Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

Purge server cache

April 29[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torac[edit]

This is a hoax, psychotic nonsense or otherwise unverifiable. Richardcavell 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. Mailer Diablo 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bavaria[edit]

Very obvious hoax, no such person ever existed -- Ferkelparade π 00:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • A Christopher Bavaria did exist, but I am unsure if the statue is the same person. Mike (T C) 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: a person by that name may have existed, but definitely not the person the article is talking about. And the statue is certainly not the same person :P -- Ferkelparade π 00:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too many clues that this is vandalism Richardcavell 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 01:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Metamagician3000 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was the editor referring to Christopher of Bavaria? --Andy123(talk) 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doubtful, as he lived in the fifteenth century. --Saforrest 05:29, 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 keep. Turnstep 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock 'n' Buskin Theatre Company[edit]

Wikipedia isn't free web space and this article fails to tell us why it deserves an encyclopedic entry. Delete Ardenn 00:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think it's important enough to keep it, actually. It's not a commercial venture, which does sway my vote. - Richardcavell 00:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the article asserts that they may be the oldest student ran theatre company in north america, lets see if we can find a reference to this.Mike (T C) 00:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seem to be fairly notable. — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - asserts some notability. Metamagician3000 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the oldest student run theatre company is somewhat notable. --Terence Ong 03:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only conditional on this assertion of first-ever being verified --Deville (Talk) 03:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update:Going through all of the links, I can't find any link willing to back up this assertion except this group's website --Deville (Talk) 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: mostly advertising; Wikipedia is not the village notice board. --die Baumfabrik 04:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Deville’s update. (Unverifiable claim to notability being its only claim to notability.) —porges(talk) 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above update (making the group lose all WP notability whatsoever), and because the page is still a big ad. -- Kicking222 05:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - factual basis but a tad bit too commercial oriented, some slight editing could fix the article. -- Patman2648 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The group has actually been fairly influential in Ottawa theatre and has produced a few professional performers, Dan Ackroyd for example. Dhodges 06:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not entirely notability, but article asserts some notability bdude - uwantit TalkCont. 07:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the claim to be "the oldest student-run theatre company in North America" seems to be untrue, as we had an older one at Princeton University on AfD just recently (Theatre Intime). Maybe they are the oldest in continuous existence in Canada or something like that? u p p l a n d 07:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hm, that seems to tear it then. The assertion is simply false if the one for Theatre Intime is true --Deville (Talk) 16:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, assuming the article is primarily true (i.e. the Dan Ackroyd part) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Even if not the oldest in North America, if it can be shown it's one of the oldest, or the oldest in Canada, or something along those lines, then it's notable enough.  OZLAWYER  talk  17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if evidence can be found from other sources of sufficient notability. Admittedly, it doesn't look like we're going to find that, currently. --Doug (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more encyclopaedic material and remove advertising content. Bluewave 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment There are numerous references to Dan Ackroyd being a member. Here's one from the horse's mouth, so to speak. NPR interview. As to the oldest continuous ref. , unless someone can come up with a verifiable source it'll have to go. --Dhodges 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is present. -Mask 22:12, 4 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 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of Teddy Bears (Unstuffed Edition)[edit]

Non-notable film. Ybom 01:03, 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 Merge and redirect to Baseball terminology. There's a strong keep consensus here but the article as stands is a stub and a dictionary definition. Given it's already detailed at Baseball terminology and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I see no reason not to close as a merge and redirect, since a merge and redirect is keeping the information. If and when the definition is expanded into an encyclopedic article, I see no reason why it couldn't be broken out again. Hiding Talk 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-hitter[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable, unverifiable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. Prod disputed. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, what? One hitter is absolutely a well-known, undisputed baseball statistic and phrase, used constantly when it occurs. Absolutely notable, verifiable, and stable. Strongest possible keep and expand further. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also apologise for my tone here. It dawned on me that you might not be from America and not know baseball, which may be the case here. No offense meant in any regard, although it's still an incredibly notable part of baseball. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If heard of it, i've never done it, but I have heard of it. ILovEPlankton 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per jeff. Reyk YO! 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's obviously notable, but would someone explain why the article is more than a dic.def.? I think that should be the issue we're focused on. Perhaps it can be expanded with famous examples or something, but it's not clear to me as someone with almost no knowledge of baseball. Metamagician3000 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the article's flaw, current;y. It can easily be expanded, however, with more explanation, perhaps examples of one-hitters, etc. Unlike the commenter's words below, more can be said. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki It's a dicdef, and nothing more can be said than is already there. Fan1967 02:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 'Tis Encyclopedic --Andy123(talk) 02:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly notable and verifiable, although as it stands it's just a dicdef. But it could be expanded --Deville (Talk) 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary --die Baumfabrik 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as probably unexpandable —porges(talk) 04:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. There is plenty to expand on. Who has and when they did achieve a one-hitter, notable one-hitters, more or less everything found on No hitter. SorryGuy 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is a verifiable and common thing in the baseball community, very well known. -- Patman2648 06:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely a real term and an encyclopedic topic. The article could use to be expanded, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, notable and worthwhile article. Needs to become similiar to No Hitter article. SorryGuy 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a baseball fan: Strong delete/transwiki. The term "one hitter" is self-explanatory and it's not as though it's a monumentous event when it happens, which is fairly often. It makes about as much sense to have Two-hitter, Three-hitter, etc. It's all or nothing in this case -- you either pitched a No hitter or you just had a good game. On the other hand if someone wants to turn this into an article about marijuana smoking accessories be my guest. — GT 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to Baseball terminology and redirect. -- GWO
  • Keep for now, although I would not revert a redirect per GWO if nothing was added after a couple months. youngamerican (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Baseball terminology -- Ned Scott 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a neologism, but WP:NOT a dictionary M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep obviously notable term, can be made more then a dict-def. -Mask 22:18, 4 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 real person, not notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Eller[edit]

This lady did nothing worth for an encyclopedia Your nickname 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 23:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of religions once classed as cults[edit]

This article practically brags about being a POV fork of List of groups referred to as cults. There also appear to be exactly two sources for the article: a single Encarta article and a personal website, and if the essays written by the owner of the personal website are eliminated as a source (which I believe they would have to be, by WP:RS) then the list is exactly four entries long. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The article has three reference because only one editor has had time to add any other links. Lists have to start somewhere. I'm sure there are many other sources.
  2. The OCRT reference is considered a reliable resource for other lists. Specifically the List for Groups Referred to as Cults which Antaeus Feldspar frequently edits.
  3. There does not seem to be room for these quotes on the Groups Referred to as Cults list.
  4. If Encarta considers making a list like this (albeit shorter) to be encyclopedic then why wouldn't Wikipedia?
  5. The list is designed to be Neutral in POV in that it only reports on the viewpoint of reliable sources and does not express the views of the author. I don't think it can be any less POV than the list of groups referred to as cults which expresses the view points of journalists and cult experts.
  6. The article needs to be viewed with the other articles in its category. It enhances the information provided by providing a heading which shows a real life viewpoint. If you look at the cult categories below you will notice that all the articles refer to the scholarly groups which point the finger at what they thing are cults. This list brings up the real world viewpoint that some other scholarly groups have to the contrary. I think it looks good in the category list below. It feels right to provide a balancing article on such a controversial topic. But if you all think it's too much of a POV fork and that then means that the article needs to be merged into another then so be it.
  • Perhaps the Title of the article is throwing people off. I tried many times to come up with something that reflects the NPOV nature of the information. Maybe it's more like Groups whose public classification is in transition from cult to established religion...? cairoi 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to reconsider your votes. cairoi 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but theres no chance i'm going to reconsider my vote. ILovEPlankton 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright if you feel that way. Do you have any feelings about the usefullness of the information if it were combined with another article? cairoi 13:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find a good article to merge it with I would change my vote to merge. ILovEPlankton 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first merge candidate that springs to mind is the List of groups referred to as cults. That may or may not work. But perhaps it really needs flushing out into a broader topic: "The Transition from Cult to Religion." That might make a very interesting wikipedia article. cairoi 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it lacks NPOV, seeming, as it does, to invite approval for such transitions in each and every case. I would replace 'once' with 'formerly' on the grounds that 'once' is subtly POV, with its subtle connotation of a distant and therefore relatively primitive, wrong-headed past. Etaonsh 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am very surprised that OCRT was ever generally accepted as a source for any article. Part of the reason I have not protested it as a source for List of groups referred to as cults, however, is that OCRT has a strong tendency (I would say "bias" except it might be misinterpreted as criticism of OCRT) against referring to groups as cults; thus, it is far more indicative when OCRT does come out and say "yes, this group actually should be regarded as a cult" than when they say "this group should be regarded as a new religious movement and not as a cult." (Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites.) To put the shoe on the other foot -- Rick Ross is specifically not accepted as a source for List of groups referred to as cults, and you've never once complained about that. If Ross were to declare, however, that "X group was once referred to as a cult but should not be any longer", don't you think it would be noteworthy that a man who's supposedly so predisposed to see cults everywhere he looks, looks in this direction and sees the opposite? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be addressing 'me' there as tho I represent some camp in the matter, which I don't. Etaonsh 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely correct. I was attempting to reply to cairoi but I indented incorrectly. I have fixed the indentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, If this were the Gita and there were two camps, who would be Krishna? ;) cairoi 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
references approved on other sites and additonal references can be found with elbow grease. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but only because the article is too subjective. Who decides that a cult has become a religion? - Richardcavell 02:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Governments, technically - including democracies. Etaonsh 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problems could be fixed by editing. Reliable sources give their opionion that the groups are religions. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reconsidered as you want, and I still say it's subjective. Microsoft does not determine what is encyclopedic; they clearly have a POV conflict of interest in producing an encyclopedia. The difference between a 'cult' and a 'religion' is whether the community accepts it or not. The Hare Krishna movement are a cult in Australia, but in India they'd be pretty tame. In Japan, Mormons are considered cultish whereas in Utah, they're normal. It's impossible to draw a distinction without being subjective. I don't accept the Scientology movement as anything other than a dangerous cult of folie a deux, but that doesn't stop Hollywood from accepting it. - Richardcavell 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take your logic and apply it to the list of groups referred to as cults: It should include everything then! That list is not concerned about whether the Scientologists are a cult inside or outside of Hollywood it is only concerned about opinions expressed by reliable references. I think the religions once classed as cults list should be able to do the same thing but on the other side of the coin. cairoi 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are the Hare Krishnas a cult in Australia? lol! I think the word cult itself is almost used like a word of insult so it's difficult to describe any movement as a cult without being non-NPOV, thus in reverse it's hard to see a logic behind things being non-cult aswell (in terms of Wikipedia). Could the article exist as The findings of research into supposed cults? Your friendly, neighbourhood cult member, GourangaUK 14:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :-)[reply]
Hi Cairoi, this is exactly the point. There is no religion which would not be on this list. This makes this a POV fork, simply because if this list is identical to the List of religions, then the title of this article is simply a sideways way to push "cult" into the mix. Why not just insert the line "Note that almost all religions were considered cults when they were young" in Religion and be done with it? --Deville (Talk) 16:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generalisation, hinduism, animism? cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure: are you asking me a question? If so, could you restate? Interpreting what I think you're asking me, yes, there are certainly subsets of Hinduism that "are classed" as cults. The Hare Krishnas (ISKCON) come to mind: in New York or Sydney, they're considered a cult, whereas in Mumbai or Chennai ISKCON is a wholly unremarkable organization. All I'm saying is that every young religion was once considered a cult, because frankly a reasonable definition of cult is "a religion without any political or economic power". Can you name one religion which would not appear on this list? --Deville (Talk) 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mammon? Etaonsh 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee? Tea? --Deville (Talk) 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not just now, thanks, I'm discussing deities. Etaonsh 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork, listcruft. --Terence Ong 04:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: utterly, utterly pointless article. I despair sometimes, I really do. --die Baumfabrik 04:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you suggest merging it into the groups referred to as cults list then? cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. It needs some better sources, but I can see this list being useful to some people after the community has fixed it up. I definitely don't think that it's listcruft or POV. Arctic Gnome 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pretty close to being unNPOVable. Pretty much all religions claim to be the One True Path, which combined with a little mutual exclusivity turns this into List of religions. —porges(talk) 04:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be called a list of controversial religions once classed as cults. cairoi 05:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it documents real life. (Primary editor) - cairoi 05:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV listcruft. Wikipedia is not the place to create articles expressing "different views" from the consensus for a given article. --Saforrest 05:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. The article is not expressing my point of view it is expressing a verifiable point of view held in the community at large. The list differs enough from it's siter list to be difficult to format. cairoi 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to complicate the issue at that point by drawing a distinction between 'the view of the community at large' and the verifiable views, investigation-based decisions, evaluations, proscriptions and legalisations of elected and unelected government. The former are clearly affected by the latter (e.g., guided, and/or 'kept in the dark'), and often vice versa. Etaonsh 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its just a link magnet another website, needs too much work to fix. -- Patman2648 06:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. At least some of these are still considered cults, and nearly all of the references are external links to one page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone else. That this list represents "a verifiable point of view held in the community at large" is preposterous. wikipediatrix 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why?cairoi 14:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Because the editor you are addressing confuses majority with unanimity, and thereby/-fore seems to seek to undermine consensus.
2. Because the term remains troublingly ambiguous. Is a 'cult' defined by its small/minority/non-mainstream following, or by government proscription? But as stated elsewhere here, deletion is not = clarification, is it though? Etaonsh 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article declares itself a POV fork. Borisblue 15:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Religions once classed as cults" implies that the religions on the list are no longer classed as cults, which is not true. Many people still refer to these religions as cults. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: POV Fork Justin Eiler 18:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Christianity was classified as a cult when it began and it is not on the list. It is all about the eye of the beholder. Storm Rider (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simplificateur. It isn't 'all in the eye of the beholder' when national legislation/proscription/legalisation play a role, worldwide, albeit one which starry-eyed Westerners might prefer not to notice. :D Etaonsh 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, the sourcing is dodgy and many of these groups are still considered cults by others. Also problematical is using the word "cult" itself, which has only recently (30-40 yrs ago) attained a pejorative sense in religious terminology. --Fire Star 20:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cult-Schmult. If people are unsure of the definition of the word (consider the low-intensity warfare happening at cult) then the page itself will be POV. Hornplease 08:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Despite the possible validity of objections to the article, the desire to delete it is not only POV, but a suppression of information, which goes directly contrary to all Wikipedia stands for. Also, see my recent contribution to the article's Talk page re its title. Etaonsh 08:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retitling it would point us in a new direction? cairoi 15:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this is overdue, but as usual the madding majoritarian mob is instead baying for blood against all decent and truly Wiki principles. ;( Etaonsh 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I consider all religions as cults, now everybody can feel free to add whatever religion they want to this list so it will be a List of religions, ooops we already have that one so this is redundant. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But: where does anti-religion fit into that? - is that not a religion, by definition, based around the God/spirituality issue, and bringing people together? Etaonsh 08:56, 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 real person; no claim to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Eller[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Waffle Show[edit]

Someone's online show, A whopping 13 unique Google hits for "The Waffle Show" -- and a couple aren't for this. Calton | Talk 01:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T DELETE Reasons why you are all wrong: 1. It's not an ad, we don't make any money 2. We're working on the first episode right now. 3. Wiki has over 1,000,000 pages in English, and I don't think this will hurt. Idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleL (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 April 2006. User's second edit.
    • 1) The first clause is utterly unrelated to the second clause: ads is ads. The Red Cross uses ads, your local county government uses ads. 2) So it's a NON-EXISTENT online show? Even less notable. 3) "Harmlessness" is not an article criteria. And kid? Insulting people is not the best way to get people on your side. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. ILovEPlankton 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Andy123(talk) 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Wikipedia is not for things made up in bed one night --Deville (Talk) 03:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NFT Kids today, tch! --die Baumfabrik 04:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is non-notable. Danaman5 04:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement pure and simple.-- Patman2648 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hasn't produced a single episode yet. - Richardcavell 12:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 13:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reason #2 of rebuttal. Grandmasterka 05:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage walking[edit]

Hoax superstition. References too don't mention the practice. Unverifiable Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, article is kept - Liberatore(T) 14:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Party of Ontario[edit]

Wikipedia isn't free web space or a crystal ball. Non-notable. Delete Ardenn 01:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. ILovEPlankton 02:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable (yet). - Richardcavell 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN, good luck, but it'll take a while --Deville (Talk) 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked them up, and they are in the process of being registered with Elections Ontario; I think that makes then notable. If they don't field anyone in the next election I might change my mind. Arctic Gnome 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait until they field an actual candidate and/or get some press coverage. --Saforrest 05:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They fielded a candidate against John Tory in the 2005 by-election. CJCurrie 03:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until they become notable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Ohnoitsjamie --Mets501talk 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or alternately merge into Reform Party of Ontario. The Representative Party has actually been around for a few years, and they've "unofficially" fielded a candidate in a by-election; also, the party is a successor to the Reform League of Ontario (aka the "Independent Reformers"). They may not have official status yet, but they do exist and are already a real (if peripheral) force in Ontario politics. CJCurrie 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- Wikipedia has lots of articles on unregistered political parties. There is no reason why this should be different. Wikipedia is not paper -- one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it has room for obscure political movements like this one. After all, it has room for articles on minor fictional characters in Star Wars and Harry Potter. Ground Zero | t 18:34, 4 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 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's My Sonic![edit]

This webcomic's first article was deleted in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/That's My Sonic! a year and a half ago. I suspect the statute of limitations has expired for CSD G4, but the article is a sub-stub and I don't think it meets WP:WEB. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fireball20xl, which was for the site hosting this comic; Fireball20xl may actually be almost notable enough for an article now, but I don't think the individual webcomics it hosts are. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 02:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Goble Spot[edit]

Hoax. No citations or source. Google turns up no responses. Even the mentioned psychologist Franz Goble does not exist as he too turned up no Google references. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:13, 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 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CharlieBrowns.biz[edit]

  • Thank you for the non-slander. Do as you please. Once again, this was also merely informational and open to customers for exchange. I believe it would be wise to know the place exists, in terms of wiki, because it is a local staple in the community. Wiki will not make or break a small business like that. Obviously, my opinion does not matter, so best of luck. Tbdiscovery

advertisement Charles 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogate Sun[edit]

Hoax. Inventive theory but lacks any sources & Google turns up no valid references. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 03:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

YAHOO search -->
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 47, No. 8, August 1979 Pages 704 - 706
Black liquid solar collector demonstrator
F. L. Weichman
D. J. Austen

Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta T6G 2J1 Canada
A solar collector, suitable for an undergraduate laboratory
project or lecture demonstration has been built and the details
of the construction and the way in which it can be used by students
in elementary or advanced courses is described. A simple and
efficient system results from using a black liquid to absorb the
energy and from using the thermosyphon effect to drive the liquid
through the collector.
A floodlamp is used as a surrogate sun.
The collector is of considerable current interest
in the field of solar energy.
  • DELETE/KEEP (Probably it is a photography term.) - not a scientific term, but "way of using language". It looks "original research", not hoax to me. hoax=information which is not based on truth. alex 10:15, 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 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry C. Alphin Jr.[edit]

  • Once again, thanks for the slander. I had good intentions. If anything, I was opening the door to attacks because I put the information out there to be edited. I know that I'm not involved heavily in the little circle of friends, but I do enjoy wiki and want to see it grow. Tbdiscovery

vanity Charles 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: up for AfD, scroll down ;p —porges(talk) 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. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThoroughBred Discovery[edit]

  • Actually, my intent was to provide the initial content and then allow clients and anyone else to alter as they saw fit. My intentions were genuine. Thanks for the slander. I have edited many articles and none were deleted, as I provided references and generally cared about wiki. Tbdiscovery

Advertisement Charles 03:32, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Zolfonun (Zoufonoun)[edit]

Non notable musician. Just 562 Google hits, and books rank on Amazon in the several hundred thousands. Rory096 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The number of Google hits does not necessarily make one a notable musician. Bach's music had become fish wrapping paper because he lived a quiet life of non-self promotion and his music had fallen out of fashion, only to be saved by a few other musicians who understood his contributions. At that time, his pagerank on google would have been zero, too! This kind of "popularity" is what kills fine arts and keeps Britney Spears at the top - how sad! Jalal Zolfonun is undeniably one of the most important Iranian (and world) musicians today and without question deserves a page and then some here. Besides, if a page on "setar" or "traditional persian music" will remain on wikipedia, one cannot discuss those without discussing him. If you don't believe this, look at this link [1] for a CD containing the century's most important setar players listing him as one of less than a dozen. Azoolander 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: if some rancid punk band in Massachussets is worth an article, then so is this guy. If he's big all over Iran (and not just in three streets in Western Shiraz), then that's noteworthy. Besides, I like the photo. --die Baumfabrik 04:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even noted in New York times: article on his son. Also see this review on his CD and since you mention it, his reviews on Amazon for the same CD.
  • Keep. He may not have that much of an Internet presence, but it's rather silly to straightforwardly use raw Google rankings as a notability guide for people in non-Western countries, and from the number and variety of sites referring to him (in various spellings), I am convinced he is genuinely famous. The article should be cleaned up a bit, though: it should be at one of Jalal Zolfonun, Jalal Zolfonoun, or Jalal Zoufonoun, with the others as redirects. --Saforrest 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Notability exists, but not enough to qualify for an article. The arguments presented by Azoolander (who, by the way, already put down "Keep" twice) and Baumfabrik are terrible arguments. An NY Times article on somebody's son does not make the father notable, and just because one band has a page doesn't mean another should. Zolfonun seems like he could be important to a small group of people, but that group is very, very small. In addition, if the article is kept, the page should be moved to just one name. And of course, if it's kept, the article needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. -- Kicking222 05:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Baumfabrik --SeanMcG 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not as notable in America but presence is felt in Middle East -- Patman2648 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to better title and make appropriate redirects. Seems notable from how he is talked about on Iranian English-language websites, and it seems that his father Habib, whose instrument is displayed in a museum in Iran[2], may also be noable enough for an article. We have articles on subgenre death metal bands who are almost certainly much less notable than this guy. Also please review the section "Foreign languages and non-Latin scripts" at the Wikipedia:Search engine test page. (And we need his name written in Persian in the article.) u p p l a n d 08:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per azoolander, but rename per saforrest. Deleting would only worsen the systematic bias of WP. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. ILovEPlankton 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Saforrest... Any Amazon.com sales make notable IMHO. -NickSentowski 19:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Saforrest. JoshuaZ 20:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite notable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (follow up to my, azoolander, comments above):Here is more supporting info, under different spelling of "zolfonoon" pointing out that he is the foremost setar player in the world - again, very notable. Incidently, several hundred additional Google hits under this particular spelling of this name, if it matters.
  • Comment definitely needs to be at least moved, because the title is horribly confusing as it stands M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:45, 4 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online[edit]

As indicated on Talk:Endless Online, particularly Talk:Endless Online#Editting [sic], this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are no usable references that can be used, and it doesn't seem that they will ever come about. Until reliable references come about, most of the article will be original research, which isn't allowed. Running "Endless Online" with the quotes through Google will indicate that many websites refer to the game, however they are not that great as references and they all say the same thing. These clone references give a simple synopsis of the game, and not anything else noted in the article. References for all those other facts are not available. If this article can't satisfy the fundamental verifiability and no-original-research rules, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Note that this article has been nominated for deletion before. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Information about a changing online game is never going to have a solid reference. Even much more popular games, which have major web sites and published guides - these are never as complete and up to date as the games themselves. I would contest the idea that a player who uses the game is doing original research: the game is a source of information about itself. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A game itself really can't be used as a source, in my opinion. It's not a document asserting facts with some level of evidence, it's an array of code and graphics created for entertainment. Experiencing them and then writing the experience on Wikipedia would fall under original research: research not documented anywhere else. It's like saying a person is a reference because a person can listen to them and then write it down on Wikipedia. And if there can't be solid references for 80% of the page, then it breaks the fundamental verifiability rule. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a comparion, think of a movie. A movie is also mostly 'graphics created for entertainment'. But certainly if someone watched a movie, then wrote an article about the movie summarizing it, this would not be original research - the movie itself provided the information. I see a game as no different. An exception would be if the writing were not merely summarizing, but inferring, such as if a user came up with their own interpretation of a movie, and wrote the article about that. But mere description I feel is fair. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 03:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, using the film/game itself as a source is most certainly original research as outlined in Wikipedia:No original research.--Sean Black (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to this comment, just so I can understand, I'm not sure what you're referring to - this part seems to me to say it is ok. "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs... Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." Where does it say not to do this?
          • In relation to this article in particular, a great deal of the facts on this article I found with little effort just looking at the link provided on the page to the official site, and surely many more such as "Endless Online features a global chat function which acts as a chat room that every player in the game world can see." would fall under "makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - anyone who played the game would know this. While there are some facts on the page which would qualify, such as stating players motivations and feelings, and I agree should be removed, I feel there is sufficient content on the page verifiable from available sources that it should not be entirely deleted. They may not currently be cited, but there is a pretty good number of sources shown at http://www.endless-online.com/links-fan.html, which I found from this article, which could easily do so. I'd reccommend cleanup, and citing these pages, but not outright deletion. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I figured I might as well just go ahead and do it myself - I've cited nearly every part of the page from available sources, and removed some that seemed inherantly unverifiable. There's only one (citation needed) still remaining, but it could also probably be dealt with by someone who knows the game. I don't play it myself, but was able to find the rest just from the links given by the game's official page. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets WP:WEB condition 3, and reference to a site in order to verify claims made by the site itself is acceptable. Coverage should be expanded, but that's a sign that it's a stub, not that it should be deleted. Captainktainer 09:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question; How does it meet WP:WEB condition 3. That could change my vote if verifiable. Hiding Talk 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captainktainer. Kimchi.sg | talk 11:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google searches reveal there is a large amount of genuine interest in the site. Bige1977 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Although many people think this should be kept, as I made point of in the discussion article, and as Messed Rocker has said before, things need to be verifiable via credible sources. Since this HAS NO VERIFIABLE DATA, it has no place on wikipedia. I play this game, and this is the last thing I want, but if wikipedia needs virification, and we can't give it, what else are we to do? DELETE IT. t.z0n3
    • Comment I'd like to point out, for the record, that [[3]] actually says otherwise about the "no verifiable data." If we take the official site of a product and a product to be parts of the same entity, documenting claims a site made about itself is perfectly acceptable. Documentation of claims to the contrary, or documentation of lack of evidence, is also acceptable. Take a look at the page as it exists now; it's fairly heavily footnoted and contains links to other sources that review or provide legitimacy for Endless Online. Captainktainer 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the exact same grounds in the last AfD. I really don't think verifiability is a problem here. The way I see it, games and game publishers can be used as a source (and they'll undoubtedly be more than glad to provide information about their games!), that's just normal encyclopedic research. For example, if I state "Ultima VII runs in 320x200 MCGA graphics mode", I don't need a frigging game researcher to write that in a peer-reviewed paper before I can use that fact. It's written in the game box. ("256-color VGA graphics". There it is. I kid you not. I can provide a scan and I swear I won't modify it.) I can install the game and run it in DOSbox and by golly, it runs in 320x200 MCGA mode. This, however, would be Original Research: "Baten Kaitos is an example how the Japanese are moving away from cloning Ultima III and going toward cloning Ultima IV: the player's relationship with the gameworld is affected by their choices. The game features plotlines and clicés of Final Fantasy series, game mechanics of Magic: the Gathering and marrying it with good doses of BioWare Humour®." That's original research and op-edding. "New analysis and synthesis", schoolbook example of what's frigging underlined in WP:NOR. That belongs to my game blog, not Wikipedia.
    In order to provide accurate information, we have to accept the game publisher as an accurate source of information, as they know best what the game is about. What we shouldn't allow them to do is to write the articles. The OR policy doesn't say anything about New collections of sourced facts, because if those are banned, we'd ban ourselves by definition. In closing, I swear I'll quit now. I suck. I know. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you don't! I empathize with you. I don't want to delete it, but in the opinion of myself and MR, that is Original Research. t.z0n3
    • This is what I was trying to say. And if an article about a primary source cannot use that source as a reference, a huge amount of articles would have to be deleted. I looked around, and could not find a -single- article about a book, movie, or game that cited someone else when summarizing itself. If anything, they cited the book/movie/game itself, or it most cases, nothing at all, since it should be clear that's where it came from. Again, not for drawing new conclusions, but to say what the source itself says. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't think they are wrong. WP:NOR says right out that compiling info from primary sources is encouraged. Only if that info is used to draw new conclusions is it original research. If you stated that the protagonist in Crime and Punishment is named Raskolnikov, it would be absurd to cite a book review that said so. The book is a verifiable and undeniable source for this information. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information published on the site itself isn't original research, and is actually in fact good references. There was insufficient source citing, and sources didn't seem probable. I remember reading the site, and I don't remember the information being there. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 23:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:V states If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. If no third party reputable sources can be found, it should be deleted. Hiding Talk 22:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are quite a few 3rd party sources, just look at the links page on the game's official site - there's 15 or 20 external links there. As for them being reputable, I would say that their being listed by the game's creators is confirming their accuracy. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is circular to verify information about a company or organization using links that the company provides as a justification for considering those sources reliable. JoshuaZ 00:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. And there's something that doesn't seem right about calling fan sites "reputable [and] reliable" sources. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. Whatever descriptions of the game Google turns up, such as [4], are nothing more than one paragraph entries, hence this game lacks 3rd party reliable sources. Kimchi.sg 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To last few replies. I don't see why the company linking to these sites removes their reputabilty (if that's a word). It's not like this is an article about them, and they'd have a reason to lie to make themselves look good. But even if those are thrown out, a yahoo search for ("endless online" mmorpg) turns up 17,000 results. Just after a few minutes browsing them, I'm sure there's enough validation in there. The simple fact remains, this article now has more citations than I've -ever- seen about a video game, with the exception of a couple extremely popular titles. I would also just like to point out again, I don't want anyone thinking I have a personal agenda or bias here. I don't play this game, and I've never even heard of it before this AfD. I just think that this article has well above-average content and information to find, compared to most other non-mainstream games. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's just something for people to chew: Should the verifiability criteria put as the question "can verifiable third-party sources be found?", or the question "is there a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found?" It's almost like the question on Original Research: "Are there sources?" vs. "Can the statements be sourced?" I'm personally always leaning on the latter of these interpretations: It's not OR if something can be sourced to some work, it's Verifiable if the primary source exists, and there's a possibility that some independent source will show up and verify the claims.
    These rules are in Wikipedia to stop crackpots from pushing their theories as undisputedly valid knowledge. The rules aren't meant to stop discussing cult fictional works - that's what notability criteria is for! What I'm seeing here is trying to delete a work by simply stacking charges: we're proposing the article's deletion as a matter of technicality. "You can't verify this." The way I see is this: Could a reputable game magazine cover this game? (I'm guessing someone might already have.) Could some notable blogger review this game, for example? (Probably, and may already have.) Could some researcher go and conduct a methodical study of EO's player base? Now, you can ask these questions, and answer is a definite "maybe". Ask similar sort of questions about some crackpot scientific theory, and you get a definite "hell no, not even probable". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand the policies and what they are for, then. The three policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are to be taken together as parts of a whole, and not to be applied separately. You also misunderstand WP:V which quite clearly states articles should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. Not facts that should be published, or will be published, but have been published. Your assertion that if there exists a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found the information can be added and the article exist are at odds with the policy. We could hypothetically bandy about coulds all day, but at the end of the day WP:V clearly states The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
  • Now that shouldn't mean stuff can't get added and then verified later, but given this article has existed since July 2005, surely that's ample time for people to find the sources they claim could exist. I'll quite happily change my vote if reliable, reputable, third party sources are found. Hiding Talk 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if you go back and read WP:V again closely, particularly at the end in the section on self-published sources, you'll find that to document claims about an entity, WP:V allows for the source itself to provide documentation about itself, so long as that information has not been challenged by a third party. We're not using the information to document claims about another person or party, and since a lot of the information in this article is fairly basic material, the claims as they stand are fine. Captainktainer * Talk 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circular argument see my statement above that WP:V states If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. Otherwise you seem to suggest any website can be used as a reliable source on which to write an article about it, and thus every website should have an article. If that's true, I state here and now I want dibs on writing the article about my blog. You can source information from the primary source itself, but it cannot be the entire content of the article. Wikipedia is not a business directory and Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, which is what utilising only primary sources makes us. Hiding Talk 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see why the citations as listed are not reputable. Who, besides people who play the game and take the time to publish their own material on it, would know better? If you look through all the 3rd party sites, and the official site, they are all in agreement - there's no conflict of opinion on any of the information in the article, and given none of them have any reason to lie about it, let alone -all- of them lie about it, I see no reason not to believe it. Granted, self-published website may not be as widely reliable as say, a professional printed game guide, but web sites are quite commonly used as sources on wikipedia, not to mention I've seen way more errors in printed guides than I have on web sites of people who actually play the games themselves. And no, that doesn't mean every website should have an article, per notability, which this game certainly has.-Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about who would know better; after all, who would know better what members are in an unsigned band of schoolkids? Wikipedia is not a guide to the internet, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, requires third party, reputable sources on which to base articles. If this article has them, fair play, if not, well, sorry, but then it should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't the place to prove a topic's notability, it's a place to summarise it. If there is nothing to summarise, we can't have an article. Hiding Talk 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still maintain that this is a slippery slope. If you start demanding reputable third-party sources for each and every separate assertion in Wikipedia, you end up with a lot of work. A practical example where we end up with this logic would be this: Let's see, today I read about Deep Impact; I obviously can't believe a single word about the plot, because the plot summary is completely unsourced. Further, the article cites a disreputable source (IMDB, a film database based on user submissions). And the most shocking thing is that this is not an isolated incident; articles frequently include plot summaries without providing any other source besides the movie themselves (presumably, as it's not even cited), and all use this highly dubious web site as a source for cast and crew information! Is there something in English language similar to Finnish National Filmography - a printed, peer-reviewed, comprehensive film reference that also has detailed plot summaries? (Cripes, we have to abandon our reputation as an instantly updated encyclopedia covering new happenings instantly - those tomes get published like every 5 years or so and are always 5 years late, or whatever!) We need to take a really great big broom and start nuking everything and everywhere! (the crowd goes "POINT well made!"). And then, after 5-10 years of waiting for the movie journal to complete their tedious work, prepare for the great question that really makes the difference: what benefit would this new version have, exactly, over the version we already have?
    I believe in verifiability just as much as everyone else. It's just that I believe the world isn't black and white (No movie reference work publication delay puns intended) and that verifiability is not necessary unless it is a matter where verifiability is needed. Some common sense, people. And now, my favorite quote from WP:V: "Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it meets web condition 3 and is notable Yuckfoo 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How does it meet WP:WEB #3? It's hosted on its own domain and is not distributed by any well known entity... --Rory096 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we applying WP:WEB on a software product in the first place? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:13, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim The Terrible[edit]

This page is about a non-published book, from a non-notable yet-to-be author. The article is also written by the author. Listing here becasue the author removed the speedy tag Kevin 03:43, 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 00:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Special Operations[edit]

This article on an organisation within the fictional Star Trek universe has no sources, and appears (to me) to be either original research or non-canonical fancruft, for as far as I know, no such organisation is detailed in the episodes. If the organisation's canonical existance, along with the contents of the article, can be proven to be verifiable through the use of reliable, cited sources, I will reconsider.

This article was PRODed, with the prod removed by the article's creator. The only other changes made to the article were to remove a large section of text, although I believe the comments I made in both the Prod nomination and above still apply to the rest of the article. -- Saberwyn 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-canon, I think. It might come from books but then the author should respond to the prod. - Richardcavell 04:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete -> If the author can provide very good references for this material, including page numbers (if it comes from Star Trek books), then I'd change to a keep. As it is, this looks like original research or copyvio. Send the original editor an advisory to move this into his userspace for further editing, and then resubmit it when it's of better quality. Captainktainer 09:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not verified, reads like fancruft, not wikified. JIP | Talk 13:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non cannon, might be speculative original research. Bige1977 16:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't non-canonical information from fiction belongs in wikipedia. Dspserpico 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-canon; not from any of the novels either. --Mhking 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like some information someone came up with pertaining to their Star Trek PBeM game. Not particularly well-written information, either. ekedolphin 02:45, 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 probable hoax. Hiding Talk 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Heroes Universe[edit]

Non notable. Possible hoax. No context and can't verify on google. Bige1977 03:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The related articles above are also nominated for deletion. Bige1977 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 06:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society[edit]

Belongs to WP:BJAODN Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. Thinking of speedying. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - not even funny. Metamagician3000 04:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - surely a speedy due to being patent nonsense? doktorb | words 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Have placed the {{db-nonsense}} template on the page. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. --Pjacobi 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle studies[edit]

Delete: There is no recognized field of study called "cycle studies"; this article was created by User:RayTomes, who has created a number of articles pushing his own cranky theories, which derive from the vapid numerological mysticism of one Edward R. Dewey. In his UseNet postings, websites, and WP articles, Tomes attempts to present this material as a respectable mainstream science, which amounts to attempting to mislead our readers. Please see also related past AfDs on Harmonics Theory and Category:Cycles and related current AfDs on Cycle Theory, The Foundation for the Study of Cycles, Cycles Research Institute, Unified Theory of Cycles, and Edward R. Dewey. Be sure to note that all these articles cite only Ray Tomes associated websites and writings. I feel that these sites are neither reliable nor independent sources of information about the numerological mysticism promoted by Tomes. CH 04:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - harmonic equations are well described. I do think that the guy who's writing this is a crank, or else overemphasises certain things (like a naturopath trying to explain medicine) but it's legitimate enough. - Richardcavell 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a truly bizarre article. If we need an article about cyclical things, I think a summary-style article (i.e. sections linking to Main articles) would be a lot better. Ewlyahoocom 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this article is a very badly-written example of pseudo-science. Martin Gardner wouldn't stand for this rubbish; why should we? --die Baumfabrik 05:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, most of the articles Tomes has contributed seem to be pseudoscience in one guise or another. —porges(talk) 05:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is not coherent enough. And does seem like original research. --soUmyaSch 06:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The basis of the article is that there is a single, cohesive study of cyclical behaviour in many different research areas. I don't see any evidence of that, only separate descriptions of cycles in the different fields. Kevin 07:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Beno1000 11:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of the bunch of related articles this seems to be the one with the best coverage. Currently is does give undue promenance to Dewey but is does document many other important cycles which have been studied through history. The Verdic cycles in particular could do with expansion as this a well known cosmological model. I feel there is a need for an overall page on different theories of cycles. I've redone the page a bit to describe a few other cycles and make it less about Dewey work with a nice quote which pretty much demolishes the buisness cycle theory. --Salix alba (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let me explain that further. I usually have a very low tolerance for pseudo-science and I was expecting to go to this article and see a bunch of crap. But reading through it, I have to say it's pretty reasonable. This article doesn't really make any assertion other than complicated systems show periodicity, and people have studied that. This should be prima facie obvious. This is clearly evident in simpler systems like celestial mechanics, and I think that part of the article is eminently reasonable, being a list and description of well-known periodic motions inside the Earth-sun-moon coupled system. Of course, once we get into the social sciences things get pretty vague, but I have to say that this article is no worse of a violator than many current schools of thought in academia in the social sciences (and, of course, social systems are so complex that it always a stretch to apply mathematics to them anyway). Now, if someone rolled into this article and said something like "by studying the cycles in the ancient Mayan calendar, I predict that WW3 will happen in 2015", then we're talking bunk, but there's nothing like that here. In summary, I don't see anything inherently pseudoscientific here. --Deville (Talk) 15:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Kevin above, there is no single cohesive study of cycles however, which is the article's premise. The article cites verifiable sources for a couple of facts which are mentioned, but provides no support for the hypothesis of the article itself. Thus, as it stands it is in violation of original research, in that the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources. —porges(talk) 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a mish-mash of things that are better covered in other articles. No particular evidence that anyoen apart from this one group are that interested in drawing comparisons between astronomical, economic and menstrual cycles. The Land 17:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's clearly pseudoscientific WP:OR by a well-known crank. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Ruud 20:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator and everybody else saying "delete". The "verifiable sources" are a moot point. If I wrote an article entitled The exact value of pi is 3 and cited a book which defined the integers and another book which defined circles, it would still be crackpot Original Research. Anville 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:TheLand and others. Cycle gives a much better overview of the useful parts of this article, and the rest appears to be a mixture of original research and rambling. --Christopher Thomas 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cycle is a disambig page, so no more than a list of links. There is currently no page, which gives a better treatment to a very large field which has been the source of debate and speculation throughout human civilisation. With a bit of claenup cycle studies could become that page. --Salix alba (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete original research or not, it sounds like nonsense if you ask me. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 4 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. Lots of conditional votes on this one, and a few edits to the article, but whatever way I read the debate I don't quite see a consensus to delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles[edit]

Delete: Non-notable fringe organization, misleadingly portrayed in this article as a respectable part of mainstream science, which is utterly untrue. User:RayTomes promotes vapid numerological mysticism in UseNet postings, his own websites, and WP articles like this one. See related past AfDs on Harmonics Theory, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle synchrony, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_20#Category:Cycles, and see current AfDs on Cycle Theory/Cycles Research Institute/Unified Theory of Cycles and Edward R. Dewey. Note that both "Cycles Research Institute" and "Foundation for the Study of Cycles" were apparently founded by Tomes, although it is not clear whether they really consist of more than a website (the only information seems to come from members of these organizations). Note too that "Harmonics theory" is a cranky "theory" due to Tomes. ---CH 03:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's an article about the organisation, not the concept. - Richardcavell 04:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if rewritten to achieve NPOV. --die Baumfabrik 05:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewitten to achieve NPOV (which I don't really expect to happen). Dlyons493 Talk 08:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 13:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless rewritten. --Terence Ong 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as we can establish notability. Certainly a pseudoscientific organization should be kept if it is notable, even if it is psuedoscientific. Presumably we have articles on Scientology? In any case, I seem to get 10^4 Ghits which seems like a lot to me, although admittedly a lot of these are mirrors. Again, let me say that I'm not claiming notability here, and could be convinced otherwise, but if this organization is reasonably notable then there is not reason not to have a NPOV article about it. --Deville (Talk) 15:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update I went through the article with a view towards removing POV, and I have to say that I don't feel this article is really POV at all. It simply says that there is an organization which makes certain claims and publishes certain magazines. What is the POV problem here, really? --Deville (Talk) 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deville, when you Googled, did you examine whether you were finding any hits not originating from websites by Ray Tomes, wiki articles by Ray Tomes, posts to various newsgroups by Ray Tomes, blog entries by Ray Tomes? Note that Tomes apparently has registered a number of websites, some of which have been mentioned in various of the these AfD discussions. When I did this search, I couldn't find ANY information about Dewey or Tomes's crank theories on the web which did not appear to have been created by Tomes (or a suspected sock). He has been enthusiastically promoting his ideas in many venues, so much so that the prospect of 10,000 hits manufactured by Tomes himself does not seem unlikely. Now, do we really want to encourage all the worlds cranks to simply make sufficiently many blog, newsgroup, or wiki postings to promote themselves from a non-notatable crank to a "notable" crank? I think not! ---CH 03:25, 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 Speedily deleted  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie vonderstamstertonvitchel[edit]

And thats supposed to be a guy! Completely non-notable. Only Google reference is the wikipedia article, which I hope gets deleted soon. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. Consider speedying. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax, non-notable, non-referenced rubbish - Richardcavell 04:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NFT Go to myspace.com if you want to play. --die Baumfabrik 05:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagged for speedy deletion under patent nonsense. —porges(talk) 05:21, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Philadelphia Entrepreneurs Consortium (GPHILEC)[edit]

  • This was merely informational, as new members are joining each week. I opened the forum for them to add to it as they learned about GPHILEC. To the same ignorant folks who slandered me, everything happens for a reason I suppose. I'm sure you will get yours. Do as you please. Either way, I enjoy wiki and meant well. Tbdiscovery

Created by User:Tbdiscovery, who also created Henry C. Alphin Jr. and ThoroughBred Discovery, which are both up for AfD as vanity/advertising. I visited the website and it seems members of the consortium are companies owned my Mr Alphin himself (including CharlieBrowns.biz, which is also up for AfD, and was also created by the same user). Delete as nn, vanity, advertising. 6 GHits including its own various websites. —porges(talk) 05:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Nash[edit]

non-notable. Most probably a hoax. Later part of the article is just utterly ridiculous. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 05:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense. I'm thinking of starting a new alcohol-awareness campaign: Don't Type Drunk. --die Baumfabrik 05:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. --Saforrest 05:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like vandalism - Richardcavell 05:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 07:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, seems like a hoax. Although a Gsearch does turn up hits, none of the first 50 or so have anything to do with the alleged subject of this article --Deville (Talk) 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — TheKMantalk 23:54, 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 to delete; kept. And please reword whatever you get from websites. It's not "work" otherwise. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Maginn[edit]

Non notable rapper, with just 64 Google hits, most unrelated. Rory096 05:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as member of notable group (Styles of Beyond), or redirect to that group's article. dbtfztalk 05:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I click on the "64" link above I get 449 unique hits, a fair number of which are relevant. dbtfztalk 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure those aren't non-unique hits? --Rory096 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. I get 5,420 hits altogether. dbtfztalk 06:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a bunch of info to the page, so it looks better. I think that the page should stay, as Ryu's group Styles Of Beyond is starting to become more and more populour, and we will probably have to add a page in the future anyway. I myself have been adding a bunch of S.O.B. pages to the site, such as artist bios, and CD/Vinyl bios, in order to provide more info on this up and coming group. Can we all agree that this page should stay, so we can take it off of the list for deletion? Jay 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You didn't really expand it THAT much; most of what you added was the biography from demigodz.com, which constituted a copyright violation and I had to remove. A merge to his band's page wouldn't be too bad though. --Rory096 21:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought since I put down that I got some of the info from DemiGodz.com, that it wasn't a violation, just like when someone quotes an article from say, a magazine or something. I still think that the page should remain. I will personally keep updating it as much as I can, whenever I get more info. Jay 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not too much has been said about this article's candidacy for deletion. However, I took the liberty of removing irrelevant information taken from other Web sites and properly stubbed the article as such. I also moved the article to Ryu (rapper) as that is the name he's more notable under. I kept the AFD template in tact. –Wlmaltby3 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I should've noted that in my comment above. I think with enough digging, verifiable facts can be dug up and added to the article. As stated above, Styles of Beyond is becoming more well-known, so the more information that can be added, the better. –Wlmaltby3 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey thanks a lot Wlmaltby3, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one working on the article! I definitley agree that he should have his own page, since he is already extremely populour in the Hip-Hop underground, and is becoming more and more populour to the common public, especially through Fort Minor. One thing though, I think that the "Trivia" section that I added should be kept in the article, so I'll add that back in. Thanks again! Jay 17:56, 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 redirect following already-performed merge. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Arms Gordon[edit]

A minor glitch in a computer game, lacks any notability.--PatCheng 05:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete doesn't deserve its own article —porges(talk) 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a relevant part of the information about the Counter-Strike game. Keep, or merge with Counter-Strike. Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge'. Doesn't deserve it's own article. --eivindt@c 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why not give it its own article? Counterstrike and Half-life are two of the best and most widely played video games in history, and the bugs of each are legendary. - Richardcavell 07:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gamecruft. There's plenty of bugs in plenty of games that create plenty of buzz among their players. Unless it has at least some coverage outside the game I don't think it should even be considered for an article. Hirudo 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per EivindFOyangen. Doesn't deserve its own article but should be merged. DarthVader 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge if you must. Do not Keep. Dlyons493 Talk 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't believe a glitch in a computer game would be very notable at all. JIP | Talk 13:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I merged to Counter-Strike. Replace the text of Broken Arms Gordon by a redirect to Counter-Strike. Anthony Appleyard 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Counter-strike or Half-life or whatever --Deville (Talk) 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge leaning towards delete. JoshuaZ 20:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content is already present within the Counterstrike article. Redirect or delete. -- Saberwyn 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be merged. But doesn't deserve its own article. It is computer game bug, for Christ's sake! --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's been merged already and I don't like it in the CS article. Why we're listing early CS bugs in the main article, I do not know. What about having a section on bunnyhopping, hostage jumping, and smoke grenade sticking? What about the early bug where the terrorists could rescue the hostages? It does not belong in the CS article. - Hahnchen 14:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn glitch. --Rory096 07:51, 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 Moved to WP:CFD. Eivindt@c 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penitentials[edit]

There is one short article in this category which, if expanded, would sum up penitentials without the need for superfluous categorisation. Since its creation eight months ago nothing has been added, and it is likely nothing will be. Fishhead64 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Fishhead64 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to list the category, not the article. Anyone know how to do that? Fishhead64 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Sia[edit]

Delete ... self-advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.241.37 (talk) 11:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Contested speedy, talk page makes some claims to notability, rather take the safe road and AfD it. Tawker 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment talk page states similarity in ranking to Maddox (alexa:7,369) & Tucker Max (alexa:5,661). Kenny Sia (alexa:57,015) nowhere near them. Traffic only seems to have picked up on the site in late 2005. —porges(talk) 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Alexa is not always a great indicator and besides he was talking about popularity relative to the region, not overall. A cursory glance at his blog showed each post getting dozens of comments. Most blogs get no comments. I'd like to hear from some people from SE Asia who might know a little more. — GT 08:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Richardcavell 12:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, he's as popular as Xiaxue. See [5] and [6] for a guage of his popularity. Lastly, 193,000 Ghits and the first few are all directly relevant. [7] Kimchi.sg | talk 13:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable blogger in the Southeast Asian region. --Terence Ong 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by precedent, seems notable enough compared to other bloggers with Wik pages --Deville (Talk) 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please pay attention to the below quote, from policy, not guidelines. Then read WP:RS. —porges(talk) 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources — WP:V
The Urban Wire (my 2nd reference) is a independent, published newsletter. Kimchi.sg | talk 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I then cast my vote as keep, and add the sources to the article :) (I meant to point out that notability is not as much of a concern as verifiability.) —porges(talk) 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a notable blogger in the Malaysian blogosphere (and to an extent, Singapore's blogosphere too), mentioned in the newspapers a few times before. The Star even published one of his blog posts about half a year ago. Definitely notable. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andylk. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:48, 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. - Liberatore(T) 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah L. Brinklow[edit]

  • Delete, fails the Google test San Saba 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She gets quite a few unique hits on Google and seems to be a fairly well known author. I think that she meets the notability criteria laid out in WP:BIO, in that she has an audience greater than 5,000. RicDod 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only solo work is a book that gets zero non-Wikipedia Google results. I think that it is self-published. Few Google results in general and many appear to be about her candidacy and involvement with a transit group. Other results are from meetup.com, various poetry sites and some about a 18th century thief with the same name. -- Kjkolb 10:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - book is on Amazon, but it would be surprising if a book like this had an audience of 5000+. Nothing else in the article amounts to an assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 08:38, 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 as copyvio. Chick Bowen 04:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsailers[edit]

Copyvio. Article is incoherent and poorly written. Orignial research suspected. No rationale for notability. soUmyaSch 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as copyvio let it run its course over there :) —porges(talk) 08:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bwahahahahah. - Richardcavell 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (CSD A8) Copyvio less than 48 hours old. Fan1967 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment however, not from a commercial content provider. —porges(talk) 22:07, 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. Mailer Diablo 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Ainsworth[edit]

Vanity page - non-notable sportsperson. Deprodded without comment. Currently the creator is interfering with the AfD tag.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Pittman[edit]

No assertion of importance other than that the author wrote an essay posted on the white power website, Stormfront.org. This patently fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod was removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could probably be speedied, in fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it does not assert notability. - Richardcavell 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, very much non-notable --Deville (Talk) 16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep due to the Stop Prisoner Rape work, but if thats along the lines of 'he volunterred one week', delete it. -Mask 01:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as quick as possible there is a football player with this name and I want to create the article. Jaranda wat's sup 01:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete utterly nn, and we don't need to give advertising space to people like this.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, merge tag added. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acyuta Kamboja[edit]

Hoax? --64.231.65.219 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hey 64.231.65.219 06:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC), you need to update your knowledge of history before taking drastic actions like deletion of genuine article. Are you a student of History?

Sze cavalry01 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Sze_cavalry01[reply]

  • Comment, it's copied from this section of the page mentioned above. Bad article with potential or just plain unnecessary? Not sure... Deizio 18:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's ok as a standalone article. Keep it...

Kushu01 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Kushu01 <fireworks>Welcome - Congrats on your first edit! You have obviously have a similar viewpoint and signature placement style to Sze cavalry01, you guys friends?</fireworks> Deizio 09:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
SushiGeek 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible hoax. Not even a single Ghit for a "great Sanskrit scholar". [8] Kimchi.sg | talk 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Google finds a couple of mentions of "Acyuta of Kamboja". Kamboja apparently isn't his name, it is the place where he lived, and Kamboja has a truckload of variant spellings, further complicating googling. Article author Sze cavalry01 seems like a solid contributor, not a hoaxter. Only "weak" opinion though as I know nothing of the subject and have a little bit of a notability concern (quite possibly fueled by my ignorance of the subject). Weregerbil 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into wherever it came from, not worth its own article. --Rory096 07:53, 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 delete. As always, users whose first edit is to this discussion were given less weight than established Wikipedians. Chick Bowen 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Planets[edit]

Non-notable game. "Small fanbase", "in testing phase", "will not be released for a long while". Contested prod. Weregerbil 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Small Fanbase" isnt really that small, there are over 500 people on the forums alone. It is in a testing phase much like Dark Throne, in that it is still playable in the testing phase. FP has been running for over 2 years and it is constantly being upgraded.--Terlob 09:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the game may be small in comparison to games like runescape and darkthrone, forgotten planets player base is strong. Most of the people that play forgotten planets would state it's a great game. I personally do not think that forgotten planets is in testing phase anymore as the DEVS have said they will always continue to release new features to the game. --Lowrie 10:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Above is only edit from new editor Lowrie. Fan1967 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I also am aware of this game's notability and I have no interest in the things. - Richardcavell 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article wasnt made with promotion in mind, it was made as an encyclopedic article for the information of viewers. --Terlob 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an advertisement. Brian G. Crawford 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per weregerbil. Non-notable game. Wikipedia is definitely not "a resource to get new players." - Fan1967 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Moonlit Software gets only 17 Ghits. Website itself gets 417 Ghits, mostly spam from the site promoter. Bige1977
  • Question. Where do you get your information from? It seems that whomever provided them is incorrect -- besides, what does hit count matter anyway? If numbers really are important, I could provide an accurate 3rd party who would provide the numbers.Chumad 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is not an advertisement, It does not glorify the game, or say "COME JOIN NOW!" This page is a resource, for people that are new to the game. They can come to wikipedia and see what it is about. There are no one sided views, it is written as an encyclopedia article, not as an advertisement, no reason to be deleted.--OKH 20:50, 29 april 2006 (UTC) User has six edits.


  • KEEP This game, like any other game has the exact same rights to be an article inside of Wikipedia. Who, those who say delete, are you to decide what games stay and what games go? Does this game not get the same rights as others who have articles in Wikipedia already? There is nothing wrong with starting a new article about an ongoing game that has reached a lot of people. There is no advertisement for FP, its just like any other game article. If anybody deletes the Forgotten Planets Wiki page, I will rebuild it every time and protest that every other game in Wikipedia be deleted also.

BIG Tuna 01:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This game has made astounding achievements and been given incredibly high reviews. G4tv came close to showing it on national television even. The player involvement in the game is legendary and Forgotten Planets just keeps reaching new heights. Delete this article and in the future you'll find yourself wishing you hadn't. It's a success story, a story of what a game should be like, clean, fun, with players influencing how it is made, astounding graphics, and so much more.

Bruno4444 02:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fan1967's comment was blanked out by an anon. [9]Borisblue 05:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThough there are not millions of people playing FP, the community is quite unique, The relationship between Developers and players is quite unique and they work hard to keep the game running well, and they listen to suggestions placed on the forums. The gameplay is also quite different that any other mmorpg that i have played. Beta testing ended almost 8 months ago. If you consider this phase of the game development the testing phase, then forgotten planets will never leave the testing phase, the developers are always working on new ways to make the game better and funner to play. I have been playing this game since almost the beginning of beta testing, and the developers keep adding stuff to keep the game interesting. I think that this game has been out long enough, and has a dedicated enough fanbase to be allowed a page on wikipedia. If other games get to have pages without anyone complaining, then why cant Forgotten Planets, ask any player and they will say that it deserves it.A crazy cranium 07:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User's first edit. JoshuaZ 07:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want your 3rd party source? OMGN. They are 3rd party, they have featured Forgotten Planets. Here is the link to the review http://www.omgn.com/reviews.php?Item_ID=34 . Any more reasons why it should be deleted? --OKH 20:51, 30 April 2006 (CST)

Response Actually, yes, such as lack of video game magazines which have given in depth previews and reviews, information on substantial sales, and it's influence on other games, to demonstrate why it is notable, as per my comment above. --Ataricodfish 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respone (to Response) Look at Tibia, it hasn't been covered by video game magazines, it has no substantial sales, i havent seen much games influenced by it, Yet it has a page. Why? If Forgotten Planets' page gets taken down, i will go on a crusade to take down all these game pages. --OKH 15:39, 1 May 2006 (CST)
Response You're more than welcome to nominate, within reason, any article you feel qualifies for deletion. When that page is nominated, a vote will occur just like this one, and if a consensus is reached, the page will remain or be deleted, depending on the outcome. This vote, however, is only for Forgotten Planets. Pointing to other articles does not increase the notability of this article. If your crusade uncovers other unnotable articles, I appreciate your help, as they too should be deleted if they're similar to this one. My vote on this article, however, remains delete. --Ataricodfish 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OKH: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If there are other articles that are not noteworthy, yes, they should be nominated for deletion as well. Discuss the merits of this article here and please respect the outcome, don't threaten to attack other pages solely on the basis of the outcome here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I'm the original creator of the game. I agree, we are "small" and could probably be considered as in testing. Though, as has been pointed out we'll probably always be in a testing phase since our community is always offering suggestions as to what to add -- basically, there's no foreseeable end to the programming and development of ForgottenPlanets. If our entire "existence" is based on forever development, then what's wrong with being "in testing" that should eliminate our entry to the Wiki? In fact, that alone makes us a unique entry. In addition, many other games have been in Beta/Testing and still had articles on Wiki - those games are classified the same as us and yet they are still here.

I do believe that the existence of this page in of itself shows the loyalty of the fan-base. I was unaware of the page's existence until recently. I do believe it should be pointed out that all opinions expressed here are not endorsed by Moon Lit Software and should not be taken advertisements, but simply the fans' excitement about the game.

In either case, for all fans of the game who want to post here, please keep things civil. Threats of other deletions won't help anyone's cause and only ruins what Wiki is. 

Chumad 20:47, 4 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 01:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Götaland theory[edit]

I came across this gem while doing my regular patrol of Category:Conspiracy Theories (some of the pages in there have been the messiest articles I have seen on Wikipedia.) It is a very minor theory in one region of Sweden about the location of an ancient pagan group, and it seems extremely non-notable to me despite the article's length. The page has shown very little (if any) improvement since it was tagged for cleanup in July June 2005. Several editors called for its deletion a long time ago on its talk page. There is a (much shorter) article on the Swedish Wikipedia. I don't know what their inclusion standards are, but I think this theory is non-notable and a huge eyesore on the English Wikipedia, and that it should be deleted. Grandmasterka 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The theory is highly notable. It has been around since the 1920s or 30s, but has roots going back to the early 19th century. A series of programmes about this theory and its proponents was broadcast on Swedish national television in the 1980s and caused controversy as giving a too uncritical and sympathetic image of the theory. It is not taken seriously by academic historians or archaeologists, but they have nevertheless had to debunk it. The current article is badly written, badly structured and unreferenced, and a better one could probably more easily be written from scratch. I would not be very sorry to see it go, but if it is deleted, this should not be used as a precedent against recreation. u p p l a n d 08:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a new translation from the Sweedish wikipedia, as they are more likely to have gotten it right. JeffBurdges 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: weird bit of folk history that has been around for two centuries. It does need a clean up, mainly because it presents the flaws in the theory far more extensively than the theory itself. The arguments for deletion on the talk page are a little strange, by the way - the notability of this theory is not affected by the political affiliations of the people involved, or the fact that it is laughed at by _real_ historians. David Sneek 10:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Sneek. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland --Deville (Talk) 16:29, 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. Chick Bowen 04:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi LaLumia[edit]

Delete, not notable enough for WP. San Saba 22:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, one minor hit and the rest is mostly cover versions. If kept, it should be moved to the band's name and made into an article about them. -- Kjkolb 10:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For whatever reason, since this article was started Jimi has stopped messing with other articles (such as Disco Demolition Night). Ace-o-aces 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:39, 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 no consensus. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Taylor (fictional character)[edit]

Delete, nn San Saba 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move for cleanup. Fairly notable, but badly written. I encourage editors to clean it up (I won't, because horror films tend to distress me and I'd like to avoid getting involved), but by WP:FICT he deserves his own page (as the article is long and notable major characters deserve their own articles). Please do not respond to AfDs with "nn;" it isn't very helpful, especially if you don't mention how you've determined that the character is not notable. Captainktainer 09:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, as per WP:FICT "Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." San Saba 15:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes, but please see the next sentence: "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character)." This is why I pointed that out in my comment. The Wolf Creek article has gotten somewhat long, and while the Mick Taylor article needs some work, there's plenty of material to work with for his own article. Please see the examples in WP:FICT of major characters being offloaded into separate pages. Thanks! Captainktainer 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The Wolf Creek article is not long at all. I doubt if the Taylor character merits his own article even if it were; this is a recent horror movie with no sequels, and no adaptations (books, games, comics). Шизомби 17:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the movie's article. -- Kjkolb 10:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, the article at Wolf Creek (film) doesn't seem that long --Deville (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, into film's article, no assertion of notability in its own right. --Terence Ong 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Terence Ong --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFM Software[edit]

Company article that fails to assert notability created by eponymous account. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? Why all other corporate pages are ok and you have a problem with SFM?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFMSoftware (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 murder the article. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder She Wrote, Murder She Did[edit]

Non notable movie. Lacks IMDB entry & contains no citations or references. Google too turns up with no results except for the orignal movie Murder She Wrote Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:29, 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. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Broken Heart[edit]

Non-notable unreleased single. Surviving on rumours. The article itself gives the best reasons on why to delete it. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 09:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My heart won't be broken if this is deleted. It may not be a hoax, [10] but we can wait before they officially release it. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speculative. I'm not sure whether it's a hoax but it might not be real regardless. - Richardcavell 12:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 14:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as crystal ballsy as they come --Deville (Talk) 16:33, 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. Chick Bowen 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rangers of the Year[edit]

Incomplete List of non-notable people --jergen 09:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 12:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Deserves its own website but not a page in an encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - This is a piece of information for the education and REFERENCE of others. An encyclopedia by definition is a compendium of facts, both clever and inane. Content such as this can not be deleted simply because others find it to be trivial. I find many topics on wikipedia to be undeserving of entry, but only on personal grounds, not on the basis of unnecessity. This article does not violate the five pillars, it is informative, and can be of use to many people wishing to discover this info. Also, I now have cited my sources. I apologize for any difficulties this may have caused. Rrpbgeek 15:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn people, listcruft. --Terence Ong 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be US-centric. Better maintained on a website. Thoroughly agree there are more trivial articles in wiki but that's not a good enough reason to keep this one. Dlyons493 Talk 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Royal Rangers article, otherwise not at all notable. Chris 00:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am perfectly willing to merge if it comes to that, but I would ask that you consider the page based on its reference value, and not on the notability to you of these people. That would be a judgment based on personal feelings and opinions on these people, not based on the objectivity of necessity or reference capability.Rrpbgeek 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be my last plea. I am appealing to all the administrators, the members, and the commoners. This article has about as much reference capability as the list of Eagle Scouts among wikipedia users. If there is a general consensus to delete this part of work, I will reluctantly submit to the administrators wishes. I don't wish to cause trouble or continue to rag on the marathon-runner administrators of Wikipedia. If you feel I should move it to a different wikimedia subsite, I will gladly comply. I just would like to have a simple final answer from the Admin. If you wish to leave me a personal message on the topic, feel free to use my user talk. It is currently nearly empty. Thank You. Rrpbgeek 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that we do have an article List of Eagle Scouts, but the important difference there is that that's a list of notable/famous people who are also Eagle Scouts, it's not a list of every Eagle Scout ever. Note that almost everybody on the List of Eagle Scouts already has an article of their own, and only in a couple of cases is their notability/fame anything to do with scouting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number of Eagle Scouts is in the hundreds or even thousands, just as the number of the equivalent Royal Ranger GMA earners.However, the Ranger of the Year program cited is a competition based on talent in firecraft, ropecraft, Royal Ranger Knowledge, etc., and winners are the best in the United States among the tens of thousands of Royal Ranger members. These boys are the best of the best, the elite of their program. Rrpbgeek 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't you find it a little odd to be comparing a list of honorees for "talent in firecraft and ropecraft" to a list which contains astronauts, governers, Pulitzer winners, and a president of the United States? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Visit this link. [[11]] After that, see the requirements for Ranger of the Year at this link. [[12]] I am a former Ranger of the Year. I have 134 Merits, 13 Medals, and many more things. I am an expert in ropecraft, firecraft, lashing, wilderness survival, compass use, orienteering, and many other skills. Visit this link [[13]] to see the requirements for the merits. Judge for yourself the amount of work which goes into this competition. Then realize that every one of the boys who competes in ROTY has over 85 merits, and must go up against many others at their level of expertise. Now tell me straightforwardly that these people have not made a significant accomplishment, equal to or greater than the work necessary for becoming a Boy Scout Eagle Scout. I have no desire to be mean or diss Boy Scouts, I simply want you to realize the huge amount of personal effort that goes into this victory. Rrpbgeek 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, Starblind,n are you a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They [A]re Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD)? Rrpbgeek 22:34, 4 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 CSD A7 by BorgHunter. — TheKMantalk 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt Fork Experience[edit]

Appears to be some some sort of silly joke. Was linked to from the disambiguation page burn. Ghakko 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: added {{db-nonsense}} tag to article. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is patent nonsense, patent nonsense is just stuff that doesn't make sense. The text makes sense, it is just complete bollocks, i.e. hoax/fictional material—and they don't fall under PN by the definition on the PN page. —porges(talk) 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone anyway. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:33 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 speedy delete, CSD-A7. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tan Siang Guan[edit]

Technical author stub. Edward 10:20, 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazed_Coalition_Squad[edit]

Non-notable. The website this refers to has little content, certainly nothing warranting an entry. JammyB 10:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as nn-bio. —porges(talk) 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag this... erm, speedy delete as nn-bio, marked as such. In case someone isn't convinced this is nn-bio, Google reports it is very popular indeed with 10 Ghits. [15] Kimchi.sg | talk 12:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, advertisement - Richardcavell 12:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donal Moynihan (GAA)[edit]

Delete because non-notable local sportsman, who is listed only because his notability declined further by being dropped from his local GAA club's team, www.stsylvesters.ie. Note that I have moved the page from its previous location to assist in disambiguation in case it is not deleted.


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

The result of the debate was delete, not counting the sockpuppets. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robland[edit]

Non-notable TV program plan for a micronation. Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT), and presumably advertising and self-promotion. "Kingdom of Robland" returns no Google hits. [17] --Edcolins 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC) robland is no just a soap it will be the most important thing in the history off belgium. if you delete the topic now it will be back when Robland is independent. are you guys gonna delete it then greets a robiaan[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fake micronations. Also, all those lyrics probably constitute a copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't understand this. If you want to delete this article, you'll have to do the same for every one about a non-recognised micronation, Lovely (micronation) in particular. Robiaan 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in order to respond to the earlier ratio: I'm not self advertising, I'm just a fan. And of course a search on "Kingdom of Robland" retuns nothing. One on "Republic of the United States of America" yields 18,000 results, one without the prefix 132 million. Just search for Robland in short and you'll see. Robiaan 15:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a per nom. Bige1977 16:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I was quite unimpressed by the Gsearch proposed by Robiaan. There seem to be two links to this in the first 100, one of which is the show's website (in Dutch) and a Belgian blog post about the show. I was ready to say delete, but the Dutch Wikipedia has an article on this. This barely puts it over the line, in my opinion, but if it's notable in Nederlands then it's notable in English, or so it seems to me. --Deville (Talk) 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. The link to the Dutch article is deceptive. The English article is about a planned micronation, the Dutch article about a Flemish TV program. This does not appear to be consistent. --Edcolins 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I read the Dutch article more carefully, and, yes, it's about a Flemish TV program, and the plot of that program is that the host will try and create this micronation. The English article agrees with this and states up front that the impetus from creating the micronation is the same TV program itself. --Deville (Talk) 17:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: it's not true that there seem to be two links to this in the first 100, one of which is the show's website (in Dutch) and a Belgian blog post about the show. I've found more than a dozen on the first page alone, most indeed in Dutch, maybe making them harder to recognize by English speaking users. Robiaan 09:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per nl having an article on this. --Rory096 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. All the facts in the article are correct, the only thing is that this micronation is not yet recognized by the UN but there will be a meeting at the end of may for a recognition by the UN. If that goes well this article is completely correct. So If we add a note "Not yet UN-approved on top it should be correct" --Loneblackrider 01:10, 1 may 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. See Wikipedia:Afd/Lovely (micronation) (2nd nomination). WP:POINT by Robiaan. Note that Loneblackrider may be a sock puppet (contributions) and that his/her vote should be not be taken into account.--Edcolins 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly deny that I am or have anything to do with Loneblackrider. You can say a lot of things about me, but you haven't found me lying yet, so I don't think you can ignore his vote without any evidence. Robiaan 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep: this is very popular in belgium and should be accounted for!


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

The result of the debate was transwiki-ed to Wiktionary and delete. Mailer Diablo 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manjob[edit]

Nelogism, prod'ed three times. Accurizer 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be WP:NEO, can find no verification WP:V of use as a name of the act described not just as a name change for hand/blow-job and especially can not find verification for "widely accepted in urban culture".--blue520 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bige1977 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : if a piece of slang isn't in urbandictionary.com, you can guarantee it was made up at school one day. Probably yesterday, in fact. -- GWO
  • Delete as neologism, can't verify notability. Well-written stub, though, as stubs about obscure sexual acts go. --Allen 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nelogism, I had to re-prod the article after the original author removed Accurizer's prod. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should not be re-proded have a look at conflicts section in WP:PROD.--blue520 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so I can laugh at
A proper manjob should be performed with care and tenderness, and be received with respect and gratitude.
JK, DELETE - NickSentowski 19:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism crap. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 23:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN the mentioned section. Manlete the rest. —porges(talk) 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (Is anyone keeping track of {{prod}} to {{afd}} conversion rates?) Shenme 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --GSchjetne 12:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what all the huff is about. Manjob is a term I've always heard and used so I figured I'd help wikipedia out. God knows you have everything else in here. But, if not everyone has heard of it then it's obviously something I made up. Just for the record, however, it is not a name change for the hand/blow-job. If you had read my article you would have known the difference. Also, how is urbandictionary.com a good source? Defitiely no neologisms there. I thought wikipedia existed to recognize obscure terms like manjob, which are cut from print encyclopedias due to censorship. I realize you can't allow everyone to post just anything and that there has to be some sort of editing process, but it seems like the few of you who haven't heard of manjob are holding your knowledge of urban culture (because those who frequent internet encyclopedias are in touch with urban culture) in quite high regard. Atiebout 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think at best Manjob would be more appropriately entered over at Wiktionary as a dictionary definition, marked as a neologism (Neologism: A newly and deliberately coined word.) as it definately is not a "traditional English" word. I'm sure you can agree that it's a recent addition to the language (as in, the last hundred years) and that the entry is by far more a definition than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's definately an encyclopedia. We do, however, appreciate your willingness to help assist us in keeping this project up to date! Thanks for the effort! ~Kylu (u|t) 23:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent compromise. Thank you. Atiebout 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pretend I'm the spirit of friendly cooperation incarnate! (j/k...mostly) ~Kylu (u|t) 23:17, 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 by Petaholmes as a CSD-A8 copyvio. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert (1)[edit]

NN actor. Reyk YO! 13:47, 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Aggregator[edit]

Not verified, no sources cited even though article in existence since 2005-08-25; in current state appears to just be a vanity/linkspam stub; importantance/notability not supported by article as written. Argon233 T C @ ∉  13:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be an ad for "the first porn aggregator" (don't click on the link unless you love pop-ups) which has a positively astounding Alexa rank of 5,889,978. Fan1967 17:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attleborough Schools[edit]

Was tagged for speedy but no criterion mentioned. Suspect it was for original research. Sent here instead. Note: technical nomination - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 13:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if and when these schools have pages of their own, then perhaps a list of said schools would be appropriate --Deville (Talk) 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Mostly an opinion piece. The schools are already briefly summarized on the town page. — RJH 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RJH. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Hopkins[edit]

Tagged for CSD-A7 speedy deletion, but article asserts notability so sent here instead. Note: technical nomination - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google does not show her prominently. Article reads like vanity, or maximally like a CV straight off a promotional website. No verifiable references supplied. Cannot rule out hoax (interviewing senators would have left a larger footprint on Google). JFW | T@lk 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found this but it still doesn't really outline any level of notability. IrishGuy 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exists per this but not worthy of article. —porges(talk) 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very quickly, and please note that I was the one who tagged this for speedy deletion. Melissa wrote this herself in the third person. I disagree with Redvers that this article "asserts notability." e.g. "She was the first female cast member of Days of Our Lives" would be notable, "She was on Days of Our Lives" does not make her notable. "She caused a scandal when she blackmailed her candidate's opponent in the 2000 Senate elections" is notable, "She worked in the 2000 Senate elections" is not. &c &c. Also please note that many people have IMDB pages, including me, but this doesn't make them notable either. - Abscissa 23:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE vanity Argyrios 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and nn. DarthVader 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. The JPS talk to me 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:55, 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 no overall consensus, but since a redirect to hypersomnia seems to suit most people, I'll do that. Flowerparty☀ 01:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversleeping[edit]

Just a dicdef - can't see any real scope for expansion, but I'm always open to someone proving me wrong on that front :) Barneyboo (Talk) 14:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep for now; see where it goes. Should at least redirect to Sleep disorder, but right now there's nothing about oversleeping on that page. --Allen 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a dicdef with no hope for expansion. I can't imagine who this would help, since it's pretty obvious what oversleeping is. Brian G. Crawford 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, no more than a dicdef, with nowhere to go. I'm not sure that redirecting to Sleep disorder is a good idea, because oversleeping in common parlance isn't necessarily a reference to any disorder. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have attempted to expand the article a bit to provide some distinction between normal "sleeping in" by adults and teenagers which is not considered abnormal and hypersomnia which is indeed a serious disorder. Some further information to define the difference between normal and abnormal oversleeping would be helpful for this article. Bige1977 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst it seems pretty limited, I think that this article could well have some potential. You could tie sleep patterns into it - for example (original research, this, but consider it an example), I find that I seem to oversleep more when I go to bed early. I can see that the scope of "normal oversleeping" is rather unexpandable-seeming, but things like the effect of oversleeping students on school grades (from a large-scale perspective, i.e. how much productivity is lost?) could be interesting and useful. --Doug (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to hypersomnia. --Tango 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I overslept this morning. This is such a notable topic that anyone who doesn't do it must have been biologicaly altered. Tobyk777 06:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to hypersomnia. Seriously, is there anything here that is not covered in (or able to be added to) that article? MCB 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge into hypersomnia as per Tango and MCB. Amalas =^_^= 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the discussion, I change my delete recommendation, to instead redirect to hypersomnia Barneyboo (Talk) 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to hypersomnia. Mmmmmmmm, sleep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:49, 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy O'Brien[edit]

Was nominated for CSD-A7 deletion, but contains assertions of notability ("award winning", "featured on NPR" and so forth) without proof, so worth sending here instead. May not meet WP:BAND? Note: technical nomination - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 14:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). 5 delete, 3 keep and I'm not entirely sure if the nominator still wants this deleted (see reply to Billposer further down in the discussion.) Regarding WP:NFT, this joke seems to be in use more than referring to that page would imply, and with the references in the article I am not convinced this is original research either. Unsure if this thing is truly notable however, but I cannot see any consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum bogodynamics[edit]

  • Delete Not worthy of Wikipedia inclusion Sounds to me like a university prank Damiancorrigan 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jargon-file-cruft, from back in the day. -- GWO
  • Keep This and other aspects of bogosity reflect an important facet of hacker culture. Yes, its humorous, but the article itself is no prank. It might be an improvement, though for it to be merged or linked up with other material on hacker culture.Bill 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the article makes no reference to hacker culture. All that talk about speaking in seminars has nothing to do with hacking, the article puts more emphasis on student parlance than hacking. We used to do "bagsy not" at university, but it has no place here. If it is hackers culture, that needs to be explained. Damiancorrigan 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand better (and I see you have put in a hacker reference) then I am more willing for it to stay. I've removed the rubbish about seminars - that was the most awful part. Damiancorrigan 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is out of my hands now. Votes are coming for 'delete', so I'd like to let the debate run. I still think it is naff, regardless of whether some subculture of hackers use it amongst themselves. But it is 'better' now than before. Damiancorrigan 21:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Violets[edit]

Moved from speedy to Prod and now to AfD. Notable? I don't know. They seem to have some press notice, be signed to an indy label, but no recordings or big tours are listed. Anybody in London know about these guys? Herostratus 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as nominator. Herostratus 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Violets are an important part of the London scene. They are one of the most important bands on one of the most reputable London-based indie labels (Angular). In fact they are the MOST released band on this label....They have been featured in the NME. And Artrocker (many times). Although I'm not sure whether the article really communicates these facts..... Recently toured with a big band. If I have time I'll try n get some of this into the article.Sludgehaichoi 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep article is in a horrible state but seems to be enough support for it. —porges(talk) 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep but it needs work Sludgehaichoi 11:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audi A8 W12[edit]

A poorly formatted article that on a subject that has a much better article at Audi A8. The author has resisted my redirection attempts, so now it's here. Kevin 14:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to Audi A8 per nom. It is a copy from here [18] or here [19] on the edmunds.com web site and seems to be copyvio.--blue520 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a direct copy from an external website, with photos of dubious use (copyrights, don'tcherknow). Redirecting is the thing to do, and his reverts to a potential copyvio version are inappropriate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:06, 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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeM crew[edit]

Non notable. Advertisement and (possibly) self promotion. Possible vanity page soUmyaSch 14:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article Might be in need of improvement, but it fails to qualify as advertisement, since it is locaceded at its own space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal emmerich (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. An article that seems primarily to exist to self-promote/advertise (WP:NOT) a small group of engineers creating a online resource.--blue520 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no assertion found here as to why these fellows are notable; because of the common name, obviously, a Google search would be futile. However, I'm not sure we need to be throwing around the word "vanity" so carelessly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obvious case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NNNN --Deville (Talk) 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, now, there was no need for that. Fortunately the author probably won't have a clue what on Earth you're getting at. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Tango 21:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 06:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Dlyons493 Talk 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:56, 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 all. Flowerparty☀ 00:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context speaking budgies[edit]

Hoax article. Was tagged with AfD, but this page was never created. The original AfD's link was changed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan B. Reynolds (that deletion debate never made it into the logs). Wkdewey 14:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have retagged Ryan B. Reynolds and Victor (budgerigar) to be included in this deletion vote as the afd process was not properly completed in these related articles as well. Bige1977 15:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as hoax articles. Move context speaking budgies to WP:BJODN Bige1977 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There are no credible sources backing up his claims and he doesn't even allow verification. The New York Times article doesn't even mention the content of the article. --Fasten 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't say that these were 'hoax articles' as such, rather articles about a claim that may be a hoax. Reynolds' claims have certainly been discussed in detail on serveral bird forums of which I am a member over the past few years. --Kurt Shaped Box 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN the main article, delete the others. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE (research style). article name "low quality usage of language". an other article links to here. this article is spooky and does not meet several wikipedia standards. probably they have misunderstood wikipedia as research BBS. their site looks acceptable. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR & low language quality. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:57, 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shaw[edit]

Rabbi at a London synagogue. Previously {{prod}}ded but notice was removed. Not sure what the notability criteria for clergy are in WP, but nothing in the article suggests this person is notable according to guidelines in WP:BIO. Delete. Qwghlm 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does claim notability: he's the bloke who ran the "60 Days for 60 Years" programme thing, which (it says) was quite popular. He also seems to be notable within the Jewish community, but not being Jewish, I wouldn't exactly know. By the way, you know that you don't need to bung that ugly "Delete" thing at the end of your nomination, right? A good nomination will make the argument for deletion for better than any misguided attempt at "voting" will. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The project's notability is questionable. Google searches for it [20] [21] are about 540 hits, which is not that many; it ranks outside Alexa's top 100,000 [22]. The claims for the book's popularity and readership are unsubstantiated and use weasel words ("He has been said to have inspired..."). Additionally, there is no record of the book in the British Library catalogue [23]. Qwghlm 23:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; see if claims can be verified. If the claims about hundreds of thousands of people requesting his book can be verified, then I think he would count as a notable author. And if the Tribe thing can be shown to be a big deal, then I think he would count as a widely recognized professional. --Allen 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, if claims can be verified, keep per author, if not, delete as nn -- Tawker 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nintendude (contribs) has Moved this page to Andrew Shaw (rabbi) in order to create a DAB page between this guy and a high school football player of the same name. The high school kid has no article, and if one were created I suspect it sould be quickly AfD'ed. Fan1967 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article, and definitely, without question, kill that disambiguation page! --Deville (Talk) 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an admin to Revert the move? Fan1967 20:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to when all is said and done. --Deville (Talk) 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the Mover if he'd consider reverting it. Fan1967 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the page should not have been moved; the other (currently non-existent) article seems to be about an even less notable person than the subject of this AfD. Qwghlm 23:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor responsible seems to have a strong affinity (vanity?) for Tim Shaw, a Penn State football player, even to the point of randomly inserting his less notable siblings' names elsewhere (see this, for example). Even Tim doesn't look that notable: some playing time as a freshman, redshirt sophomore, great season as a junior in 2004, and, per PSU's team site, didn't play this past season. But we absolutely don't need redlinks for his brothers. Fan1967 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turducken Day[edit]

Pretty obvious that this isn't a real holiday. The reason I didn't tag it for speedy deletion is that there's a miniscule chance that some people actually celebrate this. Mr. Lefty 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, this is a hoax. This link dating from 2002 mentions turducken day, but it appears to be in context with Thanksgiving. This link is from November, yet the article claims this is celebrated in March. In fact, I found a very small handful of google hits that all refer to November as if "Turducken" and "Thanksgiving" are interchangable. As such, I can find nothing at all to back up the claims of this article. IrishGuy 21:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the Fox News website isn't exactly a glowing recommendation. Mr. Lefty 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regrardless... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article mentions Turduckens (a legitimate food article), but not Turducken Day as a holiday. I still believe this is either eminently non-notable or an outright hoax.IrishGuy 05:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the first paragraph. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from November. As I noted above, the only mentions of this are in reference to November, not March as the article states. It appears that this term is simply a joking way to refer to Thankgiving and not a holiday in its own right. IrishGuy 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if the article is wrong, we should change it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:25, 28 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 15:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, someone named "Mr. Lefty" doesn't like Fox News, shocking! w00t w00t :) --Deville (Talk) 20:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the looks of things on Google, it seems like a) a "turducken" is a real thing, which is causing much confusion in this case, because b) "Turducken Day" is a scurrilous hoax. Grrr! Grrr, I say! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hoax because there aren't many mentions. Any mention is in direct relation to Thanksgiving. There doesn't appear to be any separae holiday called Turducken Day.IrishGuy 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please people will search this here or redirect to thanksgiving like turkey day Yuckfoo 17:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe people will search for this here, it's a one off 'joke'. Delete. Average Earthman 18:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here in New Orleans everyone knows about turduckens, but nobody has ever heard of "Turducken Day." NawlinWiki 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems pretty fake to me... Wickethewok 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Turduckens == infinitely awesome, but there is no Turducken Day. Looking through these links, it's pretty clear people are calling all kinds of things turducken day, sometimes it's Thanksgiving, sometimes it's Super Bowl Sunday, and in some cases it's whenever someone wanted to make a turducken. This article is an obvious hoax , if only because it mentions San Francisco instead of New Orleans, and everyone knows turduckens are a Louisiana thing. Seriously, this thing became an Internet meme of late, but this page is a hoax and an inside joke. --Deville (Talk) 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Turduckens are fantastic; they taste wonderful (but are a little pricy), but a holiday surrounding them? I don't think so... --Mhking 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. The links are all tongue in cheek references to other holidays as Turducken day. Even the Fox News one. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 01:36, 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Vet[edit]

Tagged for CSD-A7, but claims notability (or notoriety, at least) in US so sent here instead. Note: technical nomination - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete As a vanity page of a NN blogger. Google search of the blogger's pen name and real name [25] gets no hits of which would satisfy WP:WEB. Other searches [26][27] indicate his activity in blogger flamewars, but still clearly NN. Bige1977 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Amcfreely 16:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bige. 10 Ghits for a blogger is remarkably low. You can get more hits than that Googling my old BBS handles from the 80's. --Deville (Talk) 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete seems a case of vanity. --Francisco Valverde 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. DarthVader 06:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:RepublicanVet has blanked the article and replaced it with a personal attack, then twice vandalized the AFD page, including the rather noxious practice of inserting material under another user's signature [28]. I've blocked him for 48 hours for disruption, and sprotected this page because I fully expect him to try and vandalize it again. Stifle (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as advertising for an offensive blog. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, advertisement. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 16:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Davis (UK broadcaster)[edit]

Everything in this article, and more, is repeated on Evan Davis (UK reporter) and so there's no need for two articles on the same person.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chid12 (talk • contribs) .

  • Merge - redirect to and move any not included content "like the book" to Evan Davis (UK reporter).--blue520 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So merge and redirect. Be bold, live a little. --- 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 speedy keep. Everyone agrees this article should not be deleted, so, away we go! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Corey[edit]

Unverifiable. Seems like a hoax. --soUmyaSch 15:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing the nomination. --soUmyaSch 16:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Damn I missed those. It should not be deleted. But seriously, needs a major rewrite. --soUmyaSch 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agreed, needs major rewrite. Will add a bit. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 23:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the Family[edit]

Law of the Family is merely another way of saying Family Law. It is unnecessary and arbitrary to create a:

  • Family Law=Common Law,
  • Law of the Family=Civil Law,

distinction. Caveat lector 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Delete or merge what can be saved...--Francisco Valverde 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fair point. I meant delete. I thought putting it in Articles for deletion said it all. Although now that I think about it, a redirect to Family Law would probably be the best thing to do. I don't think there's anything much worth keeping. Caveat lector 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without prejudice to a better article. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 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 misplaced AfD. This subpage refers to Category:Whistle register singers, and as such is better discussed at WP:CfD. Thanks for your time. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle register singers[edit]

A completely illiterate, juvenile article of no informational value whatever mixing Classical and popular singers of all categories in an aimless hodge-podge.

The term is completely unknown in Classical music and utterly meaningless as a categorization of anything related to Classical singing.

Tantris 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Joo[edit]

Vanity Francisco Valverde 16:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. By the way, the important thing here is that the article doesn't make any assertion of notability: there's no need to speculate as to whether or not it's "vanity". fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:42, 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. -Doc ask? 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wormhole Physics[edit]

Stargate-cruft--Zxcvbnm 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stargate (device). It doesn't add anything to that article. Or redirect to Wormhole if people prefer the real life concept. I don't think I've heard the phrase used to describe real wormhole research though. --Tango 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although this page talks about wormhole physics in the Stargate Universe, wormhole physics is a real field of study. It put the acuracy tag on there because it said wormhole physics was ficitional. It's not. the article just talk about it from a fictional context, Stargate. I agree with Tango. If everyone really thinks that this is such an obscure real-world topic, then redrect it to Stargate (device). If everyone thinks that it is a real field of study, than either form a non-Stargate article about it, or redirect it to Wormhole. Perhaps Stargate (device) should have a section for this term. Tobyk777 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's definately a real field of study, I just don't think it's a very common name for it. "Wormhole theory" or something is probably more common. I would guess most people associate the phrase with stargate (or "huh?", I suppose). --Tango 19:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe most would think of, you know, holes where worms live. And wonder what the physics of such a hole might be. That should probably be a separate Wormhole Physics (of a hollow in the ground inhabited by an elognated legless invertebrate). Weregerbil 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a notable topic - we should start writing it straight away. I'll allow you the honour of starting it. ;) --Tango 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats pretty stupid. Tobyk777 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it was a joke... --Tango 20:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tango. Pages like this (I've learned from my early experience) do not serve much purpose in Wikipedia. --Slgrandson 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion or redirect: agreed, this article is looking a bit thin, has factual innaccuracy, etc., but nevertheless "Wormhole Physics" in Stargate is quite different to wormhole physics in reality. I suggest a disambiguation if you're worried about factuality. However, the article does explain some of the stated tenets of the Stargate take on wormholes (particularly the one-way and 38 minutes rules), and although it adds minimally to Stargate (device), it can be linked to from any other Stargate article (regardless of whether it is or not); indeed, we dont want anyone wanting to know about Stargate wormhole physics to have to read the entire article on Stargate (device) just to get their information. The issue here is more one of notability than duplication of information, and on the topic of notability, i submit that this fictionalised field is one of the core ideas in the entire Stargate universe. the article needs work, yes, but doesnt need to be deleted. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think enough is known about Wormhole Physics to write a whole article on it. It should just be a section in Stargate (device). The existing article says pretty much all there is to say, and that's not enough to warrant keeping it. A disambig is a good idea, though. It could point to both Wormhole and Stargate (device). --Tango 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article is short i will give you that. But it could be expanded, and likely will be as the show goes on. Being a stub, for now, is no reason to delete it. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "Wormhole Physics" could be mentioned in the main article and that this could easily be redirected, but not disambigged, people don't search for "Wormhole Physics" for Stargate. That is basically cruft.--Zxcvbnm 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not necessarily about searching, so much as that the article can be linked to from various other articles. There are many occassions when an internal link to Wormhole Physics (Stargate) would be useful, e.g. when in an episode "Samantha Carter writes a book about Wormhole Physics". or others. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with Aflakim. The pagen needs to be titled Wormhole Physics (Stargate). But there is enough info in gate on it for it to be kept. Change vote to keep Tobyk777 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Wormhole Physics (Stargate), to avoid confusion with any reality wormhole physics. -- Saberwyn 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Tango. Beno1000 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm actually not sure whether to keep the article or whether to merge it into Stargate (device), but I'd tend defer to the Stargate portal folks for an opinion as to how much it is likely to be expanded, or to choke the main article, and how useful it is to have a dedicated article on this that other Stargate articles can link to. If the article is kept, it seems logical to move it to Wormhole physics (Stargate) or something similar, in order to avoid confusion per Saberwyn. Metamagician3000 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovely (micronation) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, article is kept. - Liberatore(T) 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Unity[edit]

nn website, possible CSD, but I'm not sure Tango 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it has an Alexa ranking of 839,348 and there are 71 links to it on the web --Deville (Talk) 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Deville. In any case, am always doubtful of new pages that have three lines of information but never forget to put in the founder's name. Hornplease 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deville. Stifle (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Hornplease. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the alexa rating is a bit unhelpful because it isn't a pop-culture organization and it is Indian-based. I'm not joking, I stumbled across this site in 2002 and spent a long time reading it.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deville. utcursch | talk 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've also read this website a year back or so. I think this is an organization that deserves some sort of mention. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with noble eagle --Dangerous-Boy 03:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Alexa rank in particular. Regardless of content or locality, 839,348 is just too low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Blnguyen and Nobleeagle. Google hits aren't always a good indication because the internet tends to be Eurocentric. GizzaChat © 10:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzu[edit]

nonnotable website NawlinWiki 18:36, 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Poirier[edit]

Mayor of a town of 50,000. Created as part of an ad campaign for Team Cornwall. No notability claimed. Deprodded.

Comment I wouldn't have thought they were per se. But if you can point me at the relevant policy, I'll happily withdraw the AfD. Dlyons493 Talk 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I wasn't quoting a specific policy, but let me put it this way: the policy is that a writer with an audience of 5,000 is considered notable, correct? Seems to me that a mayor of a town of 50,000 is at least as well-known --Deville (Talk) 21:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "is a mayor" is an assertion of notability. The question is if it's a valid assertion or not. As a substub, I think the point is moot - even if an article on him would be acceptable, there is nothing there worth keeping. When deciding if mayors are notable per se, consider this: Are ex-mayors notable? We're not going to keep an article only as long as he's in office, that would be silly, but would we want an article about everyone who's ever been a mayor? --Tango 21:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of walled garden. —porges(talk) 22:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cornwall, Ontario, in my opinion mayors of small cities aren't notable enough for an own article, but notable enough for a mention in city/town article. --eivindt@c 06:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His name is already in that article. A merge would require simply adding the Team Cornwall bit. --Tango 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest not adding Team Cornwall, since it was that advertising run that generated this article in the first place. Wikipedia is not for promotional uses. Dlyons493 Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoyah Middle School[edit]

Orphaned AfD, tagged by anon IP 69.145.122.209 (contribs) who presumably then discovered that IPs cannot create AFD articles. No vote. Fan1967 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article deleted, could you please give a reason? --Tango 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Please forgive my obvious lack of knowledge here, I don't do this very often. Anyway, it's basically an essay written by two kids who then proceded to put it here. They even gave themselves credit for making it. Other than a picture on the side, it lacks any real professionalism and tells nothing you need to know about the school. --69.145.122.209 20:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. For first-time editors they did a great job - they should have a look at some other school articles and see the sort of stuff that needs adding. Dlyons493 Talk 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not so much the subject matter in it... It's more of the way it was written. It seems ot me there is quite a sarcastic edge to it and they made it as a joke of some sort. I could be wrong though... Does it seem legit? --69.145.122.209 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You could be right, or they might just be young - it's hard to know. Anyway that would be edited out at some stage so it doesn't matter a lot (I've done that now, which doesn't leave a lot of content, but someone who knows the area can take it from here). Dlyons493 Talk 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version. It's no worse than any other school stub. (I've marked it as a stub) --Tango 21:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can live with this new version. I probably should have just done that in the first place. :) --69.145.122.209 21:24, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Killers[edit]

Delete - very unencyclopedic. I think its a story about a particular college football team from 1967. Even has a 'prologue' and 'epilogue'. Wickethewok 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or in any case a complete rewrite... --Francisco Valverde 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very unencyclopedic, and moreover I don't believe the first sentence at all without verification --Deville (Talk) 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopeædic, and unless someone sources it, OR. —porges(talk) 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. It is an entry about a the Oregon State college football team in 1967. They were unusual because they beat a team that was ranked #1 at the time and later would be the national champions. That wouldn't warrant an entry by itself; however, they also beat #2 ranked Purdue and tied #2 ranked UCLA. It is also important to note that one of the games known in college football as the "Game of the Century" featured UCLA (ranked #1 after USC lost) & USC (ranked #3). (In fact, on Wikipedia, it is the only "Game of the Century" where the teams were not undefeated and untied & also the only game where the teams weren't ranked #1 & #2.) As such, these Beavers had ended both teams' perfect season and certainly merit an article for that reason alone. They also, however, beat Purdue, a #2-ranked team which had earlier defeated #1 Notre Dame.
    As for the style, I thought that it would be best to try and tell it like a story, because I think it is a better way to convey the information than in a more formalized manner.  If you don't agree, I will assure you that you are more than welcome to alter any & all of the phraseology to make it more encyclopedic.  I think I am correct about the Beavers being the only team to beat a #1 & a #2, & tie another #2, however, it would take a lot of research to confirm this.  I used to have a more reliable site for my more factual claims, but it dissappeared.  I could update this site when I find another good source, but it would take roughly a week's work to check that one fact.  I simply do not have the time right now, so I edited it out.
    The reason I wrote this was to inform the Game of the Century page, which contained a couple factual inaccuracies, which I edited out.  As for citing, what exactly do I need to show in order to pass that test?  
    Summing up, this team warrants a page because they did something unprecedented.  The information I presented is all true, but I am not at all tied to the way I presented it.  If you feel that I should cut down on the information presented, I easily could.  I think it's good the way it is, but, if you would like to change something to make it more encyclopedic, please do!  I think deleting is a bit draconian to simply editing it on your part.  If you guys could be more specific in your disagreements with the way I presented the information, that would be much appreciated as well.  That way, I could edit to improve the article.  This is the first page that I have created, so I could easily have made a bunch of Wikipedia-site errors; however, I think that the information contained in the article is rather solid.  Like you say, it could be presented better, but, without more specific critique, I would not know how to do so.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop that ice cream[edit]

Contested PROD. Nominating as a neologism. An earlier version stated that the term was coined in "early 2006." I don't see any evidence that the phrase is "sweeping the nation." Joyous | Talk 20:23, 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. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Diarrhea Song[edit]

Yes, it's very funny. Yes, I sang it in elementary school too. It doesn't fit in here, however, because it violates WP:NOR and WP:NFT. It's more of a joke, really, and listing its appearance in media like Chappelle's Show isn't going to help it. I recommend sending it to WP:BJAODN. Brian G. Crawford 20:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or BJOADN if we're feeling charitable --Deville (Talk) 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't often use the delete hammer, but here, I see little point to keeping this article.Iceberg3k 21:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this AfD is a joke, right? Immensely popular for a joke song, widely referred to all over the place. If WP:OR is a problem, then axe the OR parts or find sources. Egads. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone can find sources. We have this here too. —porges(talk) 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate to say it, but this song is notable... what is the world coming to? --Tango 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination isn't a joke, but this is.
Your new idea is kewl
Cause you made it up in school.
Wikipedia! Wikipedia!
You've got a brand new fad,
And you think it's really rad.
Wikipedia! Wikipedia! Brian G. Crawford 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This song is probably older than both of us combined. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? Great Green Gobs of Greasy, Grimy Gopher Guts? Brian G. Crawford 02:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote keep on that, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean GGG... is a worldwide phenomenon? I thought it was only found in New Zealand schools! perhaps we need an article on it :) Grutness...wha? 02:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite popular in Minnesota (aka "the Gopher State"), for obvious reasons. Iceberg3k 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: notable childhood song / notable part of childhood folklore. Sung in a major motion picture (as mentioned in the article). Although could use more sources, this is not grounds for deletion when an article (like this one) explores a clearly notable topic. Interestingstuffadder 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP as per Interestingstuffadder. Maybe some history of the song (plus some alternate lyrics) could be added. --Micahbrwn 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have less famous songs than this one, just because it isn't as high brow as some symphony doesn't mean its nn. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I admit it - when I first put this article on here it was the early hours, I was too tired to do any more coursework, and I thought it would be a laugh to see if I could try to put as bad an article on Wikipedia as possible. However, I wouldn't have put something on that deserved to get deleted, that would spoil the fun. There are far worse articles than this. As mentioned by everybody else, it is culturally highly significant, even though it's so low brow it's in the Marianas Trench. The only problem is that it seems every other visitor to the page adds a verse, sometimes paying little regard to properly formatting the text. I daresay it does need some more work on it. One final thought - I have also added an article on a well-known novelist... this was before I added this one. Not a single amendment or addition has been made to that page, but just look at the history for this one! Does this mean that people think her literary output is of less value than 'The Diarrhea Song'? Or should we just get very worried about the state of society? Milvinder 14:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I vote to keep the article. It is a children's "potty" song and is common. Yes, the article needs to be expanded with references but that just makes it a STUB. Please keep this article. John Mehlberg 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, with optional BJAODN. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- although there is understandable difficulty in finding particularly high borw sources for something like this, i recommdn that you type "diarrhea song" into google. 23,900 hits and if you go to the last page of hits you will find that most are still talking about this song. This establishes notability in our culture and the presence of all these hits verifies this notability , at the very least. If you truly think this article needs more verification, add the appropriate tag to the page. But please don't advocate the deletion of something with such clear cultural notability. Interestingstuffadder 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Revised article and added one printed reference to the song. Hence it is verifiable WP:V. Yes, this article cites primary sources but it is not original research. Please take the time to read the WP:NOR article. Everyone please read revised article. If you have specific problems, please point them out so they can be corrected or correct it yourself. Do you think the revised is worthy of being kept? John Mehlberg 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's kind of ridiculous that something this widely-known and notable could possibly be considered for deletion. Once again, it looks like some people need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not purely a collection of things they find interesting. -Sparklemotion 21:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOR & WP:NFT. JackLumber 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC) OK, just keep it. The crappiest article on Wikipedia...[reply]
  • Keep Does it really hurt anybody? And shove that WP:NOR & WP:NFT up your, uh, well, where diarrhea comes out.
  • Strong Keep As has been said already, easily notable and verifiable. Whoever put this up for deletion should be shown the guidelines again. Neil McKillop 09:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep People are putting up AfD's way too often without good reason. This is clearly a persistent and well-known song and a worthwhile piece of child culture, and neither of those policy problems apply to this article. FMephit 15:37, 4 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 redirected. The discussion leans toward delete, but I've done a pseudo-delete by making this into a redirect to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. This is partially in response to the "merge" verdict given for the last Afd, and partly to preserve the history in case someone DOES want to merge some of this. I also note a precedent at Afd that individual chapters of student organizations aren't typically considered significant enough for their own article. Friday (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona Greek System[edit]

Not an article about greek system on campus, but it is astub about the Sigma Chi chapter there. Although this article has survived an AfD before, I want people to reconsider allowing individual fraternity chapters their own articles. Individual chapters are not notable enough, the only notable events on a truly national scale are usually something really good or bad. Also, greek system articles should be merged to their parent universities as lists in the student life section. This article lacks notability, plain and simple. Delete Dspserpico 20:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. --Francisco Valverde 20:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable. -- JJay 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is it notable? If the notability is just because the chapter has won a few awards from the school and its national organization that would set a very low bar of notability. If that is the case, why don't we start writing hundreds of stubs about hundreds of fraternity and sorority chapters that have ever been recognzed by their national or school. I am not anti-fraternity, I am far from it being a past president of a fraternity chapter. But there is no value in stubs like these when all the information can be merged into ether fraternity or school's article. Dspserpico 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Merge was refused at target. Check edit history. -- JJay 00:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also NPOV problems with this stub. Dspserpico 15:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge It didn't survive the last AfD, the decision was to merge it, not keep it. The decision should still stand, it just needs someone to actually do the merge. --Tango 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge was done but refused at source. See edit history. Also merge defaults to keep on Afd. -- JJay 11:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above, and if noone wants to take the time to do it,delete -- Hirudo 02:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (changed vote to delete per JJay comment above. -- Hirudo 12:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fraternity-related articles that aren't nationally known. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if this is considered not notable enough for being in the fraternity article (as shown by the rejection of merging), how could it be notable on its own? - Liberatore(T) 15:28, 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. -Doc ask? 23:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiro Yamagata[edit]

Article, according to User:Monicasdude, is a mix of two biographies - a visual artist named Hiro Yamagata (born 1948) and a writer about software named Hiroo Yamagata (born 1964), <changed>This, I think, makes it nonsensical</changed>. Article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but I removed the tag as there was a claim for notability (in one or the other). PROD applied instead, but removed by Monicasdude without alteration to the article with a comment that said in part "Needs disambiguation, division, and expansion". Note: technical nomination after removal of PROD without change to article - no vote from me. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 20:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Woah, after reading the first sentence of your nomination, I was under the impression that Monicasdude was asking for this article to be deleted, and I almost fainted. Reading the rest has put the world back into balance, though...;D --Deville (Talk) 21:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry. I can see how it can be read that way, which isn't what I meant at all (quite the opposite). Apologies all round. Altered the nom accordingly. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, no big deal... it was actually kind of funny. I was just taken aback by the possibilities, that's all...:-)--Deville (Talk) 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. All he appears to have done is translated a book. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and repair. It's an article about one notable person under the name of a different notable person -- except that, since it's a transliterated name, neither form is consistently used. Article is about Hiroo Yamagata (occasionally Hiro) under name of Hiro Yamagata (occasionally Hiroo). No basis for deletion. Stifle comments are inaccurate, Lawrence Lessig says he's notable enough in field (cf deprod comments, for example). Monicasdude 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monicasdude. ˑˑˑ日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoε 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repair per Monicasdude. JoshuaZ 03:08, 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; I won't delete the other articles mentioned, which have their own AfD page. - Liberatore(T) 15:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catman[edit]

Non-notable comic created by thirteen-year old (although he increased his age by twenty years after I pointed that out, so I guess it could have been a typo) who also authored the articles on his comic. Anyway, and more importantly, the article appears to have no significance or distribution. Some guy 21:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Forgot to mention, he has created numerous pages on characters of the comic, which I have been PRODing. I also PROD'd this page but he removed the tag. He has not yet removed the other tags but if he does I will add them to the AfD list. Some guy 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete certainly nn. The article as good as admits it. --Tango 22:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and completely unverifiable. No google hits for "will anderson catman". IrishGuy 22:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Author of The Catman page (User:W_Anderson) nominated one of my articles (Earthsiege) for deletion [35]. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. Not sure who to contact regarding such actions. Some guy 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, for a start. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional related articles to delete Someone got some of the related pages mixed up with another Catman character and removed the PROD tags. Now I'm adding them to this deletion list, as they are about characters of "The Catman"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgy queen[edit]

Completely trivial slang term, just because Urban Dictionary have it doesn't mean we should. Seanlavelle 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible use in a single novel and an entry on UD does not a valid part of the English language make. Delete -- Saberwyn 23:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much a dicdef of a neo. --Eivindt@c 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:40, 4 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 Deleted by WP:CP. Geni 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angolan War[edit]

Strong Speedy Delete: Redirect to Angolan Civil War Clear copyvio but, more importantly, a good article already exists on the same topic at Angolan Civil War. This article is simply redundant. Strothra 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so but I don't feel that I should remove the AfD tag either. --Strothra 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know why that was neccesary. seems like an open-and-shut sort of thing. Feel free to actually vote. --Strothra 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems like someone went ahead and deleted it anyway. My guess is that Wikipedia:Copyright problems probably went ahead and vaporized it under its own process before the AfD was complete, which makes this something of a moot point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge into Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. - Liberatore(T) 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Toenail of Icklibõgg[edit]

I'm finishing an incomplete nomination by Wikipedian06, who put the afd1 template on the page but did not complete the other two steps of for nominating an article for deletion. Wikipedian06's edit summary for adding the template was as follows: "AFD - Not notable. Do a redirect or something -- this is not worth an article." Icarus 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a new article. One possiblity would be "False names for Harry Potter books" or something similar. However, I think it would be better to merge it with Unauthorized_Chinese_Harry_Potter_books (again, probably under a new article name, such as "Harry Potter pre-release fervor"... Ok, I suck at creating names), comparing and contrasting how gullible anxious fans desperate for new installments were taken in by real but unofficial/fraudulent books in some cases and joke titles with no corrosponding books in other cases. It would start out as a stub, to be sure, but I think that the effects of the fervor leading up to new releases (and frustration when they aren't released as quickly as some fans would desire) is enough of an international cultural phenomenon to deserve an article, especially seeing as bits and pieces of that proposed article already exist under at least these two separate stubs. --Icarus 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. --Tango 22:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Tango. —porges(talk) 22:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Completely unrelateable to the Chinese books since it's Rowling's joke, so it shouldn't be merged with those. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a section of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, it would seem fairer. Futher comment: In the Controversies section, I propose. --Francisco Valverde 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of the two above suggestions for merge, I personally prefer CanadianCaesar's. It is, after all, something that happened before the release of the book, and I'm not aware of it causing any controversy. (Also: I recognize that my suggestion for a "pre-release fervor" article is pretty out there. I think that a good article could come out of it, at least in theory, but a merge like the two suggested by CanadianCaesar and Francisco Valverde would undoubtedly be much easier.) --Icarus 05:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer it to go to the Speculation article - I wasn't aware that aticle existed when I voted. --Tango 11:58, 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 - Liberatore(T) 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmphing[edit]

Neologism, jargon, dicdef? Take your pick. WP:WINAD, WP:NOR. Also, how do I know that it should have four m's instead of five? Looks like WP:BALLS. Brian G. Crawford 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Superlation Theory[edit]

Looks like original research to me. No references and google only finds this article and mirrors. Tango 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' original research, pseudoscience. —porges(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent research or original nonsense. Bucketsofg ✐ 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is no place for original reseach. This theory should really be shown to the scientific community and evaluated before posting here. Also, the fact that this page was written anonymously casts some doubt on this article's credibility. Akira 22:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of understanding of the widely accepted physics it's trying to debunk casts a lot of doubt on its credibility. eg. "We believe that our universe exists from millions and zillions and zillions of years. But to Whole-Time, it is just a second." The age of the universe is much debated, but I've never seen anyone suggest a value that wasn't either infinite or less than 20 billion years. --Tango 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... Is "zillions and zillions" more or less than 20 billion years? --Deville (Talk) 05:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outercourse[edit]

Dictionary definition of a pun on "intercourse." Brian G. Crawford 21:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Certainly isn't a dictionary definition - they are normally one liners, this is a complete article. --Tango 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have heard this term used by professionals in the field (not of outercourse...), but it does need referencing. —porges(talk) 21:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it shows up in dictionary.com, and the current article is far more than a dictdef. --BillC 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep, often promoted as an alternative to intercourse, not a "pun" as nom indicates. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nomination based on invalid reasoning—Clearly not a dictionary definition.--Sean Black (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than a definition. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepdifferent to sexual intercourse although exhibiting similar charecteristics Abc85 17:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's taught in sex education nowadays. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:12, 4 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDdebater Podcast[edit]

NN. Wikipedia is not an advertisement (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) Podcast doesn't exist yet (No Episodes on iTunes) and is not vital to the Lincoln Douglas community at this time. Lasvegasgamer 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some evidence of notability is offered, I vote Delete. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsure if this actually even exists: 16 Google hits but all seem to be various usernames and none seem to be related to a podcast of any sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know if we came up with notability criteria for podcasts, but this wouldn't pass them. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (USA)[edit]

And how does the author propose we keep this upto date if s/he goes on holiday? And in Wikipedia 1.0? And in the various hardcopy and slow mirrors? ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 22:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies[edit]

Original Research. xompanthy 22:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I view this as a clear violation of NOR policy, not to mention nonsense. Result of the last deletion debate for this article was merge, even though the vote stood at 4 delete, 2 merge, 1 move. xompanthy 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that it's original research - I can come up with all sorts of counters to the supposed inconsistencies but WP is not Usenet. Jamoche 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated this for deletion the first time and have always believed it is a textbook case of original research.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely WP:OR --Deville (Talk) 05:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a good article for a Fanzine or Webzine but not for Wikipedia. CWC(talk) 07:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Weak merely because I read it with a speck of interest. Definitely OR, though. Hornplease 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Westboro Baptist Church[edit]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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


This article, Members of Westboro Baptist Church, purports to be a listing of all current members of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. The list appears to violate WP:OR (original conclusions), WP:RS (dubious sources), WP:NPOV (negative gossip), and WP:NOT (genealogy). Some of these members are minors, and there is far too much personal information, some of it highly speculative accusations. What little material in the list that is encyclopedic could be in the biographies of notable members or in the main article on the church. But most of this "information", and the title itself, should be deleted. Will Beback 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We know who Westboro Baptist Church are, and my personal opinions aside, we don't need to know every single one of them. Beno1000 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has now been condensed and is much more concise, and is much more encyclopedic. Beno1000 14:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 00:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheProject 00:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to inclusion of minors' personally identifying information without permission. Thatcher131 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT--Much of that information was taken from other news sources, thus permission was already granted as part of the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.147.240.6 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete Merecat 18:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article should remain for everyone to know what a vile family and association they are and to understand the history of the hatred that they are spewing from their practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.200.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I am not sure that the members of this church would conclude that their inclusion on the membership list is "negative gossip"...If "negative gossip" is in the eye of the beholder (or nominator) perhaps we should get rid of all lists of members of congress or MPs. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, if you read the article you'll see there is plenty of gossip included. It is not a bare list. -Will Beback 23:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT I am sure that most of the people pushing for the deletion of this entry are members of the Church in question. They are an embarrasment to this nation. They are insulting the people that DIED, WILLINGLY, to support their right to say FOOLISH things like this. Man, its going to piss these people off when they die and find St. John standing in front of the gates dressed in BDUs (Battle Dress Uniform...Camoflage Uniform). This article needs to stay. These people are blatently stupid and deserve the negative publicity they are getting. They claimed the holocaust (nazis killing the jews) was just a MINOR mishap and that the Jews are the real nazis. I dont know how you can be so stupid as to think something like that. This isnt a religion...this is borderline CULT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.243.49.233 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 May 2006 .
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Westboro and Fred Phelps articles are approaching, if not already exceeding, the recommended Wikipedia article sizes. Thus, merger with those articles would be IMHO impractical. Westboro acts as a collective when it protests groups and individuals; even its youngest members participate in the protests. Although the group thrives on publicity, all the information is in the public record already and it is pertinent to know who is involved with this organization. I vote to keep the article as a stand-alone, both due to size problems with combining it and due to its importance. 160.147.240.6 18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A reference is needed for this subject. Possibly editing for content would be more helpful than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.126.124 (talk • contribs)
  • keep I agree fullhearteadly. The Fred Phelps, and Westboro Baptist Church pages are some of the best articles I've come across on Wikipedia. This article helps support the Westboro page quite significantly, emphasizing the type of people who are part of this church. Please don't delete. If anything, this article should be merged with the Westboro Baptist Church page. --70.161.246.22 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- i found this off a google search, and i did not know who this church was. Exclude the minors from the listing, but the article itself is informative, and i have seen one of the nutter's on fox news. it belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.32.94 (talk • contribs)
  • keep Page has been edited to remove church listing(to include minors), as well as anything not in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.126.124 (talk • contribs) Note: User:70.18.126.124 already voted above.
  • Don't Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.209.229 (talk • contribs)
  • Please dont delete this page, i think the people of the nation should see how ignorant this specific sect of "christianity" is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.97.165 (talk • contribs)
  • I agree fullhearteadly. The Fred Phelps, and Westboro Baptist Church pages are some of the best articles I've come across on Wikipedia. This article helps support the Westboro page quite significantly, emphasizing the type of people who are part of this church. Please don't delete. If anything, this article should be merged with the Westboro Baptist Church page. --70.161.246.22 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP-giving these judgmental, rude, ignorant people preaching a different and incorrect form of Christianity (it is not christian, feel free to worship as you wish, but do not bring down a good faith by labeling yours Christian) is not significant enough to waste space on. A reference page for mental instablility and disturbing the dead would be just as helpful of a page for these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.130.77 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Please, everybody, sign your votes. Even if you are not a registered user, you can still "sign" by ending your message with four tildes like this: ~~~~ That will automatically insert your user id, the date and time. --Metropolitan90 02:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill. While the Westboro Baptist "church", if they deserve the name, is a living mockery of all that religion is supposed to be about, a list of their members is not notable enough to be worth keeping, and this one is low quality besides. In fact, the main article on Phelps may also be too long for his notability status. --Tjstrf 03:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a real part of our society. Those seeking information regarding their practices shouldn't necessarily be subjected to the offensive content contained within their official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.211.216 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Page does not violate any rules. I'm not afraid of Westboro's legal bullying and neither should anyone else. Take a stand! Will Beback only has a problem with this page because he's an obvious Phelps ally. Consider the far right wing churches listed on his personal page. --TheDoober 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This discussion is not about deleting the main article about Westboro Baptist Church. It's about deleting the article listing all the members of the church. The main article about the church isn't going away. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct. We'll be keeping the articles detailing the acts, we just won't have the article that tells us that 6yo little Tommy Phelps (made up name) is now a member of the cult, having officially insulted his first random passerby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjstrf (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 May 2006 .
  • Delete. Will's nomination is convincing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Keep'"*, because to delete it would simply be to acknowledge we're afraid of them (which I, personally, am not). These people are inbreeding and preaching on and on about how fortunate it is that our soldiers are being killed, how right they are and how angry their "Lord and God" is. I say, let them continue to make public idiots of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.231.101 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 May 2006.
  • "'"Keep'"* but Edit - These people need to be EXPOSED both collectively and as individuals.YetAnotherGuy 17:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP--- Definitely kep this and, no,don't edit it. These people need to be viewed in the true light of the way they are. People need to know how sick and twisted this group of people is. It makes me sick that they use the lords name to justify their reasonings. They are nothing of God or any religion. They are nothing more than a cult. And yes keep the article about the members of the church. They need to be exposed for what they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.189.2 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 May 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martingale representation theorem[edit]

I think the theorem needs not its own article. On the other hand, merging cannot be considered since the article is substantially wrong. gala.martin (what?) 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In order to assert the theorem, you need the martingale to have finite quadratic variation (and of course, a.e. path should be continuous). This is not just a math technicality, but it is the heart of the theorem. The representation theorem tells you that a BM-adapted, continuous, L^2 martingale is a brownian motion at a random time (or, if you want to make things more complicated, it is a stochastic integral driven by brownian motion). Now, the random time you need (or the process you need to integrate), is defined exactly by the quadratic variation of the original martingale. If we want to go through the quadratic variation stuff for martingales, the representation theorem article is not the right place. On the other hand, IMHO the article does not meet the wikipedia standard right now. That's why I purposed deletion.
Also, I have some doubts about the way to solve this problem: we could create an article for continuous time martingales, since they are the most commonly used martingales, both in mathematics and applications. In this case, we could state the theorem there. Otherwise, we could create some articles in order to cover this subjects: add info on quadratic variations article, etc, and then improve this article. By the way, I am not sure at all that the representation theorem should be on wikipedia. I hope to receive further comments. gala.martin (what?) 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it's substantially wrong as written, but a legitimate theorem, then the remedy is to correct the errors, not to delete the article. I think several theorems about martingales probably deserve their own articles. Michael Hardy 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it's wrong it should be fixed and not deleted, as per Michael Hardy --Deville (Talk) 05:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, the issue is not about the fact that the theorem is uncorrect. It is about if we want this theorem with its own article. And of course, it is better to decide that before correcting. A couple of months ago, I would surely thought we should keep the theorem, but I am changing my ideas about the best way to organize the math stuff. Anyway, I am convinced martingales' theorems are important and interesting. On the other hand, my nick here is just a transposition of the italian word for martingale :). gala.martin (what?) 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • I agree that the statement of the theorem is poor, but it is a start. Why don't we just rewrite it? Perhaps we could restructure it by the following layout?
      • 1. the statement for continuous martingales and give a few references for the proof,
      • 2. the statement for general martingales, and few references for the proof
      • 3. then perhaps some motivation for it along the lines of saying that Brownian motion is the canonical continuous martingale, while compensated compound Poisson processes are the canonical processes for martingales with jumps and that all martingales are just integrals of a Brownian motion plus some sort of compensated compound Poisson process, and lastly
      • 4. some places where the theorem is used such as in finance where it is used to prove the existence of portfolios User_talk:AJR_1978.


  • Comment. Sorry for comments inflaction! I think I did not explain myself properly. I would like to receive comments about this: ok, we keep this material. I am the first one to say that this stuff is interesting. I just wonder if the best thing is to keep theorems separated, or to merge together, for instance, this one, this one, this one, some stuff about quadratic variation etc. gala.martin (what?) 19:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant theorem in financial mathematics. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 23:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sark at the 2006 Commonwealth Games[edit]

Sark doesn't have a Commonwealth Games Association, nor does it compete at the Commonwealth Games as a separate team, but as part of the Guernsey team. This article's continued existence is similar to having an article on Bavaria's performance at the FIFA World Cup. Bastin8 00:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Is it true that Sark does not compete under its own name, but as part of the Guernsey team? If so, then of course this should go. OTOH, I notice that the Commonwealth Games template has a separate entry for Sark. This of course doesn't prove anything, but is it possible Sark competes as its own entity? --Deville (Talk) 05:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sark is not listed on the Commonwealth Games 2010 website - just Guernsey. On the Guernsey page of that website, helpfully labeled "Guerensay" and "Guyana", Sark is included in Guernsey's listings. On the official Commonwealth Games Federation website, Sark is listed as part of Guernsey's team. However, Sark Tourist Board implies, without saying so directly, that Sark has its own team. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm positively certain that don't compete separately (and was just about to cite the exact same sources as Redvers just did, except with Guernsey CGA, too). In fact, the article recognises that itself ("Sark was represented at the 2006 Commonwealth Games by two shooters, Nick Dewe and Stefan Roberts, who compete for Guernsey in the Trap Pairs event"). The Sark tourism website is just doing its job as a tourist website: promoting the island as distinct from Guernsey. Bastin8 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, okay, maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I found it exceedingly hard to actually find hard information on this. What is particularly frustrating is that I can't seem to find an official list of the countries which competed in the 2006 games on the official 2006 games website. You'd think such a list would exist, but all I can get is a list of medal-winning countries. Anyway, I can't find the information that Bastin is pointing to, but this link from Redvers seems pretty convincing. Until someone can find an official link that Sark competes separately, I think we need to delete this page. --Deville (Talk) 02:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a drop-down box of all participating teams here. I assume that that is sufficient to reach a consensus on this. Bastin8 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging any relevant information into the Guernsey at the 2006 Commonwealth Games article. Batmanand | Talk 07:21, 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 hurrrrrrghSPLORGH'.... ... delete. DS 17:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity vomit[edit]

Non notable, local club - three prod's by three users ignored without comment Shenme 00:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable juggling club. Bige1977 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • of which about eight regularly attend = self-admitted prime deletion candidate. —porges(talk) 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting name... Delete! Not notable, I cannot say more.--Francisco Valverde 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per porg. Some guy 08:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Porges. --soUmyaSch 10:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but remember that you can't re-add {{subst:prod}} to an article after it's been removed. See WP:PROP. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as db-group. The fact that it's still here makes me vomit, really. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:40, 4 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. Flowerparty☀ 00:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian conductors[edit]

Redundant list wholly superseded by Category:Hungarian conductors Grover cleveland 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ensure they're all in the category, then delete. —porges(talk) 00:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but notify author as to why exactly, so he/she/it knows about Categories M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:41, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_29&oldid=1081094124"