack Thompson-related subpages. Captainktainer 09:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Look, I've been sort of defending Jack Thompson-cruft (hoping that someone would step in to trim it a bit in a way that makes sense), but this is just ridiculous. This goes to really, really, really deep level. Look, when I read Wikipedia, I look for information on What Something Is. That means concise and summarised, yet comprehensive, information and pointers to outside information sources. Would any sane reader who wants good, concise, summarised information be looking at this sort of list? This list is in-depth information. You can't justify it's presence in an encyclopedia. Someone please get thompsonology.wikia.com (or whatever) rolling? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Therapeutic Massage Center[edit]

Just an advert. Nothing to see here. Move along. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spam. --BillC 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DVD+ R/W 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adspam --Deville (Talk) 01:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advert. Mind you, the author is clever enough to omit the 'phone number and URL, but stupid enough to omit the city, state, or indeed country in which we may avail ourselves of this precious service. --die Baumfabrik 06:29, 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) 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Rap[edit]

non notable genre, genre cruft. Minimal relevant google hits. Only 2 internal wiki links. Possible joke Spearhead 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Information Services[edit]

Gives under 400 Ghits - seems to be involved in political PR. I'd appreciate the community view on whether it is notable enough to keep and NPOV.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advert. Don't these people get frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't use Flash? --die Baumfabrik 06:32, 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) 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bent Scepters[edit]

Delete - notability not established. Mais oui! 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick D. White[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troublefooling[edit]

Malformed nomination. Completing listing now. Original nominator was User:Jaberwocky6669. Suspect the reason for deletion was dicdef, neologism. Note: technical nomination only. No vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to DELETE because of neologism. I originially said because of original research but that is wrong. Jaberwocky6669 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea what is up with this one entry! Jaberwocky6669 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism --Deville (Talk) 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not merely a neologism, but a badly-written, self-contradictory article. --die Baumfabrik 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, let me understand this. First, Jaber thought it was non-original. He/she proved him/her-self wrong on that point, and Devill had to rescue him/her by inventing another excuse to stick to the Delete recommendation. Neologism? As in Savage_Love#Santorum, Metrosexual, Bling, Whale_tail, and innumerable others? These were all "neo" words before attaining mainstream. The fact that they are all allowed to live on wikipedia sugggests that "neologism" is a recently invented excuse for petty hackery. The Delete recommendation was made and approved in bad faith, and I am very curious as to the real reason: because you didn't come up with it first? And, Baumfabrik, your recommendation would have credibility if you could simply point out the "self-contradiction" you observed. iyaburo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no useful content here. Don't be afraid to speedy tag obvious deletes, whether they exactly match a criteria or not. Friday (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contron Jamdo[edit]

A clear case of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Delete htonl 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though I think a {{db-bio}} would've been a better choice. _-M o P-_ 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wondered about that, but it didn't quite seem to fit CSD A7, although it is of course an obvious deletion. Upon further reflection, though, I guess it does fall within the penumbra of A7. - htonl 21:34, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OsteoBall[edit]

Delete this obvious violation of WP:SPAM by Newsie234, who is writing articles on products for Cequal Products, Incorporated that read like advertisments. I will also be nominating BedLounge & Husband Pillow. -- Scientizzle 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support a merge of the relevant information on these articles into Cequal Products, Incorporated, pending proper establishment of Cequal's notability (according to Wikipedia:Notability) and elimnation of WP:SPAM violations on that page... -- Scientizzle 21:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please tell me specifically what i need to change on this page so that it will not be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Newsie234 (talk • contribs) .
    • Read the guidelines--they're clear: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." Also, everything should be notable, presented with a neutral point of view and in the manner of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- Scientizzle 21:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shameless advertising. Brian G. Crawford 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad --Deville (Talk) 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advert, a right 'dowager’s hump' of an article. --die Baumfabrik 06:41, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Komplex[edit]

nn-band; released 2 albums by themselves - do not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stovokor (band)[edit]

nn-band; does not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:BAND is a guideline, not policy. These people are more than simply a band; they are a cross-cultural phenomenon. They have been covered in the press, and are notable in science fiction circles. Were they not labelled "band", the article would not be subject to this AFD. &#0151; JEREMY 04:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:MUSIC, but meets WP:NUTTER. --die Baumfabrik 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BAND seems a better guide to 'must have' status than an exclusion reference. Wikipedia can spare the space neede to document historical phenomena that may otherwise become lost. That said, this band may meet 'Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.' Strangelv 20:24, 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) 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel of Rest[edit]

nn-band; does not meet WP:BAND; only two demoes released Spearhead 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete A band which has released two demos is NOT notable. Beno1000 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless you show me the platinum discs. --die Baumfabrik 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gridlock takedown[edit]

nn-band; do not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:23, 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 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Earth[edit]

nn-band, do not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:22, 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 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adytum (band)[edit]

nn-band, haven't released an album yet. do not meet WB:BAND Spearhead 21:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not One Word Has Been Omitted[edit]

nn album by nn-band Spearhead 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From A Second Story Window[edit]

nn-band, does not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoonFall[edit]

non-notable band; does not meet WP:BAND by far Spearhead 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Youth[edit]

Non-notable band, that was form this year, that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, the article barely states anything about the band other than the names of the members names(really the articles more about the members than the band), their songs, and the general genres they play. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:30, 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) 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with absolute pitch[edit]

Unencyclopedic, unverifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My grandmother had absolute pitch, and the guy standing next to me in the choir has it too. Unmaintainable list because potentially far far too large. And unencyclopedic: In professional musicians and composers, having absolute pitch is commonplace, and in other people it just doesn't matter very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, how would one go about verifying this? --Deville (Talk) 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could work as a category. Can't work as a list. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:03 UTC
  • Delete: POV (too many musicians!). No more lists! Besides, it's perfect pitch. --die Baumfabrik 07:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to see (if 1 in 20 have this) how this would not grow without bound, although information on who does and does not have it is encyclopedic. Trim non notable and non verified people from the list and then merge back to Absolute pitch. Support the idea of a category as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment. I took this out of absolute pitch (as per article talk) because the list was growing out of control and wasn't of much value to the article anyway, figuring that if anyone cared about the list so much they could maintain it (source, verify, etc). As this hasn't been done I don't care what happens to it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete just because a list can grow to infinity, does not mean it ought to be deleted -- see the List of people from California, List of left-handed people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, e.g. And just because Nana and the guy next to you have perfect pitch doesn't make them notable enough for inclusion in the list, just like had they been left-handed or lesbian/gay or from California instead. And bias toward musicians is not problematic -- the quality is more rewarded in music than say, a boxer with perfect pitch <sarcasm> of course a pitcher with perfect pitch may be worth noting </sarcasm>, just as the left-handers list tends to overinclude sports professionals. All that aside, unless someone (Mindspillage?) is going to source the folks with citations like they do at the gay-lesbian list, it is probably better to see this one off to the bit-bin. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 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 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatebeak[edit]

band that claims notability because "the lead singer, Waldo, is an African Grey Parrot". does not otherwise meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, on a side-note "the lead singer, Waldo, is an African Grey Parrot", is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.--Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 22:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment stupidest thing ever? That's a bold statement...:-) --Deville (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well, if it's not the stupidest, it's up there ... way up there. Hehe.--πᎠᏢ462090λ 04:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just two remarks: (a) Which band does not claim notability and (b) who defines what is stupid in art? I do not see any reason to delete this article.
  • Delete, but keep the parrot bit for in the bad jokes section. Big in albania 11:36, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Lawrence[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think anything is established other than, she's worked at BBC since 1991. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, aaaand of course the link is a 404. --Deville (Talk) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of notability --Ajdz 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the link, she's a real BBC person, and seems to be the sister of Jeremy Paxman ... that said, I agree with the Delete per nom (hard to believe, innit? :-) ) AnonEMouse 16:58, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (BBC)[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You cannot be serious. We keep articles about newscasters from local stations in Boise, Idaho, but you want to delete one of the top few people at one of the main media organizations in the world!!!!???? According to his BBC profile he is the chief executive of the BBC's commercial arm, which made profits last year of £145 million (about US$ 260 million), so it must have had revenue of many times that, and that is only part of his responsibilities. Sumahoy 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no! So now every middle manager on the planet is going to have their own Wikipedia article??? Lord preserve us. What are our criteria of notability for managers? Chief Execs of FTSE100 companies: yes. But head of a division of a public company - in effect a civil servant - I need convinced. --Mais oui! 05:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel all that strongly in this particular case, but being one of the top movers and shakers in a mega-major public organisation like the BBC seems to me a lot more notable than being some bunch of kids who've done one or two obscure CDs but admittedly with a genuine commercial label, or being some obscure writer who has nonetheless had a few (not-very-well-known) novels from reputable commercial publishers with reasonable print runs. Then there are all the articles about relatively obscure fictional characters in the better-known comic books (I've created a few article stubs like that myself). All of those are uncontroversially notable. As for civil servants — civil servants at the highest levels of the administrations of sizeable countries wield vast power and influence, and should certainly be considered notable IMHO. This is not directed at you, but a comment about the Wikipedia culture in general — don't you think we sometimes judge things too much from the viewpoint of what is important to adolescents, rather than from an adult perspective on the world? That said, this article can stand or fall on its merits, and I won't lose sleep, but your comment got me thinking. Metamagician3000 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Metamagician3000 04:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sumahoy. He's not a middle manager! --Eivindt@c 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sumahoy's info should be added to the actual article, though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Let's put these septics in their place! User:Sumahoy and User:Metamagician appear to be two of the few wikipedians with a sense of perspective. --die Baumfabrik 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with an established article on notable figures in the Beeb. I might add Sumahoy's info later, but would encourage others to do it first, as I'm rather hungry and not up for merging info into articles right now. Captainktainer 09:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we have room to the, occasional, civil servant. -- GWO


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticide[edit]

nn-band; does not meet WP:BAND Spearhead 21:48, 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Bennett[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eminent (BBC) media executive. Way, way over the notablity bar. It just needs expansion. Sumahoy 03:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are our criteria of notability for managers? I just find it so depressing thinking that tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of managers are now going to get their own article. BBC managers are in effect civil servants: which is even less notable that managers working in real industries. There is also a massive risk of systematic geographical bias here: how many Japanese, Bolivian or Iranian TV execs are ever going to have a Wikipedia article? It is a silly precedent to set. --Mais oui! 05:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could add some Swedish TV executives at some point (not that I think I will do so anytime soon, but who knows?). I see no reason we shouldn't have Japanese, Iranian and Bolivian ones, as well. In terms of long-term influence, TV executives may be far more important than the anchorpeople, presenters etc who may be more familiar to the viewers. u p p l a n d 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that the BBC has more influence than all but a handful of commercial companies in the world. And i think you have the systematic bias argument completely the wrong way round. It is a reason to try harder to get articles about neglected topics, never a reason to delete existing articles. Sumahoy 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Director of Television at BBC seems pretty important to me. "Jana Bennett" bbc gets 24,800 Google hits.[33] Probably beats the average professional footballer in terms of individual significance to society. u p p l a n d 07:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. The BBC is such an important and influential organisation, and being a director certainly passes the notability bar. Let's worry about these "tens of thousands" of non-notable articles when they get created. — sjorford (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Agree with Mais Oui; the job is in-and-of itself non-notable and to maintain otherwise is a position that, in extenso, is untenable. Eusebeus 22:22, 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 no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hunn[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Dp462090|Talk |Contrib| 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Burping. The man isn't notable as other than the world record, since we have an article on what the world record is in, this would be good for a paragraph there. AnonEMouse 16:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per anonemouse M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:50, 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) 01:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augustin Sayer[edit]

Contested CSD-A7 speedy not getting any more notable. Note: technical nomination. No vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Still doesn't assert how he meets the criteria for WP:BIO--Bill 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd Speedy it. Sorry, President of the French Club at NYU doesn't quite make it as an assertion of notability. Looks like a bright and active undergraduate. Good luck to him and maybe he'll be back in Wikipedia in a few years. Fan1967 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. DarthVader 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly non-notable --Deville (Talk) 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep him this guy looks cool. I saw him on Fox News for the NYU elections... they had a like a short show on college life and shit... good luck buddy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.37.106 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep HIM.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.37.106 (talk • contribs)
  • WIKIPEDIA NOTORIOUS. I dont understand this fuss. Guys there are so many other guys on Wikipedia that arent event half president of any kind of organization. Why do you have to be jealous of a brave dude working for his country the US! I SAY HE DESERVES HIS PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.37.106 (talk • contribs)
  • Note The above IP also vandalized earlier votes. Fan1967 15:11, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tosir Ali[edit]

Delete - Unsourced, unverified, speculative. Are all murder victims notable? Mais oui! 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person, being a victim of a racist murder does not instantly qualify you as being notable for a Wikipedia article unless there is widespread media coverage and/or public awareness. Beno1000 22:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to List of lynchings or similar if such a thing exists --Deville (Talk) 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't merge unless we can verify - I couldn't with a quick Google. AnonEMouse 17:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half life syndrome[edit]

Article consists almost entirely of original research and no sources are cited. Yamla 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have seen articles about this phenomenon elsewhere on the internet and I think that what is needed is someone to dig out some sources and add them to the article rather than for the article to be deleted. Beno1000 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also a little hoaxy... I buy the dizziness, but explosive diarrhea? --Deville (Talk) 01:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Deville. Getting motion sickness from playing a game is nothing new - happened to me with Bugdom (don't laugh). Only 116 ghits and none appear to match the article. Jamoche 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks dubious to me. Certainly there's nothing here that hasn't been alleged of videogames going back to the first Doom if not earlier. The opening of the article is an NPOV violation as it states and allegation as a fact without offering a supporting source. Methinks the explosive diarrhea might be more due to eating a bad burrito before playing the game. 23skidoo 06:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Of course, I do get motion sickness from just about everything (except plane/train stuff), but I DO NOT get "explosive diarrhea". Maybe transwiki to a Half-Life wiki, if there is one? M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:49, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Walton[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now, this Gsearch returns a lot of hits. Some of them are clearly not this subject, but some of the earlier ones are. I could be convinced he satisfies WP:N --Deville (Talk) 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is really sparse, but there is a large number of g-hits that reference him as a classic magician and innovator. His "contributions" probably warrant an article - a better one, at least. Kuru talk 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep google suggests he is in the top rank of his profession. Sumahoy 03:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: google on "Roy Walton" magic gets 500,000 hits, most of which refer to him as a very notable magician ("It’s been said that Roy Walton invented one of the most original card effects of all..."), he seems to have written several books [34] [35]. AnonEMouse 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm...no ISBN numbers for those books. Bookfinder shows two entries from L. Davenport, a self-purported "maker and publisher" of magic. Google shows lots of stuff attributed to Roy, but not a single morsel of biographical information, other than he manages a magic shop in Glasgow, Scotland.[36] I'll send them an email inquiry and see if we can dig up anything. -- Robocoder 21:39, 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. r3m0t talk 11:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmpKS[edit]

see talk page; someone tagged it as {{importance}} but it was removed because it seems to pass WP:MUSIC; though someone from their home city has no clue who this band is... delete. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am that very hometown user, and this band is nowhere close to being well-known. CharacterZero | Speak 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm from their hometown. They aren't well known, I'm aware of that, but I've seen them play, they're good, and they're trying to get a name for themselves. Their page could use some updating, yes, but let them at least try before you delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.121.53 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC).\[reply]
Anon's can't vote in AfD... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can (though they may be discounted by the closing admin), and it's not a vote... --Rory096 07:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete a7, nn band, tagged as such. --Rory096 07:56, 6 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 redirect. All of the information in this article was already duplicated at SQA exams fiasco. Chick Bowen 04:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Tuck[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 22:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, it seems he made the news as being a corrupt government official in the UK, this at least backs up the assertions in the article --Deville (Talk) 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SQA exams fiasco and mention him there. Apart from that he's just a mid-ranking bureaucrat. Sumahoy 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & kp rdr, per Sumahoy.
    --Jerzy•t 15:44, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beddington[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sounds interesting, he googles and there are portraits of him at the British National Portrait Gallery, which as our article says, selects "on the basis of the significance of the sitter". Sumahoy 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sounds interesting" and "he googles" are not listed as biog notability criteria; and WP:CITE makes it crystal clear that we cannot use Wikipedia as a source. --Mais oui! 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Beddington, John Louis [Jack] (1893–1959), publicity manager" has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. u p p l a n d 07:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sumahoy. Note, please, "he googles" is, actually, "listed as biog notability criteria", as: "Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism?". The citations seem to be reliable and important ones in the history of art and advertising. I think nominator has good intentions, but should be more careful with deletion nominations that a casual Google test can show are notable. AnonEMouse 16:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian fetish[edit]

Inherently, and unresolvably POV as shown in 8 pages of archived discussion, on-going edit-warring to push POV. Also violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, original research, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought among other policies. Natsume Soseki 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian fetish. Gazpacho 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ok, there seems to be some heated discussion on the talk page, and a small bit of edit warring (although I've seen much much worse) but neither of those justify deletion. Moreover, a quick perusal of the talk pages suggests to me that the nominator has been involved in said warring and at the very least has several edits on the article. Of course, editing an article does not preclude someone from later nominating it AfD, but I have to say that I find it incongruous that someone feels it's worth their time to edit an article and make several discussions on the Talk page, and then later things the article is worthy of removal. But aside from all that, this seems like a reasonably-sourced phenomenon in the literature, and thus satisfies WP:V and doesn't break WP:OR. --Deville (Talk) 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. None of the cited policies support deletion. This is, as far as I can see, an actual phenomenon that is notable and so warrants a Wikipedia entry if one can be written. That an article is currently dead-locked by POV warriors is not reason to delete either. Yes, the article appears to contain a lot of original research—that is a basis for rewriting and remove the OR though, not deletion. Furthermore, from the Talk page, this appears to be a bad-faith nomination by an editor frustrated by a lack of consensus support for their ideas (thus the "strong" keep on principle; otherwise it would just be a keep). — Saxifrage ✎ 23:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is one of those cases where most people know it exists, but there aren't any good sources to back it up, so original research and personal opinion creep in. It seems that creating a neutral encyclopedia article on this subject is impossible. It may be nice to have a definition at Wiktionary, but not here. Brian G. Crawford 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unless the title is inherently POV, it's not impossible to create a neutral article on any subject. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a white man who has dated East Asian women and white women, I find the title fairly offensive and POV, but I wasn't talking about the title. Brian G. Crawford 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I... huh? I know you weren't. You said it was impossible, I said that there is no subject for which it is impossible to write a neutral article (excepting the special case when the subject itself is inherently POV, e.g. List of evil acts by Cuba). — Saxifrage ✎ 08:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As previous editors have mentioned, the article contains some small amounts of WP:OR and {{toofewopinions}}. However, this can easily be overcome by removing unsourced statements and replacing them with a larger range of statements from academic and literary sources, in order to promote WP:V and WP:NPOV as per Wikipedia policy. --Wzhao553 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously a major cultural thing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The topic deserves an article, but the article itself needs a complete overhaul. Too long and convoluted. DejahThoris 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable. If there's edit warring going on, then Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes can be utilized, but the article subject matter is perfectly acceptable. 23skidoo 06:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, but a lot of the statements are already sourced, and the subject seems notable enough. If the article is POV then this should be discussed in the talk page. There are other ways of making articles neutral. Deleting won't help. AucamanTalk 11:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per 23skidoo -- - K a s h Talk | email 14:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't see how this article violates any guidelines/policies cited by this nom. I also note that the nom seems to have recently set up an account and has been involved in edit warring with this article. Afd should not be used to resolve content disputes. -- JJay 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article certainly needs help. There's probably been an RfC before, but another one might be helpful. Most of the article is about asian stereotypes and speculation that those fuel the fetish, rather than about the fetish itself. Шизомби 17:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic exists, and though defining it exactly certainly has been controversial, controversy in and of itself is not a good reason for deletion - after all, there are articles on racism and white privilege, which are similarly controversial issues. This issue needs to be mentioned and addressed, not erased. --Gar2chan 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - OK, Aucaman and Saxifrage have convinced me. I'm changing my recommendation on the condition that the page be blanked and rewritten along the lines of my suggestion below. (See comment and suggestion below)--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that an "Asian Fetish" is a real phenomenon, but as written, this article is basically a soap-box for Political Correctness, among other things. Also it veers way off-topic. For example, there's a section entitled something like "Stereotypes of the Asian Male" which goes on to describe how this particular contributor believes Asian Males are portrayed in American Media, which has nothing to do with an "Asian Fetish". Also, the term is thrown around way too often at any White male who happens to be dating, or married to a female of Asian descent and has develped a derogatory meaning. --WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these may be true, but I don't see how deleting the whole article is a good solution to these problems. AucamanTalk 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - This article should be deleted and separate articles written on the 1) valid, psychological term 2) colloquial usage (this one could even be simply a definition in Wiktionary)--WilliamThweatt 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a delete vote then. An article that is deleted is not allowed to be re-created without a very good reason. If we already have a very good reason ("it should be rewritten") to undelete, then it shouldn't be deleted in the first place. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep citations ok. enough reference. PoV does not make an article contender for deletion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is clearly taking only one point of view, it has been written with reference only to white men (which is racist with no rational basis). Although there are numerous citations, a closer look reveals the research is poor quality and/or poorly reflected in the document and the title. The very title "Asian Fetish" carries racist undertones and an unbalanced negative point of view. This article should no more exist than one called "White Stupidity". Who has the authority to distinguish "Asian Fetish" from natural "inter-racial" (whatever that means) love? The term "Asian Fetish" is clearly nothing more than a racial insult. People either have "hate of asians" (are racist) or "attraction to asians" (neutral/positive). The term "Asian Fetish" is oxymoronic! Let's strike a blow against racism, let's delete this page. Hontogaichiban 02:08, 01 May 2006
    • Comment: Would you say that Fat fetish should be deleted because no-one has the authority to distinguish between natural fat-love and "fat fetish" and that it's inherently anti-fat and an unbalanced negative point of view? — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Yes I would. I'm glad my argument has come across so clearly. Hontogaichiban 00:24, 02 May 2006
  • Keep I just did a Google search on "Asian fetish" and our article was the number one search return, right underneath the "asianfetish.com" porno ad. This thing hurts my brain; it's a textbook case of what not to do when writing an article. Nevertheless, I don't think there's much doubt the phenomenon exists, though whether as an activist meme or real cultural issue is anybody's guess. We should have an article, just not this article. Burn it down to the ground, banish the POV pushers to WikiGehenna, and upon its ashes let a new stub grow. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - none of the reasons cited are actual reasons for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. NPOV means we improve the article, not delete it. AnonEMouse 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I agree that this article clearly has a POV. It may be possible to make it NPOV but in the past year or so since the last VFD no one has demonstrated any effort to make it more encyclopedic, do original researvch, add sources or make it in fact NPOV. Very juvenile, POV, and possibly racist. Exactly -- Wikipedia is NOT a soap box. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Make a blog if you want to rant. Soda80 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article and eliminate any original research. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The disclaimer at the top notwithstanding, the article is basically an attack page against white (male)-Asian (female) relationships. A good many of the sources cited are badly-written intensely POV opinion pieces, not even pretending to be scholarly in any way. (People should read them before stating the article is well-researched.) To take just one, frankly I find the "Racist Love" article, which is quoted extensively, to be an idiotic, hate-filled rant. The authors attempt to link racist hate-- say, lynching and dragging a man behind a pickup because of his race-- with white men marrying Asian women. Obviously there is racism involved here, but it comes from the authors of the article, not those (myself included) who are involved in interracial relationships. The authors project absurd motives upon white-Asian relationships, stating that they are based on stereotypes from a century ago. (No, all your "well-researched" opinion sources aside, I did not marry my wife thinking she was Anna May Wong in Thief of Bagdad (1924).) The article is POV, a soapbox for racist activists, rife with original research and conjecture, and "owned" by a male, Asian American activist who does not hide his intent to mold the article to his own POV. Human Fetishist 17:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Birley[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, my guess is that headmaster of Eton would just barely push someone over the bar? I could be convinced otherwise --Deville (Talk) 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also a professor at Gresham College, which is a high honor in British academia. Sumahoy 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another case where I see no reason to set higher standards than the standard reference on British biography. Just like Robert Adair, Birley is included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. (By the way, I'd bet that most professional footballers and cricketers included in Wikipedia are not mentioned in the ODNB.) u p p l a n d 06:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this geezer had form. --die Baumfabrik 07:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability not established how? Penfold 10:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Flarp! and Delete Flarp redirect. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flarp![edit]

It seems an awful lot like an ad for a non notable product. Also please note that this AFD should cover the article Flarp as well American Patriot 1776 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adair[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a Robert Adair MP (d. 1737) for Philipstown, but that is not this guy. What is your source for him being an MP? He is an incidental character in a series of sketches by one artist. As for Russian Wikipedia and "... our article says... ": WP:CITE makes it crystal clear that we cannot use Wikipedia as a source.--Mais oui! 05:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't citing it as a source, I was giving it as supporting evidence of notability - and even though it's in Russian I can make out some other aspects of his notability from it. This page is not a citation cleanup facility. I've added his parliamentary details to the article. However I don't see why I should have to do this. The onus is supposed to be on the nominator to research the subjects of the articles nominated, but you don't seem to bother. Sumahoy 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Sumahoy notes, he is in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The article is sort of pointless in its brevity, but as the nomination is based on the issue of notability, I guess we'll just have to trust the ODNB people to know what they are doing. u p p l a n d 06:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per User:Sumahoy. --die Baumfabrik 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lille[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 23:03, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rex King-Clark[edit]

Delete - Notability not established. Mais oui! 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Keep per rewrite. --Mais oui! 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The article makes no claim about his notability. Possibly his photographs are notable, but from the article it is not apparent whether his photographs are any different than those of any other pilot doing aerial reconnaissance. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sax --Deville (Talk) 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote to keep, it looks to me that the article is certainly worth keeping at this point. Good work, Mouse.--Deville (Talk) 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. He is also an author of 3 books [37]. "Forward from Kohima" [38] [39] [40] seems to be the most widely known. -- AnonEMouse 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, I've been bitten by the WP:HEY bug, and rewritten the article. Please look it over, and say whether it's worth keeping now. AnonEMouse 18:45, 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) 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Reformers[edit]

Delete Organization was formed this year. 0 relevant google hits for "atheist reformers" (and only 3 hits total)[41] Borisblue 23:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly non-notable at present. Gwernol 23:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hmm, a group of five people who don't like the Ku Klux Klan and plan to make a website about it. Can you say NN? --Deville (Talk) 01:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. IrishGuy 15:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listening their founding members by first name pretty much seals the deal. thenormalyears


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nww[edit]

Delete, not notable --Mhking 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete backyard wrestling, w00t. In Wales no less. I get 40 Ghits which all look to be blogs or similar --Deville (Talk) 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if they were notable they woundn't be wrestling in somebody's backyard. The article admits it's a small federation. --Eivindt@c 06:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: writing this article is as bad as fly-posting. --die Baumfabrik 07:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect Nww to Nurse with Wound as this is a very common abbreviation for this artist. Ac@osr 13:55, 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 19:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Davison[edit]

Prod contested by Lightdarkness with comment "Notability asserted, is behind several IMDB verified films. Take it to AFD".
Per IMDB [42], he is listed as Writer and cinematographer for a 7-minute short, and special/visual effects and assistant camera operator for a 4-minute short. (For more info on the 4-minute short, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kismet (film)). He was a camera operator for one feature-length indy movie. No notability that I can see. Fan1967 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Also associated with Downending Films (AfD), and projected film "Down by the Riverside" (AfD), both of which were AfD'ed and deleted last week. Fan1967 23:20, 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 redirect to Microorganism. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germ[edit]

Delete and redirect to Microorganism. Germ as described here means nothing more than microorganism, its other meaning is discussed at germ cell, so in my opinion Germ (disambiguation) should be moved here and link to those articles and germ theory of disease. Dammit 23:19, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Altman[edit]

Speedy Delete - The article Jack Altman is clearly a hoax - see the evidence I have gathered. The article is already at PROD, but I'm really trying to push for a speedy. This kind of article does not deserve a space in Wikipedia, as it clearly is a hoax. TDS email 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he developed a cure for cancer? Damn, what do I do with these flying pigs and frozen Hell then? _-M o P-_ 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very quickly, as prodder, per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP Complete hoax --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, and not one of the more subtle ones I've seen of late --Deville (Talk) 01:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. u p p l a n d 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:HOAX, WP:V. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obvious hoax.Amcfreely 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a hoax, if someone discovered that it would be all over the news. πᎠᏢ462090λE=mc² 18:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_28&oldid=1081094118"