Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 30

< April 29	May 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

April 30[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 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Redmon[edit]

Hoax. Unreferenced info about a barely notable (if real) player. No relevant Ghits. Unverifiable Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it's a hoax or not, the article seems to be about a high-school level athlete, and would thus be non-notable anyway. On closer inspection, it seems strongly like a hoax, especially the statue part and that the named high school gets no Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Beno1000 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if verifiable, the article's subject isn't notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consign to the pits —porg es_(talk) 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax and non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, lived in Gainesville once BTW,no dates or verifiable data and reads like original research.--John Lakonias 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. -- ReyBrujo 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Delta Pi[edit]

Non-notable sorority. Page was PRODed by me but was removed without explanation by article creator. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn organisation. Beno1000 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (Talk) 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but desperately needs clean-up to fix NPOV violations. --Ginkgo100 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article can be edited to describe the sorority nationwide, not just the chapter in Ithaca.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sororities are a dime a dozen - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable fraternity/sorority. JIP | Talk 08:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. -- JJay 19:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN --Deville (Talk) 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. There appear to be [other] Gamma Delta Pis out there, besides the Ithaca chapter. 216.227.122.37 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that Gamma Delta Pi has nothing to with the article written meaning it's probably a bunch of non notable sororities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklin (talk • contribs)

Delete. I was going to vote keep until I realized that this was a misleadingly-titled article about an indivdual chapter of the sorority rather than an article about the sorority itself. If someone wants to rewrite this as an article about the actual sorority, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it, but, until then, I support deletion in that articles kept on the grounds that they should be rewritten never seem to actually get rewritten. If someone wants to start an actual article about the sorority itself later, I have no problem with that. As mentioned above, this article is also extremely NPOV. BTW, are there really sororities where members are only known by numbers, rather than their names (as this article asserts)? ergot 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete into Ithaca College article, let normal editors of that article to decide if this group is notable enough. -- ReyBrujo 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ergot Melchoir 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is so interesting— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.243 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom.--Joe Jklin 10:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Williams (actor)[edit]

Hoax. The "achievements" of the actor should make him notable enough to have google hits, but no relevant hits found. As said on the talk page search made in the Internet Broadway Database yields no result. Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Beno1000 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified. Likely hoax. IBDB does show a Richard Williams, with one animation(!) credit, before the article subject was even born. There are of course notable people with that name, and it's also the birth name of Treat Williams. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Metamagician3000 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the creator has a history of idiotic vandalism. - Richardcavell 02:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until/unless verified. Darquis 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Siva --Deville (Talk) 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep appears to be keep by unanimous decision ALKIVAR™ 03:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cock rock[edit]

What a load of WP:BALLS, no pun intended. If it were sourced, it would still be a neologism. Brian G. Crawford 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ old term, needs references however. —porg es_(talk) 00:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google the phrase and see. —porg es_(talk) 00:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on already, Brian. Seriously. Among other things, highly well known slang term for a style of rock music, well-known enough to become an album title for the band Diesel Boy, makes at least 6 listings in the current Google News listing for the last 7 days. Extremely bad nomination, and WP:BALLS isn't a damn thing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to speedy strong super keep +10, I can cite OED on this ;) —porg es_(talk) 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cock rock slang, rock music, esp. heavy metal, characterized by the ostentatious male sexuality of its lyrics and performance; so cock rocker.
 
1971 M. SAUNDERS in Creem May 74/2 As much as I hate heavy music—*cock rock, macho rock, or whatever the current name for it is—I have to
admit to having every Blue Cheer album ever made. 2003 Kitchen Sink Winter 19/1 [Led Zeppelin] truly were the creators of ‘cock rock’, in the
hyper-masculine sexuality of their sound, their songs and in the presentation of their actual packages, which were often practically visible
through their tight-ass bell bottoms. 1977 Creem July 50/3 I can't help but wonder if part of their popularity is due to the fact that they're
the last of an era of *cock rockers who play dirty and, if you'll excuse the expression, ‘chauvinistic’ rock 'n' roll. 2002 Independent on Sunday
10 Feb. 3/1 It's big enough to mean that..student bands don't play there and small enough to deter cock-rockers on the enormo-barn circuit.

Yeah, that's a dictionary definition. How is this an encyclopedia article? Brian G. Crawford 01:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has potential for quite a bit more expansion: examples of songs, tracing the history (and demise/rebirth if such exists as the current article seems to support) of the 'genre', origins of the term if we can find it. —porg es_(talk) 01:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that even if it were sourced, it would be a neologism. Clearly this shows otherwise. Darquis 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Darquis[reply]

Keep - notable genre and cultural phenomenon, more than a dicdef already with plenty of room for expansion. dbtfz ^talk 01:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - weak, because I wonder whether this couldn't be merged into another article. Metamagician3000 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a neologism, and no Wiki Policy was brought forward as a reason for deletion (not to mention that WP:BALLS isn't even appropriate here) Darquis 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's actually a widely used term, though the article could be cleaned up. - Richardcavell 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, more than a dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, article looks plausible, "cock rock" gets 611 thousand Google hits. JIP | Talk 08:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, please. Per Dbtfz. Danny Lilithborne 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, existing article is well beyond dictionary definition, so using a dicdef as a cite is fine. Widely used term. Kuru ^talk 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep' please and balls is not appropriate here really Yuckfoo 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable term that is not a neolgism. — TheKMan^talk 21:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly not a neologism. And we certainly have tons of pages on minor musical genres --Deville (Talk) 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a neologism by any stretch. --Stlemur 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article heavily needs references though. -- ReyBrujo 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable term. WP:BALLS does not apply here. 8-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:52, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blemmyes[edit]

This thing does not deserve to be here. It is not real creature, nor does it appear in any notable fictional world (e.g. the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars). It is not more interesting than my dog— Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterx (talk • contribs)

Note Incomplete AfD. Original article has not been tagged. This article was created (with no header) and added to daily AfD log by Misterx. Unsure of the procedure. Fan1967 20:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw that too (it seems like he insterted it between two articles already nominated). I'll go ahead and add the AfD tag to the original. Darquis 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were myths and legends before LOTR and Star Wars, and this appears to be a pretty old one. Fan1967 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plinian oddity I've known about since grade school. Tell us more about your dog, though. · rodii · 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to see the article expanded more, if that's possible, but it's certainly not delete worthy (particularly not for the reasons given). Darquis 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mythological or incorrect perceptions of the ancients is notable. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep, this was in Pliny, for Christ's sake --Deville (Talk) 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deleting it would make just as much sense as deleting The Matrix because those old Greek philosopher guys didn't discuss it back in the day =) (Where's my logic going?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely encylcopedic subject. ergot 14:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you can find references about Blemmyes in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. -- ReyBrujo 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,this article will never be more than a stub. I propose merging it with Sciapodes and other similar stuff into a single article about strangely shaped humans in ancient legends— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.98.228.27 (talk • contribs)
- A while ago someone might have said the same about numerous peoples who, through archaeological discovery, we now know much about: the Hittites are a perfect example; just a tribal name among many in the Bible without too much to attract attention, now we know much more. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we might learn more about the Blemmyes some time? · rodii · 02:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a real tribe of people of that name in that area. They show up in the histories of the late empire, hundreds of years after Pliny. They did, however, actually have heads. Fan1967

Keep, blemmyes are referenced along with sciapods and 'panozi' (sorry, I don't know the English word) also in Umberto Eco's Baudolino, and are part of greek and medieval mythology. Most of the above comments apply, too. Mikelima 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin name, "panotii", is usually used in English. Fan1967 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation. I have been researching a bit, and I have found an extensive thesis on medieval monster (in Italian) [1], which cites the blemmyes (blemmii) while discussing about acephali. The english definition only marginally discusses the monsters, and the Italian definition is absent. Maybe merging the blemmyes with other acephali monsters could be a solution. The thesis cites that acephali are first cited by Erodotus. Apparently, Plinius associated a Lybian legend to an actual nomadic population. Mikelima 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. gidonb 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Holistic Centre Group[edit]

Advertisement. Non-notable company. No Google hits. Violates WP:CORP Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pseudoscientific vanispam. —porg es_(talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement, vanity, spam. - Richardcavell 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per, well, all of the above. Darquis 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not intended as an advertisement, attempt has been made to be balanced. Though the company is not notable in a grandiouse sense it is important to the communities it serves - is this not important? Google search for people working there eg Clare Badrick or Sarah Kypers. Rather than just advise for deletion, recommend suitable changes. User: yabasto 30/04/06 13:17
Delete Basically a local clinic, though non-traditional. Not notable. Fan1967 18:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:CORP - Politepunk 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being local an unallowance for inclusion, and what does one mean by non-traditional? If someone has suggestions for article amendment, please let me know...User:yabasto 23:37, 30 April 2006

There is a basic standard for inclusion of businesses in Wikipedia (WP:CORP). A local clinic in a small town in Surrey, whether traditional (local doctor or dentist) or otherwise, doesn't meet that standard. Fan1967 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe its about time that wikipedia changed it policy and understood that macrocosmic phenomena is supported purely by the microcosm below it. Sieg heil the wikipedia MacDonald supporters...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yabasto (talk • contribs)

Look around your town. How many small businesses as big as yours or bigger? Restaurants, stores, pubs, garages, realtors. At least a few dozen, maybe more. Multiply by at least 1000 to cover the rest of England, multiply again by 10 for US and Canada. Imagine all these businesses get articles. You're looking at a couple hundred thousand entries, and Wikipedia would become the world's largest yellow pages. Fan1967 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just some business. nn . This is not the yellow pages.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 02:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP --Deville (Talk) 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor company. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages! Bjelleklang - talk 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 17:39, 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 —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art De Vany[edit]

Vanity article. Should be speedied Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete As nominator. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-admitted copyvio, listed as such. —porg es_(talk) 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think it should be speedied, just put {{db}} on the article with your reason as the parameter. Or, {{nn-bio}} in this case. Night Gyr 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged it for speedy and notified the uploader. Night Gyr 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Malley[edit]

Possible hoax. Note: the original nominator for this afd was User:83.70.64.254, but the process was never completed. Bige1977 01:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB comes up with Matt Malley as a composer for Shrek 2. Dessydes 10:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Matt Malley listed at IMDB is the bass player for Counting Crows, who wrote "Accidentally in Love" for Shrek 2. Clearly he's not a 55-year old martial-arts action-movie actor. Fan1967 01:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total hoax. This is Steven Seagal's article with someone else's name substituted in. Fan1967 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete hoax. Maybe we should start a "Do not edit Wikipedia when stoned" guideline. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. - Richardcavell 02:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Metamagician3000 02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Simply adding a hoax may or may not be vandalism. Copying an article verbatim and changing the subject's name is definitely vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. I agree with Srikeit. > Iridescence < ^( talk )_{( contrib )} 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax --Deville (Talk) 02:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree this is a hoax with not a single reference to probe it is not. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 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 keep per nominator's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gargamel! (band)[edit]

~~Non-notable band. Probably a vanity article. Google has hits but mostly from blogs & their own site.~~ Change to Keep after article proves its notability & adds citations Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator. As above --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search is not a fair indicator because the character from the Smurfs has thousands of links. This causes links from the band to appear less prominently than they would if the band had a less ambiguous name. The criteria for notability is ambiguous; the band is well-known in Florida, but perhaps not established in other regions. I have added a couple of links to articles about the band, both from established Orlando newspapers. A brief entry seems commensurate with this band's modest level of notoriety. Upon reflection, I have removed the line about the lead singer's "stage presence" to keeps things more NPOV.(Disclosure: I contributed the article. I am not actually in the band nor friends with any of the band members.) Mister Tog 02:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to vote keep on this. Not only did the Orlando newspaper link in the article sway me, but their website claims they were voted best metal band in the Orlando Weekly reader's poll. Media mentions fit WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would have been nice had the article had sources to show notability before now. Hopefully more will be added soon. Darquis 03:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to a 1999 article about the Orlando Music Awards, where the band won the "Hard Rock" category. The band also received a positive review in a 2002 edition of Metal Edge magazine. However, the Metal Edge website does not include online content going back that far. A scan of the review is available here (Metal Edge Review) but I assume that posting an image of a copyrighted article would violate one rule or another.Mister Tog 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can cite it, however. Kalkin 14:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently cited now; marginally notable regional band. Kuru ^talk 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:47, 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.

If it shouldn't be modified, shouldn't the Wiki interface be changed to prevent modifications??!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sectarianism in Scottish Football[edit]

Delete. No factual basis.

Initially the page was written in the first person and contained numerous debatable points, the page has since been taken over by user:TheMadTim who wants to turn the page into his platform on the issue. The page now lacks any balance and I suggest that it should be merged into Rangers, Celtic or even sectarianism. Alibabs 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was in the AfD log for April 30. I have moved it to its own article. Fan1967 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator.Alibabs 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a contributer. Firstly, I have no problem in removing the first section of the article. It's unencyclopeadic, and, frankly, rather poorly written. My own contributions, which interestingly, themselves have not been questioned, are short, all sourced, and all are pertinent to the subject matter of the article. Alibabs has alleged that my edits are partisan and sectarian. When asked to provide some sort of evidence to back up these statements, none has been given, other than that my edits make the article allegedly unbalanced. I did invite Alibabs to make amendments to the article to rectify what they perceived to be unbalanced editing, but they have chosen to list it here instead. The fact that the nominee wants to split this article over both the Celtic and Rangers articles would maybe indicate that it is not as unbalanced as originally stated. No explanation as to how my edits allegedly make the article unbalanced have been given, therefore I vote to keep. Hell, it doesn't even qualify for deletion using the criteria set out in WP:DEL --TheMadTim 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : The article has been accused of being original research. In fact, the article contains 4 sentences, and 13 (thirteen) verifiable sources, for those four sentences. I'd be most interested in seeing someone quote exactly which portion of the wikipedia policy WP:OR they mean. --TheMadTim 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. - Richardcavell 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you obviously don't include the 13 sourced statements I have added as being original reserach do you? --TheMadTim 02:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're not related to Metamagician3000 are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. Putting together bits and pieces like this is still original research. Metamagician3000 02:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, which parts? I've provided a source for each and every single statement in the section of the article I editied! --TheMadTim 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're not related to Richardcavell are you?--TheMadTim 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. Putting together bits and pieces like this is still original research. Big Jock Knew 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Chaps, I've checked out WP:OR (I don't know if you have) but it says, and I quote,

"What is original research?

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source."

Now the sources from the article nominated include the BBC, The Scotsman and The Sunday Herald. Are you saying that they are not reputable sources? --TheMadTim 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume TheMadTim's section starts with the sentence, "Examples of possibly sectarian behavour might include, for example,". This whole section reads as a discussion on what is and is not considered sectarian, and as such is Original Research. The other question I have for this user is in what way is this historical as every article seems to be under 5 years old? It also seems that you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox, as every source seems to be critical of Rangers and there are none which are critical of any other Scottish teams, I am not knowledgable about the subject but the article does not appear to have a NPOV, your incessant pestering of every contribution to this discussion is also quite strange. Big Jock Knew 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Big Jock Knew will not take me replying to his questions as 'incessant pestering' (I assume that if you are asking questions you must want replies?) then I shall proceed. You have said that your 'other question' (I'm not sure quite what the first one was. Are you asking me which section of the article is mine, or are you enquiring about some content?) is what way is this historical? The first bit of it, which deals with history, is not my contribution, and in this version at least, not something which I am personally inclined to provide sources for. Given that I only found the page 12 hours ago, I'm not quite sure what sort of contribution you expect in that timescale, and given that it's currently 5 AM where I am, I'd actually be inclined to think that I had done rather a good job in improving a rather shabby article. Perhaps you think I should have this article ready for listing on the main page a few hours after first seeing it? It seems to you that I 'seem' to be doing a lot of things. I'll thank you to keep your argument based around the contributions I have made, and not to formulate and foster opinion as to any suspected ulterior motives without very good reason. WP:AGF ? Oh, and which parts of the text read like a discussion? Quotes please. --TheMadTim 04:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merge) Aside from the disjointed, inconclusive nature of the article, there is very little here that couldn't be included in Sectarianism or Scottish Football (if it's merited within either), and certainly nothing worthy of it's own individual article. Darquis 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article as it stands is worse than useless, and clearly a single user's hobbyhorse currently. But some information about this would be notable. I dont think it should be linked to Scottish Football or sectarianism - too specific. And not to Rangers, Celtic, or Hearts or Hibs for that matter - too general. But I think some information on the historical associations of particular clubs with particular sects/ethnicities is definitely notable. If nothing else, it would have made all the references in Ian Rankin's last but one a bit clearer. So leave it in, and someone will clean it up soon enough. (Also, I seem to remember there was an American Political Science Review article some years ago that dealt with this stuff. So another blow for notability there.)Hornplease 09:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOR: "I personally believe that the fact of having separate schools for Catholics is one of the biggest factor's...". If an editor wants an article under the same title and under the form described by Hornplease, they can recreate one later. It's not likely to get a substantial rewrite in its current form. --BillC 09:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the many citations required can be fulfilled. The opening paragraph (if one can call it that) is also a virtual non-sequiter to the article. I would also suggest that it would be nigh-on impossible to clean-up this article so that it met WP:NPOV Ac@osr 09:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An encyclopedia might well have a good article with this title. This isn't it. -- GWO
Delete for being original research Tuf-Kat 15:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. KarateKid7 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for anyone that needs it: This article is original research because it comes to conclusions that aren't supported by the external links. You've combined a bunch of news reports of sectarian behavior and come to the conclusion that this constitutes a "history of sectarianism in Scottish football", a conclusion unsupported by any of the links, AFAICT. Tuf-Kat 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I haven't concluded anything. I've presented a series of sourced and verified examples of sectarian behavour involving Scottish football. I've not once made reference to any conclusion, as far as I can tell. Maybe you know differently? --TheMadTim 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poor, but it's not OR as it's referenced (please!). It has the potential to be a fascinating article if it's done properly, which hopefully it will, when existing or additional editors get to grips with it. Tyrenius 05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. If I wrote an article entitled, say, The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-traveling Furbies, I could cite a dozen books telling where the Pyramid is and what it is made of. I could provide a score of webpages about Furby anatomy, and I could cite something by Stephen Hawking to show that at least a few physicists think time travel may be possible. It's still original research (crackpot at that), and it's still not an encyclopedia article. Anville 10:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article, while badly-written, has merit. It certainly does not constitute Original Research: unlike The Great Pyramid of Giza was built by time-travelling Furbies, sectarianism in Scottish football is a well-documented and dangerous phenomenon which has damaged many people in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hope that editors (I am not qualified, alas) expand this article to make others aware of the problem. --die Baumfabrik 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alibabs, the original nominator, is a sock puppet of the permabanned Karatekid7. KarateKid7 is also a sockpuppet of permabanned Karatekid7.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 00:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air_Disasters_Picture_Gallery[edit]

only images, and a duplicate of a section of 'Accidents and incidents in aviation' Marminnetje 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Accidents and incidents in aviation and delete per WP:NOT. Joelito 15:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jared Preston 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Images only as a Useful addition to an article. Marminnetje 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this was ever properly listed, relisting for consensus. Night Gyr 01:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merging galleries of loosely related free images go on commons, not here, and most of these are unfree. Night Gyr 01:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a repository of image files. Darquis 02:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT per Darquis.--Jersey Devil 04:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and don't merge. Most of these images are copyrighted. Borisblue 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Commons, Wikipedia is not an image gallery. JIP | Talk 08:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Images not suitable for Commons as most of them are copyrighted. So No Transwiki. --so U m y a S ch 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Don't Transwiki per Soumyasch. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no transwiking per Soumyasch. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gyr --Deville (Talk) 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the images may be used in Accidents and incidents in aviation. -- ReyBrujo 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedia article. gidonb 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete and merge per joelito. These pictures can be found in other places too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facty[edit]

Originally prodded as neologism, dictdef - that was disputed and there's some discussion on the article talk page. It was left as a candidate for Wiktionary but that hasn't happened in a month and I don't think it's suitable anyway.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ginkgo100 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe transwikify - dicdef. Metamagician3000 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neodicdef --Deville (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem a dicdef. -- ReyBrujo 17:28, 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? 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhead[edit]

Delete - Dicdef of term that "has not yet found its way into accepted dictionaries". Does not seem to be a term that people use or have used. Wickethewok 02:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may even be a hoax - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hunter S. Thompson real phrase, nn outside of his usage however. —porg es_(talk) 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not a hoax, then a dicdef --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Porge. -- ReyBrujo 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to three probably a hoax votes: Google it and see, it's not a hoax =) —porg es_(talk) 21:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it hasn't even been in modern dictionaries, why would it be here? or wiktionary? wtf... M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Academy[edit]

Delete - no useful information of any kind. Wickethewok 02:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Keep - per being an actual article now instead of "NORTH STAR ACADEMY LOL!L!!" or whatever it is before. Wickethewok 20:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slightly better (though not good) article is at Northstar Academy, which could be Moved here. Based on the school website, the name is two words. Fan1967 02:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned it up. 62.31.55.223 02:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd vote for a merge between the two above mentioned articles, but I don't se anything on either to make me think that this school is notable enough for it's own entry at this time. Darquis 03:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I live near there. Its well known Tobyk777 06:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If so, please provide some sources that support it's notability, and I'll gladly change my vote. Darquis 08:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no information, questionable notabilityKarlusss 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge We obviously don't need two articles on the same school. -- JJay 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the misspelled entry. I didn't see anything there worth keeping, but you can check the history and see if there's anything there you'd like to add to this one. Fan1967 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well established precedent for schools. --Rob 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything specifically notable about this particular school, though? Darquis 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the category Elementary schools in California has quite a good number of schools. With time, this one can be of as good quality as the others. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Sumahoy 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just notable. gidonb 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (NZ)[edit]

Wikipedia is not TV Guide Darquis 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a list of "upcoming" episodes. Wickethewok 02:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Darquis 02:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the most cleancut obvious deletions I've seen in a while. Night Gyr 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Iorek85 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^above^.--Jersey Devil 05:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight effect[edit]

Delete - Looks like original research/pseudo-science. Wickethewok 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Turn this OR off like a streetlight affected by superduper human EM fields. Night Gyr 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Much as I'm a skeptic about paranormal effects like this, if there were some references I might change my vote. --Ginkgo100 03:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - something this dumb-sounding definitely needs reputable sources if it is going to be kept, and I doubt that any are forthcoming. dbtfz ^talk 03:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote at this time. I saw a reference to this a few years ago, except it was called streetlight interference (SLI). Of course, the reference was in Fortean Times, which is hardly peer reviewed, but it may have been a secondary source. I'll browse through the back issues and see if I can find it. --Joelmills 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Street light interference, and then probably move to Streetlight interference, a more proper title. This site [2] seems to give some evidence of ongoing paranormal research in this area. --Joelmills 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/move per Joelmills. —porg es_(talk) 06:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Joelmills, but I'd like to see at least some sort of verification as well. Darquis 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but here's a Straight Dope article on it: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_047.html Шизомби 02:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say merge as per JoelMills, but there's nothing really here. And it's never a good sign when the article is signed, but signed by two people? --Deville (Talk) 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism/Original research. I'm thinking it has to be a joke, except it didn't seem funny. Peter Grey 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deville. -- ReyBrujo 17:37, 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 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trickery.net[edit]

nn website, alexa ranking of 661,736, only 190 unique Google hits - [3]. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

In addition, the forum has only 2,500 members, as the article mentions. Delete. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons stated above. — TheKMan^talk 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you take this test that the nom cited, and perform it for this somewhat famous company you get 130. So, I think it's safe to say, the test means nothing. --Rob 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You misused the test. Zoe's search said "start=180" but came up with nothing past 129. Your test said "start=130" and came up with 130-140, but there are plenty more. Fan1967 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No so. Try doing Zoe's test, then simply type "Microsoft" over top the text. In both cases the number of "non-similiar" results was well under 200 (provided quotation marks are used). In both cases the actual number of "raw" results was well in excess of the number that Google will allow you to display. The purpose of my point, is that the test fails to reflect the true number of "unique" results. Yes, of course, I know there are more results for Microsoft, then that small number. My point was to show the flaw of the test given by Zoe. No matter how you do the test, Google will never display more then a thousand results. The "non-similiar results" (what Zoe called "unique") is a subset of the first thousand results. For searches with over a thousand "raw" hits, this figure is wortheless. --Rob 22:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Feel free to re-do the test from scratch. Go to Google. Search for "Microsoft" (be sure to include quotes). Now, proceed to the very last page of results. When you get there, you'll see you get the same figure I did. --Rob 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did just as you said and got far more hits than you claim you got. And even if I did, your comments don't address the notability of trickery.net User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many "unique" hits did you get for "Microsoft"? As we know, they likley have over a billion pages in Google. However, the "unique" figure (which is what you're using) is guarenteed to be under one thousand. My point is that this figure grossly under-represents what's actually out there. Also, if my comments don't address notability, then how did your original comments about google do so? --Rob 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN by the Alexa ranking --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subject of this article is of similar notability as this. Currently this article is lacking in some detail, but it is still young and I am sure will be filled out. Internet search engines are not omniscient - despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers, you are not experts on this subject; as such you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time and so a simple google or alexa search using a single keyword is utterly pointless - for example did you google searches find this or this or this or this or this or this? Thats just a few examples from notable international websites, there are lots more outthere. With time this article will be filled out with more detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)

"despite how you may act as typical Wikipedia power-trippers" — please be civil. Attacking others who comment here is not going to raise the chances of this article's survival by a smidgen. "you are obviously not aware that this "entity" has gone under several names in its time" — we cannot just take your word for it. None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part? Kimchi.sg 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the point is missed! "trickery.net" is what this "entity" is called now - it has had previous names in the past (e.g. "BY Games"), this is why just searching in google is a pretty poor way to decide if something is important or not. Maybe, just maybe, if you dont delete the article other users will be able update the article to show its complete history...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)

The article is still editable during this discussion, you can go add in any information that might help save it from deletion. The only thing you can't edit away is the deletion notice at the top of the page — removing that is a blockable offence. Kimchi.sg 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the links you've provided mention trickery.net or what it was renamed from/to... is this some sort of trickery on your part?" http://itvibe.com/news/1025/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.73.94 (talk • contribs)

Based on information right from this very link, bygames and trickery.net are 2 totally unrelated entities. Sure, trickery.net was founded as a direct result of bygames' closure, but since "bygames, the Internet Gaming Service Provider (GSP) has today closed its doors", how can it be currently closed (which implies it is non-functioning) and at the same time be operating as trickery.net? Kimchi.sg 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well one could say "The" Nazi party (think Hitler) is officially no more, yet there are still Nazi groups operating. Anyway go ahead and delete it if you want - if you do I feel that you are undermining the very ethos of wikipedia by deciding about what should be said (or not) about things you know next to nothing about, instead of letting those that do know about it provide the information, but that appears to be "the wikipedia way" these days - its a shame its come to this really.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattd (talk • contribs)

Comment - I think that earns the article an automatic delete per Godwin's Law :) -- Hirudo 17:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB. ergot 16:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kimchi. -- ReyBrujo 17:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately after this discussion is over. --Slgrandson 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would ask regular Wikipedians to hold fire until some of the more notable members of the Wireplay/ByGames/Trickery community have had a chance to update and expand upon the entry, trickery is indeed only a single community but its formation and community history is a tale of the Dot Com era and the rise and fall of notable GSP's, please do not consider the entry upon the merits of trickery.net alone but on the whole tale (yet to be represented) of its formation and history.. Thank you. Burundi.
- The discussion lasts five days. But you're going to need to come up with something besides Since its 2003 launch, trickery.net has grown significantly to aprroximately 2,500 users to let us know what makes this website notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, what's the tag for the anon warning again? just for future ref. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's afdanons. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:31, 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 Obvious keep per nom's withdrawal and other comments.. --Hetar 07:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Manitowoc Company[edit]

Delete - ad placed here by company employee. Prod removed without explanation. Wickethewok 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Change to keep - now presented with actual info, instead of "leading manufacturer of blahblahblah..." i go with keep. Wickethewok 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This company has a long and colorful history in this town. Can someone point me to a resource that I can follow to actually allow me to post an entry without retribution(deletion)? Mikeputnam 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is just a form of Wikipedia clean-up. It isn't meant as retribution. Can you give some evidence the company is notable? Read WP:CORP for guidelines. --Ginkgo100 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this meets WP:CORP. It's a notable manufacturer listed on significant financial indices [4] and news stories are written when they file their quarterly reports: [5]. Side note: A restaurant I worked in had two Manitowoc ice machines. They broke down constantly. I'm sure the other stuff they make is great . . . ScottW 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep 8,000 full-time employees, publicly traded, company more than 150 years old, revenue into the billions... need I go on? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable company (US$3 billion market cap) Outriggr 07:32, 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. DS 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (England)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Darquis 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV guide. - Richardcavell 03:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per my other comments. Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, DELETE THEM ALL!!! --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But I do wonder what Simpsons episodes we're getting next in Wales - they must be different, then. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 19:49, 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 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (Australia)[edit]

This article attempts to provide airtimes and descriptions for The Simpsons episodes airing this week. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes (USA). Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination says it all Darquis 02:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Richardcavell 03:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -As above. Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 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 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Upcoming Episodes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV Guide Darquis 02:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contingent on the four pages linked from here also getting the boot. We don't need a list of pages that are all in violation of WP:NOT Darquis 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a mere list of links to other pages which all violate WP:NOT. --Metropolitan90 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all. Enough said. --Ginkgo100 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all - per all the above. Metamagician3000 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above.Iorek85 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I feel this page is unneccessary for Wikipedia and is clearly a violation of the Upcoming Episode section on the Simpsons Archive. Adv193 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 08:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 23skidoo 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Deville (Talk) 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 17:13, 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 06:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-denial[edit]

since when did Urban Dictionary become part of Wikipedia? nn, neo, etc. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Plus what the nominator wrote. Darquis 02:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a definition of a word which appears in a couple of episodes of one comic strip -- not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Maybe if the term starts being published more widely. --Ginkgo100 03:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — John 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a bit too silly (thank God no one has used the term 'racist' so far in this AfD) - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry — you mentioned the word; you didn't use it. Metamagician3000 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You knew the AfD wasn't going to go through without someone using it, didn't you? Fan1967 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn neologism. MCB 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ioannes Pragensis 06:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Urban dicitionary is meant to be humorous, not factual. Tobyk777 06:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every single one of you has mentioned that wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that continues to be true for Afro-denial. It only explains two versions of what the term refers to. I defy you to say that Wikipedia does not include articles that list definitions of words as a single entry. For instance, a search of the word "entrance" on wikipedia listed 5 different definitions of the word rather than what I expected; a thorough explanation of different types of entrances (this same feat of wikipedia defining words can be repeated with the word "pop". As to the intent of Urban Dictionary, if it is truly meant ot humorous, perhaps Tobyk777 would like to explain why it is included standard under quick searches (along with Wikipedia, Google, and Dictionary.com) in the Mozilla Firefox bookmarks. However, I will promptly change my voting stance should someone formulate a reasonable idea as to why this stub should be deleted. TheMadjester (note: I do realize that as the article's originator I do have a notable amount of bias, however, I still feel none of you have given practical reasons for deletion and are hiding behind the "definition" arguement. Anyone willing to fight this on the category of "racist" be prepared to both be confronted with the actual scientific lack of race and justification of it being non-racist)— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadjester (talk • contribs)

Comment "Something else on Wikipedia does it, therefore, it's ok for this to do so as well" isn't a valid argument for inclusion. Rather, it's an argument to improve those other pages. Further, regardless of the intent of Urban Dictionary (by the by, inclusion in Firefox isn't relevant (not that it seems to be included in the version I'm using)) it's in some form, as the name implies, a dictionary. The article itself is little more than a dicdef, and citing a dictionary as a source for a dictionary style entry isn't appropriate (as I understand it). Further, it's a non notable neologism (as the nominator said). It was used once, in a recent Boondocks. Maybe if the word catches on down the line, it will be worth having. Further, the external link to "Afro-Denial" has nothing to do with the article's sujbect matter, and in fact only has that hyphenated word in common (and at that, only once within the whole article linked to). Darquis 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal As to whether lead by example is or is not valid: If this article is subsequently deleted on the basis that it is the same as others, then I expect those articles to be nominated for deletion as well, on the basis that those articles break the same lines of conformity as Afro-denial allegedly does. Perhaps I haven't read my wikiguides thoroughly enough, but it seems to me that someone citing webster's in an article would probably be accepted, people (specifically, the voters for Deletion) doubt the validity of Urban Dictionary on the basis that their definitions come from the same place our articles do: ourselves. As to whether or not Afro-denial is used enough, I've seen it used in a number of news articles citing it in use as a symbol of African-American attempts to conform to white society pressures (a search of google should make that apparent). The second link and through that, the second explanation of the term, is important not for the number of times that the word "Afro-denial" is used throughout (a shallow way to prove the invalidity of something, I might add), but important because in the Pallo Jordan's speech, he uses Afro-denial as the denial of things African, of African importance. You say Firefox inclusion isn't important, but as a multinational corporation with a very popular usage, it is able to reach a number of people, lending credibility to things it supports (for instance: Wikipedia). To get Deny Afro-Denial is to become Hypocrites in effect, and this you must not do! TheMadjester

Comment You are treating this as if this is a debate on the "validity" or value of the term. It is not. It is about whether it is notable. It does not appear so, as it does not seem to be a commonly used term (I get a total of 159 hits on google), and therefore fails the Wikipedia policy on neologisms. Fan1967 22:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No I am treating this as a debate on the validity of the accusation of whether or not it is notable for wikipedia. I am saying it is. TheMadjester

Comment I think the following lines from the policy are relevant: (1) Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (2) Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. If the word were in widespread use, this would be a different discussion, but it isn't. Fan1967 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, this is a dicdef at best, more like WP:OR at worst --Deville (Talk) 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Phrase used once in The Boondocks. Call me when it's notable --Bachrach44 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability outside minor dictionary term entry hasn't been established. -- ReyBrujo 17:15, 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 delete. DS 20:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VPHybridCAD[edit]

Was deprodded, so here we are. Non-notable product by Softelec, the article for which was already deleted [6]. Delete. BryanG 02:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamadvertisecruffreewebspacewhatwikipediaisnotstopohmygod - Richardcavell 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At one sentence with very little information, this doesn't qualify as a stub, let alone a real article. Darquis 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scan this into the deletion log. Delete, nn software. Kimchi.sg 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Darquis. JIP | Talk 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Outcast Bandicoot, Crystal Bandicoot[edit]

Delete - non-notable fanfic and character from that fanfic. Wickethewok 02:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Darquis 02:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. BryanG 03:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rory096 03:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 03:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the person who created the page tried to remove that afd tag, seriously bad form. [7]--Jersey Devil 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Request ban - User:Crystalbandicoot repeatedly removed AFD notices even after 4 warnings. I believe that warrants a ban. Wickethewok 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I must say, getting banned is a poor argument for getting your article kept... Wickethewok 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Richardcavell 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someday there might be a notable fanfic article... but not today, and not this one. Delete, and shame on the creator for poor behaviour during the AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as run of the mill fan-fic. Kuru ^talk 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "And the progress can be found on the X.Treme island website or Tara Cross's DeviantART account" says it all. ergot 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Army Navy Store[edit]

I do not believe this meets the notability requirements for a company as per WP:CORP and Articles for deletion/Precedents (companies). Though not necessarily relevant, the store's URLs http://www.galaxyarmynavy.com/ and http://www.wholesalearmynavy.com/ have respective Alexa rankings of 506,587 and 1,360,048 (Wikipedia:Search engine test). CopperMurdoch 03:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Richardcavell 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. Metamagician3000 05:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:CORP. Also note that the editor(s) of this article have inserted links to their site in many other pages. This is a clear case of self-promotion. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also believe it is a case of self-promotion, but purposely neglected to mention it. -- CopperMurdoch 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable & per WP:CORP. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army/navy_store , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Merchandise_Outlet%2C_Inc. , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny%27s_Surplus , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_%26_Navy , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich%27s_Department_Stores , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackjack_Pizza ; there is nothing wrong with the fact that our business would like to have a term espeicialy since we are wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers of all these retailers we are listing. See further Note 7, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 -- sambousak

- Comment Just because the Galaxy Army Navy Store is related to other businesses that may be notable does necessarily make it notable. WP:WEB is irrelevant because it deals specifically with web-based content. Note 7 asserts that simply because content is hosted on a well-known site (specifically sites that allow anyone to upload content) does not qualify the content as notable. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with this situation. I and others had suspected this article was a case of self-promotion and now you have said as much. This contrary to section 1.4 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- CopperMurdoch 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on what has been submitted from other sources this is a personal attack against this page specifically, no form of advertisement is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks -- sambousak

- Comment I never said this page was a case of advertisement, I said it was a case of self-promotion. Further, I've already explained why I think the other sources you've cited aren't significant to the discussion. I'm sorry that you feel this is a personal attack, but personal attacks are by definition against a user, not a page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I’m not trying to be rude, but I get the feeling that you are not reading these policies before you refer to them. Referring to policies and citing sources will not affect my view unless they are relevant to the discussion. -- CopperMurdoch 09:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB. Note to sambousak: a personal attack is necessarily against a person. Nobody has made any personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on what has been submitted from other sources this is a personal attack against this page specifically, no form of advertisement is being made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, if you decide to delete the page i would like all the others i have submitted be done the same than no bias actions will be acted upon as being done now -- sambousak

- Comment sambousak, again I'm not trying to start a conflict, but it seems as if you are not reading the comments we've left, nevermind the policies themselves. To quote what Stifle, an admin, left above: "a personal attack is necessarily against a person". -- CopperMurdoch 10:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, there is no personal attack being made here. However, if you wish to nominate other articles for deletion, feel free to do so. See Wikipedia:Deletion process for further information. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 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 00:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPCST[edit]

This article is a list of students who go to a high school. An article about a high school could be acceptable, but this article doesn't even mention what "EPCST" stands for. Needs a complete rewrite and a new title. IceCreamAntisocial 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a webpage that belongs on its on server. - Richardcavell 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a list of students and faculty at a non notable school. Darquis 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a school's class register. Kimchi.sg 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Kimchi.sg. JIP | Talk 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kimchi --Deville (Talk) 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus - about 66% believe that this content should be somewhere, but several of those assertions are weak, and there is no consensus at all whether to keep or merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seaton Hall[edit]

Delete - non-notable campus building. Campuscruft. Wickethewok 03:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -non-notable collage. - Richardcavell 03:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The college itself is not notable. The buildings of it, even less so. Darquis 03:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Merge Kansas State is a non-notable college? What on earth does that means? With 23,182 students enrolled? *scratches head* - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The college itself, no. It's college of architecture? IMO, yeah. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Kansas State University, how can you call KSU non-notable? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe he is referring to KSU's "College of Architecture, etc...". Colleges are contained inside of a university. Wickethewok 03:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Yes, I meant the college of architecture, not the entire college itself. Darquis 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This building is listed and linked on the on KSU's Wiki page just like all the other buildings in the campus. The College of Architecture is contained inside the greater University just like Arts and Sciences and Enginering, etc... Seaton Court (part of Seaton Hall) is also one of the oldest buildings on campus so how can it be a non-notable building? KSU is one of the 2 largest colleges in Kansas, along with KU, so the University would also be notable. User:Googletree
- Response - clearly the university is notable. However, just because something is contained on a different Wiki does not mean it belongs here. Wickethewok 04:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Every major building on campus has its own Wiki page with information and history about the building on it so what is wrong with this building having its own also? User:Googletree

User has 17 edits, all made within the last 24 hours. Kimchi.sg 09:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response Yes, but just because those pages have their own articles here on Wiki isn't a justification for this one to have it's own as well. Each page should be looked at on it's own merits. Darquis 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be plenty of precedent for buildings like this to be considered notable. Metamagician3000 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several other buildings of the Kansas State University have articles. I don't know if there's a precedent for keeping all college buildings, or only the most notable ones (i.e. those on the National Register of Historic Places or those of particular importance to the university). In the absence of any real strong reason to delete it, though, I don't think it's hurting anything. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response A quick Google search of Seaton Hall puts the top 2 results as sites that show pictures or talk about this building and its uses. (discounting the Seton Hall University which is an alternate spelling) User:Googletree 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response That's hardly valid logic. If you google my Wiki user name, I show up 3 times in the top 10 results. My own ego aside, that doesn't make me notable. Darquis 08:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have removed some copyvio from the article. Might want to check the other building articles for same. —porg es_(talk) 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to state how this building is special. ("In 1999 the East wing underwent major renovations... Ebert Mayo Design Group was responsible for the plans. This phase cost $4.1 Million" doesn't really count, since many buildings get upgraded with time.) And lastly, the article seems to focus more on the College of Architecture, Planning, and Design that occupies the building than the building itself. ~~Merge information on College of Architecture, Planning, and Design into main Kansas State University article and then~~ Demolish the article. Me runs off to start article on Nanyang Technological University Hall of Residence 12 hoping it will escape AfD... Kimchi.sg 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: removing merge suggestion, there is nothing on the other colleges in the main KSU article and I don't think there's enough material in this one to warrant an exception. Kimchi.sg 09:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Kimchi.sg (if anything is merged, it will have to be made into a redirect to preserve attribution for the GFDL, though). -- Kjkolb 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative article. -- JJay 11:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The building itself is too narrow a topic for a Wikipedia article, and the article rambles off into a discussion of the College of Architecture which is located there. --Metropolitan90 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Elkman. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90 -- Hirudo 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas State --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to University. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 09:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge, but more towards Keep I've been in it. It's rather large. Larger than Anderson Hall even, and almost the size of Hale Library. By the way, Kansas State University lists plenty of its buildings, and several of them are bluelinked. --Shultz IV 11:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable, dare I say famous, building. -M^ask 15:25, 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 redirected to The Southport School, if any more content is needed in that article, follow the redirect back and look in the history. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Southportonians Association[edit]

nn alumni association. A couple of sentences in the school article are sufficient. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Merge - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. Old Boys Associations are not that notable. --Bduke 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Roisterer 09:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article on this alumni association. -- JJay 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Southport School. David | Talk 11:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per David. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per others --Deville (Talk) 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Let the people who edit the school article determine if this assiociation is notable enough to be mentioned there. -- ReyBrujo 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and severely cut down content - I only created this page as it seemed somebody put some work into it, but it clutters the TSS page. SM247 01:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. --Arnzy (Talk) 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough information for its own article. What is the difference needed in notability to get from all of this information inside a parent article to its own article? The association has significant activities and endeavours and is well established. There seems to currently be a faulty date, 2007 for inception, which needs to be fixed. Ans e ll 11:50, 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 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Osgood Vanderbilt[edit]

nn wife and daughter. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no independent notability. MCB 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - US-centric ('the nation', assuming that the audience knows of only one). Possibly a hoax. - Richardcavell 06:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable only for her relatives, no reason not to mention her there (if necessary) Darquis 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm striving too hard for completion in my own personal project of biographies of the residents of Shelburne, VT. I'll research her life some more, and see if it brings her to notability. Keep for a little while, please. DLaub 12:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Doubtful if any notable enough info will emerge. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 17:02, 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 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharting and Shart[edit]

"Shart" has been deleted 3 times already --awh (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: Both of these articles should be protected from recreation in the event that this is deleted. Pepsidrinka 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Wouldn't this qualify for a speedy? Darquis 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Soft redirect~~ to Wiktionary entry. If it's deleted, it will likely get recreated again and again. dbtfz^talk 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears there is no Wiktionary entry (there should be, I think, but I'm too lazy to create it right now). But that's OK, we should still make it a soft redirect to indicate that Wiktionary is a more appropriate place to search for this term. dbtfz^talk 05:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge to Along Came Polly. That makes the most sense, come to think of it. This article is really about a well-known part of that movie. dbtfz ^talk 06:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete been deleted 8 times at Shart and once at Sharting. This was a fake word used in one movie. It's never caught on. There has been no wiktionary entry because there's no such word. I have placed a CSD tag on the article, only to have it removed ~~w/o explanation~~ see my talk for explanation. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was explained to me by the admin who declined G4 that this version is vastly superior to the previous nine. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that this neologism has never entered common use. My vote is unchanged. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, surely - Richardcavell 06:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- per the other eight speedies, and this one being obviously speediable as well. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost, marked as such. And salt the earth at both shart and sharting. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Along Came Polly. Ewlyahoocom 11:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, and protect pages to prevent further recreation. --Metropolitan90 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the previous versions, I don't think this qualifies as a speedy deletion under G4. However, I agree with CrazyRussian that has never entered common use and thus, should be deleted. Pepsidrinka 16:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. --DV8 2XL 19:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Kimchi.sg 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest[edit]

waste of server resources to list each and every one of these things, unless we're going to make an article every single time a bunch of non-notable people get together in one place--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nom made in violation of WP:POINT.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, your little WP:NPA violation asside, there is no bad faith, i just don't feel that wikipedia should be a soapbox for each and every fringe lunatic on the internet--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also violation of WP:Spam, [8] [9]--Jersey Devil 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such policy, and there's nothing wrong with sending a welcome message to a bunch of people, however, editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you do know that we can see every edit you make don't you? It was a call for people to vote on this afd. It was previously this and you removed it here after I pointed it out.--Jersey Devil 04:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proof of intent there, it was created as a simple welcome template, you really shouldn't assume malice in other people's actions--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A signifigant day of protest, and not a strong enough case made for the deletion of this article. Darquis 04:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Stale. non-notable except among limited number of left wing activists Merecat 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to provide notability, it is listed as the largest anti-war protest in history by Guinness World Records [10]--Jersey Devil 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - good, then I look foward to the article on Bowling Ball Stacking that you're about to go out and start--Chapline R Vine^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the preceding comment by ChaplineRVine was changed from referencing elbow licking to the Bowling Ball Stacking link after it was pointed out that the elbow licking article on the Guiness site was stating that elbow licking is a myth. That edit is somewhat ironic given ChaplineRVine's earlier comment that “editing your comment after someone has already replied to it is considered somewhat unethical”. —GrantNeufeld 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep No reason presented for deletion. Kotepho 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable as it's apparently the largest anti-war protest ever, and also well referenced. Not every anti-war protest would be notable, but I can't think of any good argument saying this one isn't. BryanG 04:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - huge global event with significant media coverage. FreplySpang (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too think this is a violation of WP:POINT, as the stated argument for nomination is so specious. By the way, listing elbow licking, which is stated by Guiness to be a myth, "so stop telling us about it", is really not a very effective way of attacking Guiness' certification that the protest was indeed a world record breaker. You grok? --Fuhghettaboutit 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well written and referenced article about a major event in the anti-war movement. - Iorek85 05:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this event spanned a significant portion of the globe and was the single largest one-day protest (not just anti-war, but any kind of protest) event in human history. Comment: Nominator has (as of 04:55, 30 April 2006, UTC) one edit outside of user space and this AFD, and the user space edits, aside from his own page, appear to all be related to this AFD. —GrantNeufeld 05:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Shouldn't articles that have achieved good article status be immune from AFD nomination? Also, an article that has successfully completed peer review would similarly seem to be inappropriate for AFD nomination since one could presume that if it merited deletion that would have become apparent during the peer review. —GrantNeufeld 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason given to delete, and a good article at that. —porg es_(talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep let me see, how can I accuse the nominator of WP:POINT without violating WP:AGF or WP:NPA, hmm, sorry I can not. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 07:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not only was this a notable event, the article itself looks more like a candidate for GA than a candidate for AfD. Metamagician3000 07:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these protests were unusually large (1 million people in London alone) and on a global scale and hence notable. Vashti 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that there is the spectre of bad faith in this nomination -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter × Hunter story arcs[edit]

the content on this page has been put back into the Hunter x Hunter main article. The main article previously had nothing on the plot, i was going to just write a brief plot summary for the main article. However, the plot summary on this page was brief enough after the redundant character-information bits where removed (hxh now has a separate page for characters). Since all the information on this page is now a part of the hxh main page, this page is redundant. Unless someone decides to write a much more detiled plot summary, i can't see any reason why we need to keep a separate story arcs page for hxh. Yaksha 04:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per nom. Darquis 04:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing to redirect as someone has requested the history for (I assume) legitimate reasons. Darquis 08:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or delete and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect need the history. Kotepho 05:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. The redirect could be categorized as {{R with possibilities}}, since there are precedents (in example, Dragon Ball has one article per every saga in the anime plot). -- ReyBrujo 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:03, 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 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of born-again Christian laypeople/Evidence[edit]

List of born-again Christian laypeople has already been deleted following an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of born-again Christian laypeople). This is just OR argumentation on why the article should be kept. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from WP:NOR , do we really need a page of evidence for a list that was itself a fuzzy, nonsense list? Darquis 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per statements in previous afd. This is possibly speedy-able under {{db-repost}}; excepting the qualifier, by context, appears to be the same previously deleted text.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe. -- Con D e m^Talk 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the parent article is gone, so should this be --Deville (Talk) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be speedy per CSD:G4. -- ReyBrujo 16:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:POINT, and per what I said in the original AfD regarding "laypeople" being a word with several possible definitions (although I had always understood it to just mean anyone other than clergy). ergot 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Air Force aircraft wings[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 300 entries with only 1 working internal link (all the rest are redlinks). Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 04:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a nn list. While we're at it, I'm gonna tag the working internal link, nothing notable there either. Darquis 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was only created 11 days ago. Could we give it a chance to become notable? It could be worthwhile. - Richardcavell 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was created on 2004-09-11 — 2 years and 11 days ago. Kimchi.sg 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proper course of action, as I understand it, should have been to build it in user space so it was up to standard. Of course, this being a list of links, that may never have happened. Perhaps if some of the individual wings had pages that met Wiki standards, some sort of category or list might be in order. Darquis 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft. Kimchi.sg 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 11:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the explicit purposes of lists is to show up redlinks to articles that need creating. Added to which, the list is in and of itself interesting. 88.107.217.217 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely nn. Listcruft. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Start at the Royal Air Force article, if such article becomes too big continue in an explained list, and if such list becomes too big, just then make a separate article per every wing. -- ReyBrujo 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. 249 Wing RAF[edit]

Non notable Darquis 04:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable stub with little likelyhood of being expanded further. -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Darquis 07:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn stub. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Start at the Royal Air Force article, if such article becomes too big continue in an explained list, and if such list becomes too big, just then make a separate article per every wing. -- ReyBrujo 16:42, 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 redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroro Lucifer[edit]

Kuroro Lucifer is a fictional character from Hunter × Hunter, and is associated with the group Generi Ryodan. The content on this page has been put into the Genei Ryodan page, making this page redundant. Yaksha 04:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless someone really feels like doing a history merge. Kotepho 05:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge and Redirect to Hunter × Hunter characters. The list isn't big enough to justify separating a character from the list, and there are just too few Google hits for the character. Although I am willing to change to Keep. -- ReyBrujo 16:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to ~~Delete~~Redirect, as indeed the contents are already in Genei Ryodan. -- ReyBrujo 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:04, 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 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of RAF Regiment wings[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 60 entries, but all are redlinks. Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 04:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination Darquis 08:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, militarylistcruft. Kimchi.sg 08:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Military list. -- JJay 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Start at the Royal Air Force article, if such article becomes too big continue in an explained list, and if such list becomes too big, just then make a separate article per every wing. -- ReyBrujo 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current list; move links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article requests. Once the articles exist, this list would be entirely redundant with the related category, as it only orders the wings alphabetically (well, numerically, but it's the same thing). Kirill Lok s h in 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of RAF Regiment squadrons[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 300 entries with only 1 working internal link (all the rest are redlinks). Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of links. Especially not links to nothing. Darquis 08:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, militarylistcruft. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. A couple of weeks ago I noticed while going through a couple of articles on wartime cricketers that someone had just converted all the mentions of particular squadrons to links. Now it may be the case that someone is getting set for a mammoth attempt at reorganising the RAF section of WP, but I dont really want to snoop around and try and figure that out from footprints right now. But I would suggest waiting on it a bit. Hornplease 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone may be getting ready to work on the RAF, but these pages have been sitting unedited, for the most part, for almost 2 years now. It might help if you could track down signifigant recent changes as relate to this. If you can, by all means, let's keep this page if it will facilitate someone's work (although I suspect they could just as easily have it within their userspace) Darquis 22:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold as per HornpleaseI agree somethings afoot. --DV8 2XL 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with Hornplease, I believe the user should start one step at a time. Most of the articles linked to the main list will be just one or two paragraphs long, which does not (apparently) justify having lists of wikilinks. I suggest starting creating wikilinks to every list in the Royal Air Force article, and then expand them one at a time, creating lists with content and not list of wikilinks. -- ReyBrujo 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not the editor you have been talking about, but I am doing a lot of work on the various Royal Air Force articles. I see no need for these lists - maybe in the distant future if we do eventually have lots of articles on, in this case, RAF Regiment Squadrons, but not now. Sc147 20:43, 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 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Air Force balloon squadrons[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 100 entries, all of which are redlinks). Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Darquis 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, militarylistcruft. Kimchi.sg 08:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft Karlusss 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I really want to give the author the benefit of the doubt, and give them a chance to populate the red links, but effectively this is just a list of the numbers 901-999. Perhaps a Royal Air Force balloon squadrons article would be more appropriate, and someday a list like this could branch off from it. Peter Grey 05:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Start adding wikilinks to the lists in Royal Air Force, and then creating lists with content for every wikilink, but not all the lists at the same time. Also, I believe articles for every squadron would be one or two lines long, which does not really justify having them separated from a main list. -- ReyBrujo 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These Squadrons were formed during the second world war and didn't last long. Maybe an article covering the RAF Balloon Squadrons as a whole might be possible, but I doubt there's enough history behind each Squadron, nor are any that notable. Therefore no need for a list of them. Sc147 20:46, 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 07:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Shaw Elementary School[edit]

Non notable elementary school (it's generally accepted that only high schools are automatically notable; other schools would have to be notable for another reason than just being a school to have articles). Rory096 05:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability. --Ajdz 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Darquis 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article on this school. -- JJay 11:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I live about 6 houses away from this school. I can't think of anything special about it, but this is more information than I knew about it, and I grew up here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to keep the article since it is highly informative, even for locals such as yourself. -- JJay 14:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may be a good article on the school, but it's still not notable. No claim to notability apart from someone getting into a state spelling bee. Con D e m^Talk 13:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general precedent for schools. The nominator's statement is clearly false. The clear precedent for a year is to keep *all* verifiable real K-12 schools, including elementaries. There are few exceptions in the last year. See 2006 AFD results and 2005 AFD results. Typically, the deletes are for copyvios or non-verifiability (such as with some non-accredited schools); *not* "notability", even for elementaries. Deletion of schools is definately not "generally accepted".--Rob 15:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any specific wiki policy or project that says that schools themselves are automatically notable? I cannot dispute this is a well written article, but I fail to see any notability, outside "it's a school" (outside the accomplishments of one student, not nearly enough to establish the school in that manner either). I have difficulty seeing the need to have articles on non-notable subjects, particularly ones that will be of such a large volume (as there are thousands of schools in the United States alone). Darquis 21:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a school need more of an explanation than a tiny township, or anything else, that is accepted as a group. The school is notable, but for similiar reasons, as any other school is. --Rob 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say any of those other things doesn't need an explanation on their notability either. Just because other articles on Wikipedia do it doesn't mean this one can. I don't see "it's a school" addressing any concerns of notability. Darquis 23:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after you try and delete a municipality (which you *never* will), we can discuss this further. --Rob 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other arguments not meeting standards isn't an argument for this to not meet standards. Darquis 01:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of information on the school, and as per above re: notability. Karlusss 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please nomination is false and this is a important school Yuckfoo 17:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per precedent for schools. Also, the article is very good and verifiable. Carioca 21:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notable as the average elementary school (i.e., nn). Carlossuarez46 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the existing precedent to keep schools and the above regarding notability. Yamaguchi先生 18:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with having this. Sumahoy 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a town in Oregon with a total population of 3 gets an article and is notable.... this certainly is. ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another round of this long school debate. (Cheer up, it was worse before). Although an article on every school would just about double the number of articles we have, and creating such articles is not a priority for me, the precedent on elementary schools is to keep them if the article is reasonable, with the option of merging if it's a stub. Deleted school articles are usually due to utter lack of content (e.g. "A very nice school"), being an attack page, or unverifiable. For some reason, even articles which consist of nothing more than the address and telephone number are being kept. With that clear precedent in mind here, I see no reason to be inconsistent with this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:51, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Air Force operational training units[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 110 entries, with only 1 working internal link (all of the rest are redlinks). Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Give it a chance to improve. - Richardcavell 06:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's had two years; that seems like an adequate chance. ergot 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The right course here would be to build up articles for individual items on the list before even trying the list (I'm not sure if it would ever be appropriate) Darquis
Delete, expansion should start at Royal Air Force before splitting into extensive lists. Kimchi.sg 08:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 11:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were articles on many of the units, then keep, but I don't think there ever will be. Maybe if they appear, then create the list again, but until then... -- Con D e m^Talk 13:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kimchi. Start at the Royal Air Force article and if the normal contributors to that article don't delete that, once it grows enough it can be converted into a list with contents included in the list, but only create individual articles once such list grows extremely big. -- ReyBrujo 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Kimchi, ConDem, and ReyBrujo. No improvement after two years, it probably isn't going anywhere interesting. ergot 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It should not be deleted but moved to Royal Air Force Operational Training Units, content added and the list included, with wikilinks removed till content is created for them. I just found the article while expanding the details on RAF Hibaldstow in Hibaldstow. I am no expert but I am willing to elevate it to a worthy stub if article is moved and kept. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. With no internal or external links, there's really no content in the article. -- Kicking222 15:33, 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 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Pantechnicon[edit]

Non notable alter-ego. Just 262 Google hits. Rory0 96_(block) 20:59, 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!
Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Russel Thompson (the person who this is the alter ego of) is not notable; this alter ego is even less so. Darquis 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darquis M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:23, 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. -Doc ^ask? 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Air Force operational conversion units[edit]

Non-notable list; aprox 15 entries, with all of the being redlinks. Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up Explanations and expansions would help here, it must be of some notability with its relation to the RAF... doktorb | words 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository of links to articles that don't exist. Darquis 08:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment No, but Wiki could be really helped if red links become blue by articles being created...doktorb | words 10:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they're good, verified articles on notable subjects, I agree. The list doesn't have to exist for that to happen though. Darquis 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into deleted article. Kimchi.sg 08:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, start at Royal Air Force to see if the common contributors to that article think this is worth. -- ReyBrujo 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm doing a lot of work on the Royal Air Force and associated articles, and I can't see us ever having articles on each of these conversion units, none of which even exist any more anyway. Sc147 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should make a superset of these lists, called List of Lists of RAF-related stuff. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celestius Records[edit]

This record company has no google hits except wikipeida entries and does not seem notable. Andy wall101 05:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, only one artist (who has no notability). Darquis 08:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely hoax. (See where the external link goes to.) Kimchi.sg 08:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Con D e m^Talk 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. 57 OTU RAF[edit]

Non-notable; may be incompatible with copyright license in use here at Wikipedia (see last line). Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ∉} 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per pretty much every similar article brought to AfD today. Darquis 08:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, militarycruft. Kimchi.sg 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, start the article again at Royal Air Force. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 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 08:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Marshal (Star Wars)[edit]

I'm not big on deleting articles, but I see no merit in having one that's purely speculation about a possible military rank in a fictional universe. If the rank were actually used in Star Wars (either the movies themselves, or an Expanded Universe source), it would merit mentioning (though probably not as a separate article). But that's not the case, as far as I can tell. Contrary to what the article claims, I'm unaware of this alleged rank ever coming up in a Star Wars novel or comic book, and I've read quite a lot of them. Redxiv 06:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of any evidence. —porg es_(talk) 06:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't seem notable even within the Star Wars universe, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Darquis 07:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not very notable if it's only speculated. JIP | Talk 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculation. Kimchi.sg 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its all speculation (WP:NOR). Anyway, it has not appeared in any of the novels (as far as I know), and if it has, it has been so minor a mention that it slips completely under the radar, and has no consequence on the fictional universe other than maybe existing (WP:CRUFT). -- Saberwyn 10:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also up for deletion as fictional speculation over on Wookieepedia. Trivial enough to be deleted here as well, even if it were a valid part of Star Wars canon, under Wikipedia rules. Silly Dan 12:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless a source suddenly appears (which seems unlikely), it's pure speculation, and even then it's probably too minor for its own article. BryanG 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mango juice^talk 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Deville (Talk) 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we can't have an article per every hypothetical Star Wars concept. -- ReyBrujo 16:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE somewhere... probably Star Wars ranks 132.205.45.110 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan. No solid evidence for existence. -LtNOWIS 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if no evidence is found soon M1ss1ontomars2k4 02:13, 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 both articles. Mailer Diablo 08:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Betfair and MarketFeeder Pro[edit]

Adverts for non-notable software. Auto-Betfair was only launched in April 2006. -- RHaworth 06:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, vanity, spam, ad, not free web space, etc, etc - Richardcavell 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 08:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as above. --kingboyk 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per others --Deville (Talk) 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my father actually gambles on Betfair, go figure) Will (^E_@) T 10:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell. -- ReyBrujo 16:27, 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 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar-Swaminathan Hypothesis[edit]

this article is nonsense, and does not describe a real hypothesis. EsonLinji 07:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 07:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad-joke-ise - it's actually quite amusing. Metamagician3000 07:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Universal Law of Bad Breath? I'm not sure if this should go to Bad Jokes or be deleted, but it's quite obvious it shouldn't remain as an article as such. Darquis 08:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy BJAODN, this is funny, but the longer it remains undeleted the more bad breath it generates. Kimchi.sg 08:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. — TheKMan^talk 20:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BALLS, but BJAODN if people are laughing --Deville (Talk) 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:30, 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 08:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Games[edit]

delete. this is not a good topic for a wikipedia page Jorge1000xl 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Stupid —porg es_(talk) 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. We have categories for many different types of games, there is no need for this wholly unencyclopedic article. --Hetar 07:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Porge and Hetar. Darquis 07:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or BJAODN. - Richardcavell 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Hetar. JIP | Talk 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page just lost the deletion game. Kimchi.sg 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hetar. -- Con D e m^Talk 13:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this wasn't unencyclopaedic, it's POV by definition. Karlusss 17:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hetar. -- ReyBrujo 16:29, 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 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-Wog Suburbs[edit]

Article based on admittedly 'unofficial', and indeed racist, slang term for three suburbs which already have their own articles. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd like to see evidence that this term is in common usage before using it. - Richardcavell 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an article. --Bduke 08:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Richarcavell. --so U m y a S ch 08:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per User:Richardcavell --A Y Arktos\^talk 08:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination Darquis 08:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Roisterer 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, smacks of deliberate offensiveness. Kimchi.sg 09:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Richarcavell--blue520 10:03, 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 no consensus. Merge tag not added, as there is no FBC, Hammond article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preying from the Pulpit[edit]

Delete. This is a non-notable subject. It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time Vivaldi (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the FBC, Hammond article. It has little wider relevance outside of FBC and its people. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. - Richardcavell 08:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Calling this a "mini series" seems to be a bit pretentious as it looks to be an investigative report from a local news station aired 13 years ago. I get 26 googles for the report, some of which are not relevant [11]. If this had greater impact - released on video, converted into a book, etc. - then maybe there would be something worth salvaging. As it stands, though, it is not a valid topic for an article, unless we want articles on individual stories from 60 Minutes, A Current Affair and the Insider. -- JJay 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JzG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarriorScribe (talk • contribs) .
Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one argument to keep is that this investigative news series is relevant to 3 articles, Hyles-Anderson College, Jack Hyles and First Baptist Church of Hammond, so it would have to be merged in 3 places. However, I get the feeling that this article was created to try and counter certain editors who have been wikilawyering that since the story only seems to exist as a series of mp3 files on a private web site, that it is not a reliable source for those articles. My general feeling is to delete, and reference the broadcasts in the footnotes to those articles where it is relevant. Thatcher131 15:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- ReyBrujo 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am an Evangelical believer, and when someone disgraces the Church in this way I think that there is no point in brushing it under the carpet. Christ will bring the truth on these matters to light anyway. If we are going to close ranks with paedophiles in our midst and not root them out, then we will deserve to come in for the same censure as the Catholics have. Uncle Davey (Talk) 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Report covers 7 different locations in the US and talks about issues that made national press. Arbusto 00:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This report was mentioned in various papers across the country.
"Preacher has links to molest suspects." The San Diego Union San Diego, Calif.: May 17, 1993. p. A.7
"Springs drive-by baptisms immersed in controversy." Bruce Finley, Denver Post Staff Writer. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 1993. pg. 7.C
"7 accused of abuse linked to preacher." The Grand Rapids Press. Grand Rapids, Mich.: May 17, 1993. pg. B.2
"Lehmann, Daniel J. "Pastor Linked to Sex Abuse Lashes Out," Chicago Sun-Times, June 2, 1993. pg. 5"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CSD A7. kingboyk 09:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Azor[edit]

not notable Darquis 08:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, nn-bio and most likely hoax. (See external link in Celestius Records article which is also on AfD) Kimchi.sg 08:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, likely vanity. - Richardcavell 08:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to List_of_YuYu_Hakusho_episodes. Nothing currently in the article is worth incorporating. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jin, the Wind Master (YuYu Hakusho episode)[edit]

Prodded as impossibly complicated article name and deprodded by Kappa; impossibly complicated article names are not grounds for content deletion. The material being covered at another page, namely the synoptic compendium at List_of_YuYu_Hakusho_episodes, is. Eusebeus 15:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Already covered at List_of_YuYu_Hakusho_episodes.--Isotope23 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List_of_YuYu_Hakusho_episodes Darquis 09:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Darquis. Kimchi.sg 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the list has one sentence. This has a few. Kotepho 09:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge minor content, hardly a bad faith nomination. Kuru ^talk 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Darquis. ^BigE1977 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 19:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wretched "article". If anyone can make sense of its content, merge and redirect; if not, delete. -- Hoary 05:21, 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 keep. DS 19:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicu Paleru[edit]

Doesn't seem that notable, 21,800 Ghits, but 0 Gnews hits. Rory0 96_(block) 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paleru is mentioned in the manele article; seems like a fairly big player Wh e re ^(talk) 18:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Mailer Diablo 15:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he meets WP:MUSIC as article isn't WP:V sourced in any way. I could be persuaded to go keep if someone can source this though.--Isotope23 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Err ... this fellow plays in a Romanian style unknown out of Eastern Europe and he still gets nearly 500 unique G-hits? That's impressive. RGTraynor 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed... and I'd even give him a bit of a pass on WP:MUSIC if someone will source this with even a couple external links...--Isotope23 18:24, 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!
kingboyk 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough to me, 20,900 Ghits. [12] Needs expansion from our Romanian friends though, top hits in Google are almost all in Romanian. Kimchi.sg 09:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable enough. Metamagician3000 09:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's 177 Ghits, mostly for him but maybe that's notable within his niche. No vote. Dlyons493 Talk 10:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, lots of traffic selling his music in DVD, CD, and MP3, but not much else. Could not locate a single english reference, but would wait for someone to translate the other material. Kuru ^talk 15:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to X-Fusion. --bainer (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noisuf-x[edit]

Also consider Noisuf-X

There is already an article under the name Noisuf-X (capital X) Shandris 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, a bit tangled. The same article has been in both places at various points...
The name is written NOISUF-X (all caps) on the official site, so I propose moving Noisuf-X to NOISUF-X, and redirecting Noisuf-x accordingly. — Haeleth Talk 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm adding Noisuf-X to this nomination. Regardless of how you spell it, they don't meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with X-Fusion, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. But the AFD tag was removed from Noisuf-X, and Noisuf-x is completely messed up (but it was basically the same as Noisuf-X). TimBentley (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with X-Fusion and then redirect Noisuf-X to that. Delete Noisuf-x outright. Darquis 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redir both to X-Fusion. Kimchi.sg 09:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with X-Fusion, the bands are not that different from each other. True spelling is Noisuf-X whatsoever Shandris 14:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- ReyBrujo 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Unicorn Enterprise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn Enterprise System[edit]

Endorsement of a single company Skysmith 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn software [13] or possibly merge with Unicorn Enterprise. Fe e zo (Talk) 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Unicorn Enterprise. TimBentley (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
kingboyk 08:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unicorn Enterprise Darquis 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir to Unicorn Enterprise. Kimchi.sg 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. -- ReyBrujo 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Reads like a product sheet. Lists only "Benefits" (violates NPOV). Advertising. -- Robocoder 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Tamiya[edit]

Stub about somebody who has done some translating. Edward 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Darquis 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article translates into "non-notable". Delete. Kimchi.sg 09:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn - Richardcavell 09:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn. Metamagician3000 09:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly fails WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Scotland[edit]

An online discussion forum with 247 members, and no other indication that it remotely meets the criteria of WP:WEB. Middenface 09:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--blue520 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no alexa rank either. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 10:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adspamlinkwpcolonnot etc etc - Richardcavell 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has also been linkspammed onto the Acts of Union 1707 page, among others Cynical 12:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mendor 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator has not made case for deletion sufficiently.--TheMadTim 16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No? He said it doesn't meet the criteria for what it is. If you can show otherwise, that's fine, but that's plenty of reason to delete. Darquis 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Darquis 22:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. — TheKMan^talk 23:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eivind --Deville (Talk) 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, CSD-G4. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell[edit]

Non-notable one-off TV show. Previously AfD'd and deleted - no new content in new article. Robin Johnson 10:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re-creating a deleted article is a no-no as it is. Doing so for such a non-notable show is a Wiki sin beyond all reason. Offski doktorb | words 10:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost of deleted material. Kimchi.sg 10:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:CSD G4 if possible. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Kimchi. Grutness...wha? 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Richardcavell 11:29, 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. (THis is a difficult call. Metamagician3000 argues that an AfD should not be overturned even if a 'wrong' result. Whilst that is an interesting proposal, it is not policy - and I'd view it is a far too fixed notion of process. Content considerations are always greater than procedural niceties. Further, the fist afd was not exactly exhausive in its consideration. When that argument is rejected, I see only one vote that disputes the deletion nomination, so I call a consensus to delete. -Doc ^ask? 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia (pseudonym)[edit]

Second nomination for deletion. Was previously AFD'd and voted for keeping. While the verifiability of her existence is not in question, the notability of such a person is. The article makes the claim that "Felicia" was indirectly responsible for then-Marvel publisher Bill Jemas' removal. That in itself is not verifiable, and without it, "Felicia" loses all notability. She was not a journalistic source. She was an informant for Rich Johnston, who claims for himself the label of rumour-monger, who warns his readers never to take his column at face value, meaning the information he publishes is not reliable (even when it turns out to be true). "Felicia"'s impact in the practices of Marvel Comics was negligible at best. I consider this article to be nothing more than a piece of fancruft. Delete. --Pc13 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing has changed to justify overturning the previous AfD outcome even if it was "wrong" in some sense. I think that if an AfD leads to an article being kept that should normally be the end of it, unless some new evidence is available or something has actually changed. Metamagician3000 11:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way the previous nomination was handled, I'm surprised with the result. Basically, the deletion proposal was "Let's delete this", and the argument against was "Let's not", without anyone failing to explain why Felicia should be kept or not. --Pc13 11:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --blue520 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was initially going to suggest a merge into the Marvel company article, but this is such a tiny blip on the radar of the company's half-century of history that such a merge would be ridiculous. At best, this would warrant maybe a line or two in Rich Johnston article, but even that's a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Metamagician3000 EnsRedShirt 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Metamagician3000 ^BigE1977 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convinced "Felicia" is non notable. Darquis 22:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pc13. This is simply an anonymous gossip columnist in a niche press, and of not even journalistic let alone encyclopedic weight. -- Tenebrae 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tenebrae. -- ReyBrujo 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most merge to Rich Johnston. Not independently notable. -Sean Curtin 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Silber[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. kingboyk 10:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn child activist. 159 Ghits. [14] Kimchi.sg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV and ad. Pol098 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. --BillC 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV of a nn psychologist. Noon 20:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^BigE1977 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the history of the page "Silber writes for INA. Under Wiki guidelines she is "Notable" Published editors who have written to an audience of 5,000 or more." Darquis 22:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the previous comment automatically include virtually all journalists, published scientists, and anybody who has had a letter published in a newspaper? I must write up my CV for Wikipedia. Pol098 00:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think so. From the page on notability "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" I think that means that journalists and letters to the editor are out. I was just bringint that up since people might not have been aware. I'm not gonna vote for this one. Darquis 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, advertisement. -DejahThoris 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability at all --Deville (Talk) 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at all. IZAK 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deville. -- ReyBrujo 16:17, 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. No Guru 15:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nibulator[edit]

Vanity Greg321 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD G1 nonsense. or at very least move back to user space where it came from.--blue520 12:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Blue520 -- Con D e m^Talk 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Speedy delete this vanity and nonsense "article" please, or, like Condem says, move it to a user page :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Please do not userfy vanity. WP is not a free photo album service. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers notable for their race[edit]

This is completely subjective. Who's to say you need X sources mentioning your race and then you're notable for it? It's a completely unworkable and unhelpful article. We should create a new article, Race in hip hop, that goes in depth and discusses the issues, rather than a permenantly misinformative article that claims to be objective fact, supplying a bulleted list of whos notable. By the way, it used to be called List of white rappers, but it was agreed that not every white rapper is notable by default. In sweden or the netherlands, for example, being a white rapper is the norm for hip hop. Basically, the title "list of white rappers" would be biased towards a view of conflict over racial identity in the american hip hop scene, and last time I checked we're a world encyclopedia. Urthogie 12:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um I think it should be noted this was called "list of white rappers" until Urthogie moved it to its current title. I can't really understand why one would move an article to a different title and then nominate for deletion based on a criticism of that title. Anyway this information should be kept in some form, readers should be able to find people like Eminem, the Beastie Boys and Vanilla Ice listed in one place. Kappa 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, I moved the page because it no longer held the same meaning. We agreed that it wouldn't just include every notable white rapper. So why would we call it something it wasn't? Hence the move.--Urthogie 15:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race is stupid, self-identification is subjective, skin color is not binary, black people don't *own* rap, this list is racist AND listcrufty. No, Kappa, this information should NOT be kept in some form. It should be thrown outta here faster than a speeding bullet. Emphatic Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good list should be kept in some form per Kappa, probably under previous name. Nom prodded this twice, renamed, nominated on AFD, and is now arguing for creation of a new article. That indicates to me that mor ethought is required before deletion. -- JJay 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the list clearly explained rules for inclusion, and had cites to back each name up, I might have considered a keep. Currently, it's just a list of rappers who's skin color is white. That narrow fact, while verifiable, is also trivial. Showing somebody is notable specifically for their race seems much harder to prove, and the list makes no attempt to do that. --Rob 20:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to list of white rappers since "notable for their race" is POV (they are notable for nothing but their race?), and take out that POV header mentioning the "black hip hop scene". It's a notable topic and worthy of inclusion, but the article needs to be written/named better than it currently is. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How does being white mean anything if you're a rapper from the netherlands? Isn't that title POV then?--Urthogie 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to delete per CrazyRussian. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it odd that the person who changed the article's name is now finding fault with the name they chose. Darquis 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic delete as per CrazyRussian --Deville (Talk) 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in both this incarnation and the list of white rappers one. -- Hirudo 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another emphatic delete per CrazyRussian, regardless of the nominator's possible missteps. Grand master ka 05:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Crazy Russian. Kuzaar 15:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CrazyRussian. -- ReyBrujo 16:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Delete per CrazyRussian. Oppose recreation at List of white rappers (and, for that matter, List of Caucasian rappers, etc.). ergot 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per CrazyRussian. San Saba 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per common freaking sense. 204.69.40.7 11:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Eusebeus 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for listcruft. What's next? List of rappers notable for their age/religion/sexual orientation? -- Robocoder 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Bruce Powell IV[edit]

NN, Fails Google Test. POV -- Ichabod 12:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Kid says he had some dreams. That's it. No evidence of any media attention, no sources, no notability, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, kids' projects and dreams are certainly nice but don't have their place on wikipedia... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Starblind. -- Con D e m^Talk 13:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverified. Bucketsofg✐ 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, or delete due to severe problems with verifiability. --Metropolitan90 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Starblind as well. -- ReyBrujo 16:03, 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? 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEARsports.com[edit]

NN, Vanity. Advertisement. Article appears to have been created by the founder of the company. -- Ichabod 12:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEARtobeingdeletedarticle.com... Alexa rank is 2,397,799. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it looks like a blatant advertisement... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, and entire history is by User:Dgrim85, who is clearly the wembaster, David Grim, so vanity. Con D e m^Talk 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an entry on Wikipedia for ANY other company on the planet, then you have to allow this one to stay.

What is the difference between these and the entry for this company?? --Dgrim85 14:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything wrong with this article. 15:40, 30 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.19.28.218 (talk • contribs)
- Since you asked, ESPN has an Alexa rank of 23, Yahoo has an Alexa rank of... 1. The Alexa rank of NEARsports is 2.4 million, meaning Yahoo is approximately 2.4 million times more popular than NEARsports. That makes it a little silly to compare the two directly. Since I answered your question, perhaps you could answer a question of mine: I'd like to know where in Wikipedia policy it says that "If you have an entry on Wikipedia for ANY other company on the planet, then you have to allow this one to stay." That's a new one to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have read the policy as well. I can find no regulations or guidelines that this entry violates. All of the information provided on the entry are provable facts. You can't have something deleted just because you don't like it. --Dgrim85 15:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Alexa rank for the NEARsports Forums is 8524. --Dgrim85 16:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that's the Alexa rank for Forumforfree.com, which hosts your forums, but unless NEARsports is the only forum they host, that's not relevant to this particular article. --Metropolitan90 16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP without prejudice if the company later becomes notable. If this is a really important web site, then an independent source will come along later and write an article about it. --Metropolitan90 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the state of Arkansas, our company is quite "notable". It more than meets criteria #1 in the "Criteria for companies and corporations". You guys are making my case for me!--Dgrim85 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:VAIN, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. No notability established for website, company or webmaster. Fan1967 17:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notabilitiy is established right in the entry and can be proven from many different sources. Meets ALL THREE criteria of WP:WEB. You folks really are reaching!--Dgrim85 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing in the article appears to document any of the three. Can you be more specific about how you believe you meet these criteria? Where are the multiple non-trivial published works from an independent source? Where is the well known and independent award? Where is the content distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators?? Fan1967 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The awards are prominently displayed on the website. Criteria's #1 & #3 are met by the fact that our articles have been purchased by and published in all of the newspapers and websites listed on the entry.--Dgrim85 18:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You and I must have different definitions of "prominently". What I see on your site is a sea of ads. Where are these awards? When you say "our articles" do you mean articles that you wrote, or content from the website? Can you document specific examples? Simply saying your content has been picked up is not sufficient. It must be verifiable. Fan1967 18:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The awards are located on the main page of the site, directly below the link to the football photos. 95% of ALL stories published on NEARsports.com have been picked up by every newspaper and website on that list in the entry. It can be verified if you search the archives of their websites, or go to a library in their repective towns and look them up on microfilm.--Dgrim85 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be under the impression that it is the responsibility of others to verify your claims. You are mistaken. As for the "Golden Web Awards" those are given out by the thousands. Fan1967 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps they are, but the American Association of Webmasters Award is not. Why have "guidelines" if you aren't going to adhere to them?? The bottom line is, the entry we submitted qualifies to be on Wikipedia according to its own guidelines. I can't be blamed if that fact hurts the feelings of some of the people here. I would now greatly appreciate it if someone from Wikipedia would remove this deletion box from our entry.--Dgrim85 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The deletion review process runs about a week. Fan1967 19:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website per nom, WP:SPAM. It's not "your" entry, Dgrim85, it's Wikipedia's. You seem to think you have some guaranteed right to an article here. If kept, needs some improvement. I would take out the vanity "About the Webmaster" section, which is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article on the site, and then what's left? Not much. · rodii · 21:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Fixed your "About the webmaster" gripe. No more excuses.--Dgrim85 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no longer a question of "if" it is kept. I have proven that it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. It must be kept. If it is deleted, that would be, by definition, a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, committed by Wikipedia itself. I will then resubmit the article.--Dgrim85 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. There is absolutely no question as to whether it will be kept. Fan1967 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh. · rodii · 00:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Results of High school sporting events in general are not sufficiently notable enough for inclusion of wikipedia let alone an article about a company that publishes them. ^BigE1977 21:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are there any radio stations or newpapers with articles on this site at all? You guys are just digging a hole. Keep it up!--Dgrim85 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This article was copied over toNEARsports, with Nearsports and Nearsports.com as redirects to that page.-Whomp 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And while we're at it, let's kill the redirects too. Darquis 22:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, let's take the WP:WEB criteria one by one

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."
- This refers to multiple non-trivial publications about the content. That is, articles about NEARsports, not articles that NEARsports has contributed to publications.
"The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
- Your strongest argument seems to be he AWWM award, so... from the AAWM site: "The website submitted to us must have a nice clean design and at least 10 pages of quality information (excluding award pages, contact pages, feedback forms and guestbook's). The site must not have any visible error messages. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of applicants win an award from our program." Not exactly a competitve award. 10 pages of quality info and no visible error messages is a pretty low bar, one that most weblogs in the world could meet, and, without meaning to be insulting, if your site is an example of their idea of good clean design, it doesn't inspire confidence in the award.
"The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."
- Hmm. Well-known is hard to judge definitively, of course, but the Alexa argument is very much not in your favor; as for "independent of the creators," however, there is a claim (not documented) that the content is distributed by a few newspapers. I'm not sure how to interpret this bit, to be honest.

"The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section."

I just don't see such proof in the article. Conclusion: your argument that you have "proven" anything is weak, and your hectoring tone is unlikely to win you any friends here. What you seem not to understand is that no one here is "against" you or your site, and no one wishes you or it ill; it's just that your site is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia. · rodii · 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent arguments of · rodii · -- Hirudo 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, spam --Deville (Talk) 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and ads. *drew 05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rodii. -- ReyBrujo 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Shohatovitz[edit]

Delete as non-notable individual BillC 13:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete alternative-medicine practitioner with 2 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy, as I get only a handful of Google hits on this guy. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nah, not speedy, assertion made. What does she do with the colon?? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should make an appointment with one of her colleagues to find out, Crazy. ;-). Bucketsofg✐ 15:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch!! I was just lobbied to change my vote by the sockpuppety IDF-Barak. Unfortunately for him, it only reinforces my delete gland. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one. If not for WP:AGF, I would think the doctor's article was created in order to enhance the position of a determined marketing company. -- ReyBrujo 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (for now). The article mentions that she is health editor for the Israeli News Agency. If this can be confirmed, it might constitute notability. (A rewrite would be in order.) Delete per above (Israeli News Agency seems pretty light weight) Bucketsofg✐ 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Supposedly, the INA has an audience that meets the notability threshold, but I haven't verified this one way or the other. Darquis 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this is one of several bios created by a group of people with ties to a PR firm. The INA has a low Alexa ranking, and the man who runs it is a self-confessed search engine optimizer. Its high number of Google hits may not be indicative of a large amount of readers, but of an SEO who knows his stuff. -DejahThoris 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lenahan --Deville (Talk) 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO. -- ReyBrujo 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This health care professional is well known and respected in Israel. If she does work for the Israel News Agency, then she has a reach of well over 5,000 people (www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.israelnewsagency.com according to Alexa the INA reaches up to 60 million readers) and has written for Israeli magazines including "Menta," and "Derech Haosher," which have reader circulations beyond 70,000 in Israel.

which qualifies her as a notable. Idf-barak 13:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The account of User:Idf-barak was created today; his/her contributions suggest the account was created to lobby for keeping this article. Alexa ranks this site 191,000th. Probably not high enough to justify the article on it; surely not enough to justify an article on one of its contributors. Bucketsofg✐ 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We are checking her notability, not the INA's. She is an editor in the INA, but nothing more. According to WP:BIO, she can be included in three definitions:

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more (Failed, the article does not states she has written books, nor that those books have such circulation. An internet site is not acknowledged as book, otherwise anyone working in an internet site can be inserted into Wikipedia.)
Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field (Failed, unless you can probe her work is widely recognized and it will become everlasting)
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events (Failed, no notorious event in her life except becoming a health care professional, travelling to US, and working for the INA).

Please, show me why you think this individual is noteworthy. -- ReyBrujo 15:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I live in Israel and never heard of her. With 2 Google hits - clearly NN. Noon 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this enema provider doesn't seem to be notable enough in Israel to get a Hebrew Wikipedia entry; one would think that would be kind of a threshold thing for an Israeli. This is another piece of SEO from Israelbeach or his clones. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just read a story of hers on Google News. Those news articles reach millions of readers + Google news alerts. That is notable enough. Do not understand reason for personal attacks here by User talk:Jpgordon Potterseesall 14:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's second edit; first was to add a link to Israelbeach's website. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. confirmed that the story is on google news and she writes for Israeli periodacls with audience of 70,000+ , she meets requirments of notability. Olmert 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 8th edit. User registered 38 minutes earlier. --BillC 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. May be a copyvio. Bio is lifted verbatim from the end of this www.israelnewsagency.com/micheleshohatovitzcolonisraelraananaclinic580504.html article -- which is the only one news.google.com/news?q=Shohatovitz Google News turned up, and it isn't "news". -- Robocoder 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a copyright vio as if one takes the time to read the conditions of use of the Israel News Agency, one would realize that all material can be used under "Fair Use." As far as it not being news, it is a feature news story reaching millions of readers on Google News. Please do your research before posting. Thanks, Potterseesall 10:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is interesting that the news was published on May 4, after this article was nominated for deletion. -- ReyBrujo 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said may be because I attempted to contact the INA (rather than debate Fair Use here) but email to their yahoo address bounced. And for the record, Shohatovitz's article is not news about a current event ... it is an editorial / op-ed piece about colon hydrotherapy for which she has not citations as a notable expert in the field, as either a practitioner or researcher. -- Robocoder 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Wiki policy regarding authors transcending 5,000 readers. Bonnieisrael 18:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still waiting to get a reference about that statement. Google News was uploaded after this AFD process was started, and is basically a copy/paste of the advertisment found in this article. -- ReyBrujo 18:57, 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. -Doc ^ask? 15:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pspsmm[edit]

WP:WEB Will (^E_@) T 13:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a NN website, please. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Con D e m^Talk 14:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 15:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count 38 unique Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, fancruft. --^demon 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user - Please delete, cou;d be considered Vanity [[15]]. Website is too small to be considered a topic on Wikipedia

Delete per WP:WEB --Deville (Talk) 03:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article follows all guidelines. --wilhel1812 (Talk) 12:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. 1) Please use normal methods of AfD, which is keep or delete. 2) If you say it meets all guidlines, please tell us how it meets WP:WEB. --^demon 10:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cant c what rule it brakes. and this article is small, and "listy" right now, but we're still making it, and it will get more useful soon. --wilhel1812 (Talk) 12:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Alexa ranking, few Google hits, fails to meet WP:WEB. -- ReyBrujo 15:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The alexa ranking is on its way, and it has been for a month. --wilhel1812 (Talk) 19.00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment you don't get to vote three times. Please vote only once. ergot 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment sorry, i'm still not 100% familuar whit wikipedia, but i'm learning. tnx
And Delete. Fails WP:WEB. ergot 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." the coding team has produced multiple games and applications. PSPFlash cards, smm leveleditor, froggergame + alot of smm mods, and some other games. Many other games in on its way.wilhel1812 15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you understand that criteria. It means that the content of the site has been reported by some outside (reputable) media source, be it another web site, a magazine, etc. --^demon 13:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe i dont, but the first link was from another site, and all our games has been mentioned @ other sites. wilhel1812 18:17, 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 delete. DS 15:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searchcoolweb[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. Part of a walled garden.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant ad, please. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple adcopy by interested party. User has a histroy of self-promotion. Kuru ^talk 14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Searchwebme[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. Part of a walled garden.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The page, apart from deletion notices, entirely edited by User:Chris phillips 9. Christopher phillips is CEO of Crawll. -- Con D e m^Talk 13:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant ad created by a single user. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple adcopy. No alexa, no real references. Kuru ^talk 14:47, 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. DS 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crawll[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable company. Part of a walled garden.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. — Estarriol ^talk 13:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant ad for a nn dotcom start-up. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant advert. I mean, come on. Con D e m^Talk 13:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant ad. Nice category stuffing there as well. No Alexa ans "website is currently down"? Kuru ^talk 14:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Group Kick[edit]

Lack of notability - this appears to be basically commerical advertising — Estarriol ^talk 10:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that on 2006-05-04 07:22:12 User:Bob Sakamano removed the AFD template from the Group Kick page and blanked this discussion. I have reverted and placed a warning on his talk page, but it seems to me that this action is tantamount to admitting it's spam. I had previously placed the standard AFD warning/invitation on his talk page. — Es tarriol ^talk 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nomination. — Estarriol ^talk 13:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vote still stands despite recent expansion and improvement of article, as notability has still not been demonstrated. — Es tarriol ^talk 13:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to be blatant advertising for a fitness class. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. SCHZMO ✍ 14:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll interpret this as a product (as it is a thing sold by Body Training Systems). It doesn't meet WP:CORP. - Politepunk 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much of an ad (where can I get it? How much?) but it's certainly not notable either. Darquis 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree that this is more of an adv than an article. -- ReyBrujo 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Note that the original author of this article has since been blocked for repeated vandalism and racially-oriented personal attacks. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 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. Flower party☀ 02:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chocolate man[edit]

One half of a duo whose main fame comes from the myspace pages listed in the "external links" section. Appears to have met and been a roadie for Electric Eel Shock, but that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Joyous | Talk 14:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't show that he meets WP:BIO or WP:BAND. - Politepunk 18:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like the article was made by his bandmate, so it might also be vanity. Darquis 22:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Politepunk. -- ReyBrujo 07:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Who are you people? I am the chocolate man - I don't know who bloody wrote this so why am I being deleted?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechocolateman (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. *drew 14:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the getting the following quote into notoriously stuffy but nether the less well respected Mojo magazine does not qualify as notorious then I am not sure which way the world spins any more "I am like Wonka. But Asian. And a bit evil" If it would help the cause I will scan the said article for you?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.218 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Slayer[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. His claims to fame include 3 myspace pages in the "external links" section, and some association with Electric Eel Shock. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The chocolate man. Joyous | Talk 14:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See this link that confirms Bob Slayer is the tour manager of international touring band Electric Eel Shock:

www.electriceelshock.com/DisplayPage.asp?pageid=9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.218 (talk • contribs)

Delete Tour manager are too minor. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Electric Eel Shock's bio confirms the All Japanese Karaoke title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.46.218 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please do not attempt to vote multiple times. Fan1967 16:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The information on Bob Slayer's Karaoke title was, in fact, added to the EES article by Bobslayer (contribs). Fan1967 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all that notable, but also for vanity (and if there's a criteria for trying to cheat in an AfD about the article you made about yourself, that too) Darquis 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn and vanity. *drew 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per *drew. -- ReyBrujo 07:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bob slayer is a genius - leave him alone.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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? 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia (disambiguation)[edit]

Nothing links to this page. The Catalonia articles have been reogranised so that no separate disambiguation page is necessary. JRawle (Talk) 14:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems simple enough in this case. Darquis 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 16:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Bazaar[edit]

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 14:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 as tagged - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and Crzrussian.--blue520 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: this is a Speedy. Bucketsofg✐ 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison College[edit]

~~Elementary school in Barbados. Self evident deletion. De-prodded without any comment whatsoever. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Withdraw Nom. Misunderstanding. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep founded in 1733, it's like a Carribean Eton of sorts. I'll try and improve on the article. --Eivind^t^@^c 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "grammar school" != "elementary school"? Am I missing something? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In British usage (and Commonwealth countries), both "grammar school" and "college" can both mean what an American would call a high school. Fan1967 16:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a high school, and apparently every prime minister of Barbados since independence has been a graduate, according to the school web site. Keep. --Metropolitan90 16:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Saint Clair Forensics Team[edit]

Page has been speedily deleted twice; however, the talk page argues that these were erroneous, and makes some very forceful claims of notability. As such, I think it merits the full AfD treatment - who knows, perhaps it's keepworthy. What say you, brethren? DS 14:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or Speedy again under A7. The talk page says that they are a successful high-school debating team, and I have no reason to doubt that. I congratulate them on doing well in their competitions. However, individual school's student groups at the high school level are simply not encyclopedically notable, and keeping this "just to be nice" would set a very dangerous precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, if it is indeed a previously deleted article. The article should not be re-created without the author(s) going though the WP:UNDEL --Bucke tsofg ✐ 15:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Having nominated them twice for speedy deletion (once for A7, once for G4) I strongly support this nomination. ClarkBHM 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete recreated content Dlyons493 Talk 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as seemingly obvious G4; can an admin verify that nothing has changed other than the creator's comments on the talk page? Appropriate channel is discussion at WP:DRV, not a continuous cycle of recreating the article. Kuru ^talk 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on its merits (or lack of them), so there will be no question. An individual high school debate team is not notable. Fan1967 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the third time's the charm? Darquis 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD:G4. -- ReyBrujo 07:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7. The reason the author gives makes is clear it is a vanity page. Ted 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good and informative article. I think the rest of you are haters. : ( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.81.250 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 3 May 2006..
Delete Per Nomination. --Holy Cows 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unless highly notable, they are minors and need privacy more than publicity (visitor)
Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 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 not particularly amusing hoax. DS 15:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaria[edit]

I tagged this as a possible hoax yesterday. The author has clarified on the talk. If this article is not a hoax, it qualifies as original research and should be deleted. It is most appropriate to research a topic first, then write an article on it. Tuf-Kat 15:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex McKinnon[edit]

Searching for '"alex mckinnon" agincourt' [16] comes up with 4 results. 2 of them are this article, 2 aren't about him. This looks like a hoax to me. Cherry blossom tree 15:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verified; either a hoax or someone's delusions of grandeur. Bucke tsofg ✐ 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is actually supposed to be a joke, i.e. "Proceeds are given to the needy, preferably someone blind." Delete either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may actually exist [17] (see the last paragraph), but I don't think freewebs counts as a reliable source. Any way seems to not reach WP:BIO no mater the notable pedigree. Clams to notability are, 1. The founder of an international society that can not be verified for its existence or notability. 2. The inventor of a economic principle which also can not be verified for its existence or notability, and is the basis of a book that is not named and may not exist (unpublished?).--blue520 15:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything glaringly notable. Bige1977 16:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable and certainly some parts that seem like either a prank or vanity entry (or, both). Ted 15:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non and Bucketsofg. --so U m y a S ch 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I know Alex McKinnon personally and I can testify that the Agincourt Society not only exists but is holding its next formal dinner at Raffles, Singapore later this month. Mr McKinnon's personal details are all correct. As for doubts raised in relation to charitable donations, the author should be ashamed of himself. Rt Hon Duncan Elliott — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliott77 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Winter (band)[edit]

A band which has not recorded an album, and for which there is no evidence of its meeting the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC Middenface 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt a band that has no album can meet anything laid out in WP:MUSIC, but if I see evidence otherwise, I'll change this. Darquis 22:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. -- ReyBrujo 07:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's first edit. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 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 acknowledge that going purely by the numbers, this is a no consensus, but those advocating keep seem to have a weak grasp of what sort of third-party sources are .necessary to be able to write an encyclopaedia article. I refer specifically to assertions that copying a website's own blurb onto another site constitutes a third-party source (the original editor withdrew this, but others have agreed with his reasoning and not withdrawn), and others which make no reference to Wikipedia policies at all. AfD is not a vote, verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of writing an encyclopaedia, this article has poor external references, and the discussion below provides no comfort that this state of affairs will be improved. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticwiki[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. I don't see any reliable independent sources writing about this site in depth (as is required). A search for references to the site, yields mainly links from blogs and message boards, and nothing of value. Rob 16:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not withdrawal the AfD It has been up for 5 days and seems a little too late. Afterall it looks like it be kept after discounting the sock puppets. Arbusto 01:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source for the wiki is the wiki and the related blog. The article hasn't even been up for 24 hours. Arbusto 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines clearly require *independent* sources. Without them, this is just advertising, telling us what Skepticwiki wishes to say about itself. --Rob 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa rank about 800,000 and no significant attention from elsewhere. Fan1967 18:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This wiki now has 432 articles and gets roughly 28 google hits [18]. Hence, the article is far too premature and also reads like advertising. -- JJay 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia users should skeptics too, when it comes to claims of notability. ^BigE1977 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, doesn't meet WP:WEB, doesn't meet WP:V, etc. Darquis 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: first edit ever done on ~~April 30~~ March 5. ~~This is user's third ever edit.~~ Arbusto 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user's first edit seems to be to March 5. Prior to this AFD they participated in large number of other AFDs. As of this second, they have about 250 edits in total, mostly to AFDs and talk pages. Perhaps your comments about "April 30" and "third ever edit" is because that's what is shown (as of this second) in the last 50 edit results in their User Contributions (by default only 50 results are shown in one page). But, as you can see, its possible to page back to find more results. --Rob 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As FeloniousMonk explained below, you and JJay have shown (with incivility on your talk pages now archived) this is WP:POINT. Arbusto 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I honestly do not think this article belongs on Wikipedia. It still does not meet WP:WEB. See the nature/quaity of the sources. However, I don't really care about this article, or any article you've edited. So, I'll give in to what I consider to be unfair pressure, and stay away from your articles. You now have nothing to complain about me, and I ask you to avoid future unfair statements about me. --Rob 05:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am going to go against the trend and argue for keeping this. It is relatively new and most mention is on blogs, but word about it has circulated among the membership of Skeptic Associations. I have put a couple of links on the talk page. The first is an influencial web site run by a member of the Australian Skeptics, but independent of them. The second gives a positive mention of this wiki in a PC Magazine that very sensibly and in a reasonably detailed way discusses medical advice online and its dangers. I think it is mentioned in the "Australian Skeptic" but I do not have the link to hand. I would be surprised indeed if it was not mentioned in the US Skeptics magazine. I think it should be left for a while and it will develop. Just leave warning tags on it about sources, etc. --Bduke 23:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link, which you said is "an influencial web site" and "independent", is merely a copy/paste from Skepticwiki's own About page. You can't say something is independent of Skepticwiki, if Skepticwiki wrote it. The other link you gave is better, but it's only one relevant sentence. --Rob 00:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you are technically correct about the first point. Since I know the guy who writes that site, I was sure he agreed with what he wrote, but that is of course WP:OR. ratbags.com is a very well known skeptics site. --Bduke 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, --Bickerstein 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is "Bickerstein's" first and only ever edit. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 01:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *drew 05:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJay. -- ReyBrujo 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it's currently deficient doesn't mean it won't be improved. This nom confirms my suspicion of a personal campaign I've suspected for some time. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Guettarda 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per mention in PC Magazine for now. Give the article makers time to come up with more references. If they can't re-AfD in a month. JoshuaZ 21:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it. Jim62sch 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Arbustoo has added several links that refer to this wiki, including the one from the Australian Skeptics that I thought was there but had missed. There are US Skeptics links also. --Bduke 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. --Holy Cows 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is "Holy Cows" fourth ever edit. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Add an external link in Pseudoscience if it meets WP:EL. -- Robocoder 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.Soli .Deo .Gloria[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) - possible vanity article. Scott Wilson 16:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, their smash hit has around 30 google hits. The author admits they haven't released any album, and it is hard to learn if they have toured or fulfilled any other WP:MUSIC requirement, as there are name clashes with other subjects. Noteworthy is that the finnish Wikipedia doesn't have articles about the artist, nor about their two uploaded songs. -- ReyBrujo 07:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Ioannes Pragensis 12:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no claim of notability in the article.--Bill 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Optimale ^Gu 13:44, 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 merged to Labour Party (UK). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Labour Black Wednesday[edit]

I am not sure if this page should be deleted but I think it's worth a nomination. Although it could have a major affect on the local elections, the wider historic significance and notability of this day is as yet unknown. Also the title is a tabloid term and may not be from a neutral view point. Philip Stevens 16:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Labour Party (UK). Seems worth a brief mention somewhere, but an article on its own is pushing it - it's likely to become a permastub. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 17:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page should be retained until the consequences of the events are clear - this could potentially be a crucial part in the downfall of New Labour. The article needs to be rewritten though. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Redvers. After the consequences of the events are clear or notability established enough to create more than a stub, then an article would be suitable, but not yet.--blue520 17:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Let's not anticipate events. Dlyons493 Talk 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHi- I was the creator of the above article. My intention was to make an 'Introduction' and leave the details to people more knowledgeable than myself. Provided more is added, I don't see why it should be deleted. Furthermore, the page could be very instructive to the current, undeniable media frenzy surrounding the issue, and could act as an article consolidating information on the tabloid stories concerned with Labour's 'Black Wednesday'. I think it would be best, as mentioned above, that it is mentioned on the page that it is indeed a title used by the tabloid media. However, as an issue which involves but is separate in many ways to the Labour government, I feel that a merge would be a disservice to the issue at hand. The issue is something that is current: while it may affect the local elections, events surrounding it are firmly in the present. User_talk:Jmperry88
Transwiki. Consider a move to Wikinews until context becomes clear. This is a tabloid term that may be forgotten in a few months (or less)- the 'real' Black Wednesday was a historical event, not a series of loosely related stories. I would support moving this back in time if a) the content can be expanded; b) the context is clear and this becomes a widely-used term with proven staying power. Badgerpatrol 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - also, is the term 'Black Wednesday' being widely used for this day? If not, this could violate WP:NOR. — SteveRwanda 07:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Badgerpatrol makes an excellent point here: this could well go somewhere in the future, but we need to see where first.--Doug (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Redvers. Also, shouldn't it be "New Labour's Black Wednesday"? Hera1187 09:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Redvers. I don't read the papers and had no idea about the title 'Black Wednesday' (which incidentally seems to have been used by some of the broadsheets as well such as the Scotsman and Guardian) so I would never find this article. There's nothing saying a new article couldn't be created in the future if needs be. I also think some of the details need changing, such as the issue with the nurses being more specific to Hewitt being heckled by the RCN and mention of Clarke as spokesman for the Home Office. Berry 17:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Black Wednesday isn't a tabloid term, New Labour Black Wednesday is. Philip Stevens 18:21, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sao Pan Thee[edit]

This article was nominated (and blanked) by Furrymee (talk · contribs), who left edit summaries reading "Remove false article from Wikipedia" and "This is a shabby fabrication". I'm just tidying the botched nomination, I personally express no opinion. Middenface 16:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is noteworthy that the article cites no sources, and that googling for the name "Sao Pan Thee" produces only wikipedia or wikipedia mirrors. Someone needs to present strong evidence that this isn't another hoax article. Middenface 16:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But yes, I'm conscious that transliteration from Burmese is an imperfect and sometimes divergent business, so maybe he's known under an alternative latinisation. -- Middenface 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yesterday an obvious sock Myolin (talk · contribs) and a long-time contributor to the article Aung win (talk · contribs) both removed the AfD tag - Aung win is the same guy who'd earlier removed accuracy, fact, and verify tags ([19], [20], [21]) . In the light of this, and of the observations of Hintha, I'm no longer willing to assume good faith on the part of the contributors to this article. It ignores wikipedia's most fundamental rules, WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Delete it. Middenface 08:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No vote, but I'd like to point out that User:Furrymee only has edits relating to this subject. Darquis 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No vote, but when I contacted The Irrawaddy (a Burmese news magazine published in Thailand) via e-mail, they responded stating they had no idea who he was. Maybe contacting Shanland.org (Shan Herald Agency for News) may provide further information. Some users also seem adamant in removing tags for verification, etc. Also, considering Sao Pan Thee is supposedly Shan, only the 'Sao' hints of Shan descent (or Sai), as it is commonly used for Shan men. 'Pan Thee' seems like it is Burmese, and alternatives could for 'Pan' may be 'Phan' or 'Hpan', and for 'Thee', 'Thi' or 'Si'. Hintha 04:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has been in Wikipedia for exactly 6 months today, been seen/edited for at least 10 different editors, and it has yet to give a source. One of Wikipedia main guidelines is WP:V, and this article has been failing it for half a year. We don't even need to know if this guy's claim is valid or not, just be able to verify his claim, which we cannot. Delete as hoax. -- ReyBrujo 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried this [22] query on Google - all these combinations Hintha wrote, but the result is WP only. I agree with ReyBrujo. --MaNeMeBasat 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many factual contradictions. One example: No colonel of Tatmadaw (Burmese Army) can also be a colonel of Shan State Army (SSA) or SSA North. All these armies are fighting against each other. Google it. This is a kid's joke ended up in Wikipedia. Total disgrace to Wiki. -- Kyaw_2003 9:46 PM, 5 May 2006 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GamingWiki[edit]

Does not meet the guidelines at WP:WEB. Advert for a non-notable site. Alexa rank below 2 million. Angela . 16:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--A c1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, advertisement, etc. Darquis 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kendall[edit]

Was tagged for CSD-A7 non-notability and for AfD, although AfD not completed. Article has limited claims to notability, so completing AfD rather than acting on CSD-A7. Note: technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Small college cartoon editor. No significant works that I can see, and certainly less notable than, say, an average professor. — RJH 17:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn as per RJH. --BillC 21:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RJH Darquis 23:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His creations seems to have a certain level of notability, but he doesn't fit in any WP:BIO exception. -- ReyBrujo 06:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory, web hosting service, resumee promotion service. Such an entry requires significant occurance in "major news articles", preferably printed (not web only). If this entry gets through, a lot of people would get a right to establish similar pages. Wikipedia would thrive towards an "internet directory of people". The policy says: "It takes at least 5,000 sold copies" (as criteria to get recognized). alex 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
abstain Was Unicycle freeware? If so, "sold" seems irrelevant Did more than 5000 play it? Anyone who knows more about ancient Macintosh culture care to comment? JeffBurdges 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> This applies for persons to get considered "famous" enough for a personal wikipedia page, not for the "work" itself (in this case a flash movie). If it is interesting for "the public", and has been recognized in print media, then it deserves a page (but this does not automatically include an extra promotion page for the author) alex 12:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has too many trivial internet related articles. Sumahoy 23:44, 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 redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Proton Torpedo Launcher-2a Artillery[edit]

Merged into List of Star Wars ground vehicles#MPTL-2a John Nagle 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was scheduled for deletion via "prod" after the merge, but "prod" was deleted. So we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 17:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've merged the data elsewhere, we can't delete this article, as doing so would destroy the edit history, and thus violate the GFDL. Just put in a redirect. -- Middenface 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't redirect into the middle of an article, unfortunately. Regular links can redirect to a bookmark, but redirects can't. You can write redirects like that, but they don't work. It's a known bug, and a big problem with merges like this. But search will still find the material. --John Nagle 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean we can delete the article. -- Middenface 17:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can redirect into the middle of an article. See the redirect at Brillig which redirects to Jabberwocky#Glossary. Fan1967 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it doesn't work. Even with the pointer, it still puts you at the top of the redirected page. My mistake. Fan1967 23:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And this is exactly the situation in which that bug is a problem. --John Nagle 03:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy/paste the edit history into the talk page of List of Star Wars ground vehicles -- Hirudo 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars ground vehicles in order to keep edit history, also might be a potential search term. BryanG 00:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BryanG. -- ReyBrujo 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BryanG. San Saba 15:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Bitches[edit]

nn notable blogger, few googles, vanity, advertising, Wikipedia is not for web housing

Delete. per nom.--John Lakonias 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - actually, lots of Googles, but not much mention outside the blogosphere. Bill Napoli's article mentions the Googlebomb, that's enough. FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^BigE1977 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- DawnK 11:48, 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 02:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redlych[edit]

Disputed proposed deletion by article creator Eleung123 with no comment given. Original proposed deletion was "advertisement, that seems not to establish the notability of the product per WP:CORP". Delete blue520 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHaworth ^BigE1977 22:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 06:54, 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 modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VF Outlet Village[edit]

WP:CORP Non-notable shopping mall. It's a typical American discount mall. Nothing in the article indicates notability. Was marked with "prod", but "prod" was deleted by Kappa (talk · contribs), so we have to do this the hard way. --John Nagle 17:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The talk page does have some unsourced assertions which might raise it above the bog standard. This concept was the first of what was to become the 'factory outlet mall,' where multiple brands are sold at one location. The VF Outlet Village ... is the primary source of Reading's former title of "The Outlet Capital of the World.". It's still just a mall though. Dlyons493 Talk 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not on the list of "Historically Important Shopping Centers in the United States", from the Department of American Studies at Eastern Connecticut State University, topic in Shopping Mall Studies. [23]. (Yes, there really is such a thing as academic study of shopping mall history). Can't find it on the other mall history sites, either. --John Nagle 19:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, please do not tell my wife there is an academically-respectable field of Shopping Mall Studies Dlyons493 Talk 19:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. There's a whole literature on malls, in the fields of real estate, urban planning, retailing, sociology, and law. But anyway, it turns out that this VF Outlet Village is mentioned in the Reading, Pennsylvania article. So Wikipedia already has it covered. --John Nagle 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nagle. LOL per Dlyons493 ;-) -- ReyBrujo 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johntex\^talk 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nagle. You learn something new every day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. San Saba 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. This should be converted to a redirect and not simply deleted. Vegaswikian 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IvyWise[edit]

Delete Non-notable college admissions counseling service. Minor association with a semi-notable plagiarism scandal is an insufficient basis for notability Xoxohthblaster 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The site has a "In The News" section with references to The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and The New York Post, NBC, CNNfn, etc. I believe that fulfills one of the requirements of WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 06:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete69.109.183.182 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A college admissions counseling service is an interesting perspective on singular United States college admissions policies that differ significantly from those in force in many other parts of the world. This "IvyWise" seems to be an especially noteworthy exemplar of this kind of service. Meehawl 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of ReyBrujo. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 204.111.131.20 03:05, 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 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FrankandJames.com[edit]

Article is not notable. Was prodded and deprodded three times with no reason given or any changes made to article to illustrate notability. At least one of the de-prods was by the subject of this article. It appears that this article was already removed under the title FrankandJames.tk. It was recreated soon after with a new name. IrishGuy 17:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable: 6 Google, Alexa infinity. Need I mention it, fails WP:WEB. Melchoir 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-notable. *drew 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being not notable. or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -Frank- (talk • contribs) .
Delete, utterly fails WP:WEB. -- ReyBrujo 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, no rank on Alexa. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Papavassiliou[edit]

I don't think that it is established that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO. There was a reference to authorship, but I can find no trace of anything written by Dean Papavassiliou on the in ternet or amazon. Googling for "Dean Papavassiliou" produces only 28 hits, including wikihits and wikipedia mirrors [24]. The biography provided as a pdf by his occasional employers doesn't get any closer to establishing his qualification under WP:BIO (and may even diminish his claims to notability). I thought about prodding this, but chose AfD instead as the statements about his employment at the UN and World Bank etc. are probably intended to imply notability, even if they don't firmly establish it. - Politepunk 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. - Politepunk 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The academic bio guidelines are a little stringent, but this definitely doesnt meet them. In the absence of an idea of papers published etc., delete. With 28 ghits, highly unlikely to get any, either. Hornplease 05:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife in belgium[edit]

Sounds like a travel brochure, not an encyclopaedic article. James Kendall [talk] 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, POV, unsourced. Dlyons493 Talk 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since this article violates these two policies. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even all that accurate: Leuven as a hot nightspot? Still, opinion is as per Grafikm_fr. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and NPOV. *drew 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dlyons493. -- ReyBrujo 06:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge anything useful to the appropriate city articles, but I see VERY little useful here. JeffBurdges 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As i am still working on completion, please be patient as i will include the correct numbers and sources in time

Delete, per above. Kuki ni 16:37, 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. -Doc ^ask? 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asevicius[edit]

A horrible article about a Lithuanian. I would clean it up if it was worth it. His only claim to notability - serving in army and being a professor. Same spam article was posted on Lithuanian Wikipedia. Renata 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no Ghits outside wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It's had 5 days of a cleanup tag on Vikipediją - Laisvąją enciklopediją and has had various editors make contributions - so they obviously feel he's notable enough to improve. That said, it seems to be largely a family article - for its source data see the free French site asevich/page principale.htm Dlyons493 Talk 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that's because lt WP has lower standards for inclusion of Lithuanians. Renata 19:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I don't really know what I'm talking about here since I can't even read the cleaned-up version! Vote withdrawn above. Dlyons493 Talk 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. In fact, he cannot even decide on his last name: see here. Renata 20:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claims of notability, not verifyed. --e ivind ^t ^@^c 10:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Can we get a readership count on his textbooks? If deleted, we ought to allow the Lithuanians to recreate with translation, as tehir article probably explains more. JeffBurdges 11:49, 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 userfy per G4. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk)

Jordan Struck[edit]

No substantial assertion of notability. Page was previously deleted, then recreated shortly thereafter. The page was marked userfy and the tag was removed without comment. The page was prodded for deletion and the tag was removed without comment. So here we are. ScottW 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userify, and delete. I see zero attempts at establishing anything other than his political platfrom - other than syaing that he's "an activist". Bravo for getting involved in the political process at such a young age, but maybe a nice myspace page would be a better start than a vanity article on Wiki? Kuru ^talk 18:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got exactly zero Google hits on this person. No signs of notability, appears to be extreme vanity. IrishGuy 18:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant vanity page on someone who gets zero hits on Google. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for being a re-creation of a previously deleted page (G4). Additionally: the article's creator and sole contributor refuses to provide evidence of notability, admits outright in the image summary of the photo of himself that it's vanity, and has refused to respond to the templates placed on this page or on his talk page. His only response was to delete some of the evidence of non-notability (his age) from the article. --Icarus 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrodynamic interpretation of the electromagnetic field[edit]

Misleading analogy 195.177.121.210 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete! Though the analogy between electrostatics (magnetostatics) and stationary hydrodynamics does exist, there is no analogy between electrodynamics and hydrodynamics.

Note: This AfD was started by the above anon on the AfD's talk page. Discussion has been moved to this page, and relisted. — TheKMan^talk 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:NOR vio. --DV8 2XL 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:NOR A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 02:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candace and Lauren Mead[edit]

Prod contested. Babies born July 1990, a few film appearances before the age of two. Presumably in high school today with no memory of "acting" career. Not notable. Fan1967 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to IMDB, two of the roles they each played are uncredited, which pretty much means they only had two other roles, both of which while they were babies. I fail to see notability in that. IrishGuy 18:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IrishGuy. -- ReyBrujo 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. San Saba 15:55, 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 redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish resistance[edit]

dicdef, neologism, unverifiable, i cant find a notable page on the internet that uses this term in this way: Delete and redirect to Danish resistance movement Copysan 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danish resistance movement as it is the simpliest solution. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- ReyBrujo 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable term. To redirect to Danish resistance movement ???, please read both articles, don't just vote. --MaNeMeBasat 10:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shit funnel[edit]

Claims to be an internet meme. Talk page reveals "writers" are making it read like less of an advert... but making links clickable isn't the way to do it, I'd've thought. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'We' aren't trying to advertise anything. Only documenting the internet. But if there is a proper way to link readers to a video, then it would be appreciated to know this.--Bonnar 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the shit funnel is from a viral video that has recently gained notoriety. It is an internet phenomenon like any other -j

Delete non-notable meme. It began on one site and appears to only encompass same site. IrishGuy 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a curio cabinet of digital media. Brian G. Crawford 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. very spammish. Geedubber 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is spammish about it? It is an article referring to a cultural byproduct of the internet. And there are numerous other 'digital media' articles on wikipedia. Besides, it doesn't just refer to the internet format of it, but to the real life enactment of the suggested scenario.--Bonnar 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Every single link about this subject goes to the same website. That means that either this is spam, or the subject is so eminently not notable that it is only mentioned on one website. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. IrishGuy 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-acknowledged non-notable. Notability first then article. ~~Don't use Wikipedia as your step-stone to notability. That's not what it's here for.~~ Rklawton 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not even affiliated with that website in any way. Not a member of the forums or anything. That's rather insulting to suggest that I am trying to acquire notability.--Bonnar 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got 81 unique Google hits, and of those none within the first three pages referred to this supposed internet phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while weird, I don't see this meeting.. any of our standards. Kotepho 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Conrad Devonshire 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Shift funnel" gives less than 700 hits at Google. Still far from being a cultural phenomenon, it is barely a minor development. -- ReyBrujo 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Bachrach44 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Rklawton noted above Don't use Wikipedia as your step-stone to notability. That's not what it's here for. If you don't have notability, you don't get to use Wikipedia to garner notibility. That isn't the point. IrishGuy 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sudden internet phenomenon, no matter how many times you claim it is. If it was a phenomenon there would be references to it all over...because that is what a phenomenon is. Tubgirl was a phenomenon. Goatse was a phenomenon. This isn't. IrishGuy 17:15, 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 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider Outfits[edit]

I think this is far above the level of detail we need to know about Tomb Raider in here. Hirudo 19:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It already had a merge tag on it, but I don't think it's worth merging -- Hirudo 19:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LaraCruft Dlyons493 Talk 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whoever wrote this may merge some of the info to Lara Croft. I don't think this is "Cruft," but this topic doesn't stand on its own as an article. It should be a section in the Lara Croft article. Mango juice^talk 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ^BigE1977 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bige1977. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LaraCruft indeed. If there's anything worth merging into articles on Tomb Raider or Lara Croft, go ahead and do that first. Darquis 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete information into Lara Croft, and let editors used to that article decide if there is something worth keeping. -- ReyBrujo 04:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as per ReyBrujo. Severely disappointed that dlyons493 got to the 'LaraCruft' comment before me. Hornplease 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge also. Kuzaar 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of those deprods from Kappa (talk · contribs), who removed 24 "prod" tags on the same day he removed this one. --John Nagle 18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own comments on the discussion area. I just wish users like Kappa would understand that a prod isn't an insult toward the article or those who worked on it, but is rather a 'prod' to get those who care to work on it and preserve it. By deprodding things, Kappa's only assuring that they are likely to be deleted. At this point, we might as well set a wiki-wide macro that sets an afd on anything Kappa deprods. 204.69.40.7 13:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. San Saba 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetShakers Albums[edit]

Delete - This page is an unnecessary, unmaintained list superceded by Category:PlanetShaker Albums and template:PlanetShakers. Failed PROD. Dan, the CowMan 19:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superfluous Darquis 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlanetShakers. -- ReyBrujo 06:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kuzaar 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make new redirect to PlanetShakers. Johntex\^talk 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make new redirect to PlanetShakers. San Saba 16:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Dsmdgold 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie[edit]

Nominated for AfD by User:Akidd dublin but did not create this page. In the history comments he/she states "(wikipedia is not a webshosting service. i do not know if it is a significant flash movie, but i doubt it...)" Billpg 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is one if the biggest names in flash cartoons, there is not self promotion here. --Ashura96 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable (and good) animation. Very funny. Zeeky boogy doog! --Billpg 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Characters/catchphases/etc from TDCM have been seen in these works;
  - Elvis Not Included by Bob Barker (Fooby)
  - The Badger Song by "Brusi" (Qrrbrbirlbel, Zeeky H. Bomb, Exlosion)
  - Fooby :D by "Katana" (Re-enactment of a scene)
  - A template used by the Albino Blacksheep website has "Zeeky Boogy Doog" repeated down the background.
- Obligigtory Google counts;
  - Demented Cartoon Movie 488,000
  - Zeeky Boogy Doog 25,200
  - Kamikaze Watermelon 89,300 --Billpg 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very funny. Tetrahedron93 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstration of notability is made. Very funny, no doubt, but funniness is not a criterion for inclusion in WP. --BillC 21:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found this cartoon through Wikipedia and thought it was funny, and apparently this is a notable Flash piece. I'm not sure if it should be kept, though. Danny Lilithborne 22:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I haven't seen a strong reason to delete this yet. How does one ascertain notability or signifigance for a Flash? Darquis 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - funniness is not a reason to keep. Non-notable flash movie. Wickethewok 00:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per BillC. If some way of showing its notability is presented, I may switch to a neutral vote. -- ReyBrujo 06:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - if it is underground. It looks like promotion. SeeA_Fork_in_the_Tale for standards of information (producer, publisher etc). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been an internet phenomenon (dicussed in this article: Internet phenomenon ) If it is removed, then so should the article on the simpsons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akidd dublin (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being on Wikipedia is not sufficient to stay on Wikipedia. Comparison with The Simpsons is just silly. Melchoir 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BillC. New evidence by Billpg doesn't convince me; Google doesn't make something notable if it only turns up linkfarms and blogs, and the folks at Albino Blacksheep copy each other constantly. Show me a review in a reputable publication or other evidence of penetration into verifiable non-internet culture. Melchoir 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One could argue this looks like self-promotion, but then again, there is nothing wrong with this entry per say. In terms of notability, I can not think of any way to prove it is known. Yet, Kamikaze Watermelon is a great character, and shall adorn my MSN for ages to come. - Eggy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.80.231.107 (talk • contribs)

Keep There is a lot more pointless stuff on Wikipedia. Mr. SmartyPants (talk • contribs) .
Delete per Wickethewok. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted - non-notable, website does not yet exist so article is nonsense, spamvertisement, etc.... ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 20:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derelict Liverpool[edit]

~~NN Website,~~ author removed {{prod}} tag. ~~Does not pass WP:WEB~~ J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 19:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website does not exist J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination - just looks like ad for non-notable website -- Middenface 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly wrong. If you had bothered to read the article, you would have clealry understood that the website is currently undergoing some changes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.96.105 (talk • contribs) .

Delete Since the site isn't even up yet, it can't remotely be considered as notable. Fan1967 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solosez[edit]

Originally speedied for CSD-G1 patent nonsense, but isn't. But there is a potential issue with notability and WP:WEB so sent here instead. Note: technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was fixing it up a little bit when the AFD notice was added. While it would seem to have limited notability, it is the largest online community of the American Bar Association, and is notable to those in the field. Tufflaw 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you run a Google Test on Solosez you will find over 10,000 results all relating to the Solosez e-mail community, including countless legal resource lists. As Tufflaw indicated, Solosez is notable within the legal community, particularly among solos and small firm attorneys (which account for almost 90% of all law firms, according to a recent lawyer demographics study). KennedyLaw 23:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solosez is an important resource for small and solo practitioners and is well known within the legal community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.236.112 (talk • contribs) .
Keep per Tufflaw. -- ReyBrujo 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Solosez has influence well beyond its 2200 plus users. It is often cited in magazine articles and other publicatiosn relevant to the legal community. There are many online communities of interest, some of professionals, but this multinational cooperative group of otherwise unconnected lawyers is fairly unique. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.179.20.70 (talk • contribs) .
Keep -- This is a most valuable resource and has become a virtual community of lawyers helping lawyers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.129.243 (talk • contribs) .
Keep -- It should be expanded though. Mark it as a stub. 207.235.22.84 03:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnops[edit]

Contained fabricated information on possibly non-existant subject, author subsequently blanked page. Dinoguy2 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We may have a serious problem with this author: all but about four of his contributions have been 100% incorrect.--Firsfron 22:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete author blanking the page is considered agreement, and is a speediable reason. AnonEMouse 18:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hutton[edit]

Tenuous notability claim so speedy tag CSD-A7 didn't really apply, hence sending it here. Note: technical nomination - no opinion from me. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 20:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article itself notes, for a very brief moment he had some level of minor fame in a very small community. Since then, he has become a landscaper. I fail to see the encyclopedic notability of this person. IrishGuy 20:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His "well received anthology of poetry" absolutely fails google search [25]. - Fan1967 20:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify any of the information on google. In this case "independently distributed" may mean self published ^BigE1977 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- ReyBrujo 06:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--blue520 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It I think that it is an important reminder of the times that were shared at that house, he was a social icon for many years, appearing at pubs, clubs and other venues to share his inspirational poetry with us all. Those who live in Adelaide will understand his importance. Also, of course you are not going to find anything on Google for his book, it was published by a now defunct publishing press 'Lactic Sweetness Press', and it is now no longer in circulation and is a much sought after collector's item. I cherish my copy. That is the problem with you guys on Wikipedia, if someone is not a major celebrity then you will not accept them, Tom Hutton was a contributor to the culture of Adelaide for many years and is culturally important, thus his article should stay in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggis101 (talk • contribs)

comment No matter how important he was/is to you, he isn't notable beyond a small group of people in a small community. I'm sure he is a nice guy and talented at what he does, but that isn't grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. IrishGuy 16:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Irishguy. Also, for editor Haggis, it's not that we don't want articles that aren't about "major celebrities", the standards for a subject's inclusion of its own article in the Wikipedia are available at WP:BIO. Kuzaar 14:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep It~~ Still fail to see how something like the german band Neu! who had minimal success, yet are considered culturally significant enough to a small amount of people to have a page on wikipedia, same applies to Tom Hutton. Besides, it is not a vanity article, it is about someone of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggis101 (talk • contribs)

comment please don't vote numerous times and please sign your comments when you make them. IrishGuy 14:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It I wouldn't call Adelaide, the capital of South Australia a 'small community'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminoir (talk • contribs) -- this is a first edit. possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, if you people had actually bothered to look at the article for Adelaide you would find out that it has a population of over 1.1 million, hardly a small community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggis101 (talk • contribs)

comment Nowhere is it stated that Tom had any degree of fame throughout Adelaide. It is claimed that he did an open mic at a place in a suburb if Adelaide. That place was his own house. Completely non-notable. IrishGuy 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It After reading the WP:BIO guide you provided I have concluded that this page is valid under the category of A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. This can be defined as An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. According to the article a group of people gathered at the poet's house to share their skills. This classifies as a group of persons sharing an artistic interest in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avarsin (talk • contribs) -- this is a first edit. possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It Keep it, TH is a visionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardy (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Flower party☀ 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kikucall[edit]

Delete - Non-notable. Barely any press coverage from marginally (if at all) notable sources. Author of article is clearly CEO/Founder himself. Wickethewok 20:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert. See AfD for InstantCast, below. Con D e m^Talk 23:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Darquis 01:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per Condem. -- ReyBrujo 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)~~ per WP:VANITY, While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company. -- ReyBrujo 05:15, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dato' Haji Sidek Abdullah Kamar[edit]

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 20:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. *drew 04:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. This discussion has not yielded anything looking remotely like a reliable source - instead we have a lot of hot air, some Geocities-level websites mostly consisting of just the lyrics and barely any pretense by those clamouring for keep that this article meets Wikipedia policy. The article itself starts off with an unsourced claim "It was a huge hit", followed by a copyright-violating lyric transcript, followed by nationalistic original thought: "It can serve as an illustrative example of famous Serbian proud defiance (srpski inat) with which Serbs have resisted and eventually defeated many mighty enemies through centuries - Turks, Austro-Hungarians, Germans, and were now applying the same unashamed attitude of defiance towards mighty NATO". It's never going to be an acceptable encyclopaedia article, and this discussion has proven that while ably demonstrating why AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song)[edit]

The song is not notable enough to have its own article. Plus the translation is atrocious, and there is no information about copyright issues.

Why would I need copyrights?I just wrote down the words of the song,like in this case Keep Ya Head Up!! If you allowed that song,why wouldn`t you allow thi song,that is maybe the most famous Satrirical war song in 90sDzoni 07:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable song by a non-notable band. — TheKMan^talk 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The NATO bombings of Serbia was definitely something notable, however I have not seen any evidence so far that the song itself is noteworthy. I will gladly change to a "keep" if proper sources are provided that demonstrate the popularity of this song. — TheKMan^talk 06:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, thus song is non notable. -- ReyBrujo 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPThis is very famous song in Balkans,you cant find a single Serbian,Croatian,Bosnian or Macedonian that have not heard it.Please dont delete itDzoni 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more context and explain how important and ironic it is, given the nature of the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999. It is an example of the famous "serbian spite" that Serbs are so proud of. Other examples could be brought in. Profnjm 00:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --serbiana - talk 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this was one of the most popular songs during the bombings, along with others (Ja sam ja for example). In fact, we should make an article about the Indeksovici. And remember, if something isn't significant to the US, it doesn't mean it shouldn't belong here. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Contributions) 02:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was so popular, how come the entry on Serbian wikipedia about this band does not mention it? Check sr:Индексовци. What is the title of this song in Serbian, anyway? That would be a useful piece of information to include in the article, don't you think? Especially since a search for Индексовци AND 117 on Google returns no hits. Balcer 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Indekosovci was group that also had many satrirical songs about Milosevic ,so they were pretty much banned from all TV stations.But thi particural song was played all over the country,and you couldn`t find A SINGLE SERB THAT NEVER HEARD IT!!! Its very famous even outside Serbia.

Also I should just mention such classics as "Ja sam Ja",those are also even more popular songs by Indeksovci.

Blacer,you should ask someone who knows Serbian to help you with that Google search,you will find planty of "return hits".Dzoni 04:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me ask you then. What was the title of this song in Serbian? Balcer 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to give you few links to this song:::::::: http://www.tirova.com/glasba/kondor_pada.htm http://www.ptt.yu/korisnici/m/a/makso/new_page_2.htm http://members.fortunecity.com/jupi2/elcondor.htm http://www.vicevi.net/index.php/haag.com/index.php?st=komentar&IDvic=34537

IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU? Name of the song in Serbian is "EL KONDOR PADA".

p.s.Balcer,I have done told you that you are wrong about Lepper and now we saw that you was wrong.Now you are wrong again.You should think about quiting WikipediaDzoni 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should have been provided in the first place. Now please explain how "El Condor Pada" translates to "Pilot of invisible F-117-a". Balcer 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if the article is moved to a title which is the actual translation of the Serbian title, if the links to the Serbian text you listed above are added as external links (so that others can check the translation), and if the popularity of this song is demonstrated with at least a few sources, I will withdraw my delete vote. Wikipedia is not a lexicon of song lyrics, and the song lyrics that it has articles about must be shown to be notable. Balcer 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,I changed name to "El Condor Pada",so now there is a prove that its very famous song.Dzoni 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a citation can be given that shows its popularity. --cholmes75 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what does it mean to u Cholmes when it would be in language u dont understand?? Luka Jačov 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This shouldn't be deleted but it needs more info. It is already added as trivia in the F-117 Nighthawk wiki page. Diamantidis 4 May 2006

Strong KeepJamal Curtis 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User's only contribution is this vote. -- ReyBrujo 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first provided link is a 404. I don't think the next two probe its notability, it is just the uploaded lyrics. I am unsure about the last one, it looks like a forum. So far, I am keeping my delete vote as there is no enough evidence yet. Also, is the song in the serbian Wikipedia? -- ReyBrujo 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes,but 2 link are Serban,one is Slovenian and one is English.Tha only means that song was popular even outside of Serbia.Ask any Serb if he heard it,everyone did. I can hardly find a web site that have an article about the song,but not a single SErbian song got articles about it on the internet,does that mean that there is no nobale Serbian songs? Or that just means that they never made it to Internet,but are still famous?Dzoni 12:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes song realy exist. I herad for it. --Jovanvb 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, Indeksovci would be Indexovo radio pozorište (or Index's radio theater in English). They where/are an acting company, not a music band. Title of the song is play on the title of El Condor Pasa (to which music it is sang) (padati - to fall, pada - falls, so El Condor Pada == El Condor Falls). Should the article be kept? Maybe, but absolutely not in this form - this way it is probably copyvio, or very close to it. --Branislav Jovanovic 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --GTubio 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I come from Balkans but never ever heard anything about this song. I think it is not notable enough to have its own article. Just maybe few people heard about it don’t mean it should have its own encyclopedic article. Most of the users who vote to keep this article were asked from Dzoni to do so, some examples: Luka Jačov, serbiana, Lord Eru, Jovanvb. Just look at their discussions and you will see that. Actually the user Dzoni wrote that in Serbian and not in English language. I don’t think that is fair.--Mig11 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to think,siptarcino smrdljiva mamu ti jebem.who gives a damn what you think.Dumb bastard.This is democracy,MOST PEOPLE VOTED STAY,SO NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR STUPID ALBANIAN OPINIONDzoni 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else getting tired of Dzoni's abusive behavior during this vote? I certainly am. Balcer 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now just translating what Dzoni wrote to me in Serbian: “siptarcino smrdljiva mamu ti jebem”. That means in English: “stinky Albanian fuck your mother”. This user is attacking me personally. His answer has nothing to do with my argumentations. He is actually mad, that I understand his mother language. He is mad that I am Albanian. This user has no behaviour. Dear administrators, please do something about this user! His behaviour is not acceptable for Wikipedia!!!!

And to you Dzoni:You are trying to tell me what democracy means?!--Mig11 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Kris12 18:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC) OK this is not the place for verbal abuse.[reply]

I am a Serb, ni ja ne volim Šiptare ali matori, jebiga nemoj ovde da vredjaš. Reci mi gde mogu da skinem mp3 El Kondor Pada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris12 (talk • contribs) .

This is getting very interesting. Also the Kris12 don’t like Albanians: he wrote in Serbian:” ni ja ne volim Šiptare”, that means in English that he also don’t like Albanian people. He used a nationalistic Serbian term for Albanians! He and user Dzoni seem to have an Albaniophobia! I don’t understand what this discussion has to do with their nationalistic opinions!!

Dzoni wrote to Kris12 how to vote here! He told him to vote with "Strong Keep" for this article (please see under Usluga, means Favour in English from Serbian: here).

This is really getting ridiculous. Almost 100% of people who voted to keep this article were told from user Dzoni to do so! Their votes should not be accepted!--Mig11 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please people, be civil and no personal attacks. Unluckily, something like this has happened before (HolyRomanEmperor RFA, in example). It is not really wrong to tell others that a determined article is up for deletion (some other groups post a note about the AFD in their local country portal, in example). What is wrong is coming here and vote to keep or delete just because someone else told you to do it in order to keep an article you wrote and/or about your country. I believe this AFD lost its neutral point of view somewhere. -- ReyBrujo 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt agree that we voted because someone told us to vote.We all explained our votes.

Anyway,what I dont see is,why would this Albanians opinion be important in thi case.He can not possible be honest and objective on this subject,so he should be banned from voting here. Also,"Siptar" is not offensive,because thats how they call themselves.

Kris12 have not said anything offensive,I did said what I mean of Siptars,but since I was officialy warned on my talk page that I will be banned,I will try not to use those words again.

And yes ReyBrujo,you got some nerves to say that we did not explained our votes.You was the one to said only few words with your first vote:"Song is not notable". We proved that song is VERY notable,so it would only be fair for you to apologise and change your vote.Off course,you can continue ignoring the facts...

Kris,pesma moze da se skine na jednom od ovih sajtova za koje sam dao linkove na ovoj strani,a ako ne rade onda mogu ja da ti posaljemDzoni 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Dzoni: everybody in Balkans knows what "siptari" means und why the Serbian propaganda uses this. Don’t tell as lies. You are not an angel. You insulted people here. And everyone’s opinion counts in Wikipedia, not just the Serbian one, even an opinion of Albanians, whether you like it or not. Sorry to disappoint you. This is an free encyclopedia. --Bet 0 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Bet 0: Stop lying,we all know that you call yourselves Siptars.Albanians from Kosovo call them selves Siptars,so you should thank me for calling you that way.It is not insult in any way,but how would you know,since you said you dont speak Serbian.Dzoni 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been 4 keep votes that only have the vote, not even a small explanation of why the song should be kept. As for my vote, I wrote the band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, thus song is non notable. That is explanation enough, unless you want me to tell check every of the WP:MUSIC the band does fail. As for probing, as far as I see in this thread, no, nothing was probed. You provided four links, and I already explained why notability hasn't been probed:

http://www.tirova.com/glasba/kondor_pada.htm – broken link, 404
http://www.ptt.yu/korisnici/m/a/makso/new_page_2.htm – NN personal page [26], it is like any geocities page.
http://members.fortunecity.com/jupi2/elcondor.htm – NN personal page [27], just like geocities.com, anyone can get an account
http://www.vicevi.net/index.php/haag.com/index.php?st=komentar&IDvic=34537 – Forums are not enough evidence to probe notability, anyone with an account can post in a forum.

Does the Serbian Wikipedia have a page about this song? If not, it should not be in this version of Wikipedia. If so, it may provide us information as to how important this song is. There is no serious reference thus far about why this song should be kept in Wikipedia. Please provide a serious link, not just free accounts and forums. -- ReyBrujo 18:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -M^ask 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation. Perhaps a fraction of the lyrics could be used along with commentary about them. It would be best if we had the original as well as the translated parts, though. Rmhermen 19:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted keep, with some suggestions. I think the song has merit as an entry, given what else gets its own entry on Wikipedia. I'm no friend of Dzoni. He's a racist pig. He's an anti-semite. He imagined that I'm Jewish and then spewed his anti-Semitic vitriol on me. I'm not Jewish, I'm not Serbian. I'm...nevermind. He's a troll, basically. But I do think the entry has merit, and ... he did ask me to vote for it. Strange, eh? But so be it. Profnjm 19:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Profnjm,just because I dont like Zionists-Im a pig?!?!You are calling me a pig just because I pointed out that you can be blocked for further vandalising article about Dobrica Cosic!

You should thank me that I warned you,otherwise you would`ve probably been banned by now.Dzoni 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Although it has a strong POV, it illustrates one wiev of the events. Still, original lyrics should be included. And for notability, I've heard of it and I am not form Serbia. The article should also give more references. --Ton e 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless it is public domain, lyrics can't be included in the article per song guidelines. -- ReyBrujo 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki lyrics and Keep Transwiki the lyrics if they are Public Domain. The song seems to have high notability in the area it is about. The fact that americans have not heard of it before this AfD does not prove "non-notability". Need to expand on the article with respect to the precursors to the song being written and its effects on society. Ans e ll 07:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No name group with no name song, nothing that the world should hear about it. Did this song even have an nr.1 place in any Serbian top list? And to Serbian nationalists here: what happened with the pilot after his plane was "shot down”? Did the Serbian Army catch him? Was he in a Serbian jail? Delete, Wiki doesn’t need such nationalistic songs. --Bet 0 10:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete, Wiki doesn't need such nationalistic songs" -- is that really the criterion for inclusion? Nationalistic materials need not apply? As if nationalism isn't the single most destructive phenomenon of the past 150 years? That comment doesn't wash. Profnjm 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE WAS MAJORLY IMPROVED TODAY,I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE WHO VOTED DELETE(except Bet 0 and Mig 11)TO LOOK AT THE ARTICLE AGAIN,I BELIEVE THAT THEN ALL OF YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR VOTES AND THIS VOTING CAN BE CLOSED ONCE AND FOR ALL.Dzoni 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping my delete vote until: 1. Notability of the song is established. Right now it is not even mentioned at all in Serbian Wikipedia's entry about this band sr:Индексовци. 2. copyright issues are resolved. Do we have permission from the owners of the copyright to the song to include it in its entirety in Wikipedia? Balcer 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have permission for Keep Ya Head Up or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasenovac_i_Gradiska_stara.

I dont think so.Dzoni 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why in Keep Ya Head Up the lyrics are not included in the article! We don't need a copyright permission to have an article about the song, but we do need it for the lyrics. As for Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, that one to me looks like an excellent candidate for deletion, on the same grounds as this one. Balcer 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Danke Deuchland.....there are hundreds of examples all over the Wikipedia.

The difference is that El Condor Pada really is important and notable song that should stay.Dzoni 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We still look forward to some evidence of that, not just your opinion. Balcer 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Serbs,Croats and Slovenians on here voted "Keep" and even one Greek vote.All of them heard of it.Theres not a single Serb that never heard of it.Thats enough for "keep"Dzoni 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment To all Serbians voting "keep": Why is there still no link to a Serbian version of this article? -- Austrian 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having reconsidered, this article would fit better as a part of an (yet unexisting) article Anti-NATO propaganda in Serbia in 1999 (or similar titled). As for my previous post here, the original lyrics is now included but as some users pointed out, there might be a copyright violation so keep just an exemplary section or the lyrics included (decide for yourself what part). --Ton e 21:43, 7 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 (note North Carolina vandal involvement) -- Curps 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife stereotype[edit]

Entirely original research as per WP:NOR. ^BigE1977 20:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like Aussies.Lomxa 20:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment above user created this article. IrishGuy 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. IrishGuy 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Rklawton 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that the author is using sockpuppets to add keep votes (which I've deleted beyond his original vote). Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There does appear to be rather a few users who's contributions appear to be limited to commenting on this Afd, and nothing else. --TheMadTim 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No original research. And all the socks aren't really helping much either. Darquis 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Shut up.Grog Drinker 23:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
- Comment User's only edit.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listen to me!AAH BSW 23:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User's only edit.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as this is a completely factual page.Good Old Southerner 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop creating sockpuppet accounts. Their comments will be ignored when deciding whether to keep this article and you are only being disruptive. — GT 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up nonsense.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think battered Southern wives are cute.Awzee 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User's first edit. You guys know your votes won't be counted right??ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see why we can't. I think battered Southern wives are kinda cute too.Drinking Jeb 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just keep and everything will be fine...Ylogdad April 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' User's first edit. You know that this vote will be ignored, right?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete -- this is terrible (and almost certainly a made up concept.) Wiki makes finding sockpuppeteers pretty easy... Grand master ka 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 07:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and for God Sakes someone make a rule stating that only users with more than 100 edits can vote on AfD. --Roisterer 11:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with the sentiment, you do know that making that requirement will only cause someone to go make 100 trivial edits (or worse, vandalize things) in order to get into an AfD? Darquis 14:21, 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 REDIRECT to List of Sudbury Schools . -Doc ^ask? 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Næstved fri skole[edit]

Non-notable. Already in article List of Sudbury Schools Nv8200p talk 21:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sudbury Schools. -- ReyBrujo 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --MaNeMeBasat 10:45, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense entries in the talk space of articles that don't exist. JDoorj a m Talk 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Toon_maroon, Talk:Bart vs. austrilala, Talk:Cats and austrail[edit]

They are all fake shows and this guy claims them as Nickelodeon shows. These articles should be and need to be deleted --Caldorwards4 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:PN Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Pajevic[edit]

vanity; userfy; no assertion of notability; very little on Google and none of that is notable Rklawton 21:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Little consensus to transwiki - Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia's sewer outlet. Anyone who absolutely must transwiki and wants the content, leave me a message. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

w0rd[edit]

Unsourced neologism. Was tagged with {{prod}} by myself, but tag was removed. Ashibaka tock 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. w00t and pwn have articles, and this is nearly as significant in internet culture. w0rd gets over 200,000 matches on Google... I know there isn't much information there, but this is just a stub. I can understand why it might get transwikied, definitely, but I feel that it passes the Pokémon test. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, it's not really a great candidate for Wikipedia. Keep or transwiki to Wiktionary. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly as significant as w00t and pwn. And the pokemon test (aside from not being an official policy/guideline) is a terrible gauge of notability. Wickethewok 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's refrence(s) right now is a single google search. It might belong in a Wiktionary, or a 1337 Dictionary, but on wiki right now? I don't think so (and man, I hate the Pokémon test ) Darquis 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete per Tijuana Brass. -- ReyBrujo 05:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
n00k. --phh (^t/_c) 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable/vanity. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Denessen[edit]

Vanity page Junes 22:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamjs[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 22:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per db-band. Wickethewok 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong delete ~~as db-band per Wickethewok, marked as such.~~ Does not satisfy any criteria of WP:MUSIC. Kimchi.sg 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to strong delete per BorgHunter. Kimchi.sg 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but A7 does not apply, notability is asserted) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tcheh, got no album, how can liddat go make article on encyclopedia one? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and vanity. *drew 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, they seemly have been featured in the Asian MTV awards, but not enough to claim notability thanks to that. -- ReyBrujo 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --MaNeMeBasat 07:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' weak delete. seems to have featured in MTV channel and invited to perform in MTV Asia Award 2006. Had a successful Bangkok Tour too. seems to have fans in their moblog site too. - Google/yahoo hits check. Kanett 14:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MUSIC, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 05:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dee diang? —Sengkang 05:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would have been speedy deleted at first if it was under db-band --L e idi ot 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. met at least one of WP:MUSIC criteria,.Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.

For performers outside of mass media traditions:

Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre (Mark waite 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. agreed with the above. met criteria with WP:MUSIC (Michaeltt 06:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Singopo 11:42, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. Hsu[edit]

ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

Vanity page StoatBringer 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page meets the criteria for notability (famous author with over 5000 books in print and readers). - Solaroid

I don't see any reason for it being a vanity page. It meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and is unbiased. - Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he's a signfigant person, but the article is in need of some cleanup. Darquis 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what part of the article needs to be cleaned up? I'd like to get the deletion consideration notice removed. Solaroid 23:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think merely being a young prodigy is sufficient grounds for notability. I think this is more "potentially notable", and Wikipedia will be here if or when that happens. As far as being an author his book was only written in Chinese (thus inaccessible to most readers of this encyclopedia) and allegedly sold 50,000 copies which is a lot but not enough in my opinion to make him notable as most best-sellers tend to get up into the millions. — GT 01:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is to be a published author with over 5000 readers or copies in print. 50000 copies in taiwan is a lot - remember that the taiwan market is much smaller than that forr the US. Its not the language of the book, but the influence that counts. with so many people inspired and influenced by this person, it would be unwise not to include him - it would be a disservice to the community if the entry is not included. Many millions of chinese people also read wikipedia! Andrew Hsu is a great inspiration for thousands of children, and is probably the most significant Hsu on wikipedia. If he's not included, why should those others be? his wco organization has already helped thousands of children in poor countries. He is definitely notable and not just "potentially notable." Royal993 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user's first edit and he may be a sockpuppet of Solaroid. In any event I see no citation for the sales figures so dig them up or base your argument on something else. — GT 02:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came from korea one year ago, and when I was in korea, I saw a news report on Andrew hsu on national MBC tv. I know that he has helped a lot of young people Jasonkim
- This too is the user's first edit. Newly-created accounts (especially those created after this article was nominated for deletion) are generally ignored in this process so if this is the same user making all of them, please don't bother. — GT 04:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the four scannings presented in the article (China Times, Liberty Times, Ming Sheng Daily and United Daily News), three are notable newspapers with article in Wikipedia. However, since I can't read them, I cannot see if they help fulfill the latest biography notability point in WP:BIO for people still alive. -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with GT, this is someone who at some point may potentially be notable, but at this point he isn't. The vanity and sockpuppetry doesn't help. IrishGuy 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not do any sockpuppetting. You have your right to your own opinion or guess, but you shouldn't accuse me randomly. Irishguy, you have said the person is not notable right now, and what grounds do you have for that? GT has said "merely being a young prodigy is not grounds for notability", and I agree. But I am not proposing notability on these grounds. He is a published author with much more than Wikipedia's criterion, which is easily verified through the publisher. He clearly meets Wikipedia's guidelines of "large fan base, name recognition, published a book with an audience of over 5000, autobiography". The guidelines does not say what language the book should be published in. You are entitled to your opinion, but the guidelines are very clear and straightforward.Solaroid 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please get some documentation for your sales figures? We can't take your word for it. — GT 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out where I accused you of sockpuppetry. I simply noted that there have been a couple of newly created accounts showing up here to vote. That usually denotes sockpuppetry...although I never said that you specifically were responsible for it. As for the rest, I am familiar with the guidelines. What I am less clear on is any verifiable references for what you claim. IrishGuy 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, “Newly-created accounts” means kids or children or early teens. What you said means, kids’ opinions are generally ignored in the process. That is very true in this world. Your comment are so familiar, but that doesn’t make it right. That is what the world children’s organization is doing, to assert the rights of poor children in the world. Andrew Hsu inspired us. This is your place, you can decide to keep or delete, but don’t say my opinion should be ignored. Bye. Jasonkim

What newly created accounts is refering to is just that...an account with no prior editing history. It could be a sockpuppet. It has absolutely nothing to do with age. IrishGuy 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no. you missed my point. What I am saying is, just because you’ve been here longer doesn’t make you more right than me. My opinion should carry the same weight as your opinion. Jasonkim

He responded to exactly what you said. You should have been clearer with your allegory. Anyway please read this page to see why we discount the opinions of users with new accounts. — GT 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep?. I personally don't see any reason why this is a vanity page. For notability, the article is informative and well-researched, with media reports like CBS, KOMO4, Time for Kids, etc. If you google the english name of Fervent Global Love of Lives, you get 296,000 hits, but if you search for the Chinese name (copy and pasted off a site in Google), I got 7 million results, so this is a notable award. He also seems to fulfill WP:BIO, with multiple features in national newspapers, as his article claims. But is it reasonable to ask for proof of sales figures? Exactly how would the user who created this page go about doing so? Also, I don't see people asking other authors for this. Kr0nnik 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kr0nnik's account was created today. His edits so far consist of editing the pages of people named Hsu, nominating pages for AfD, voting on some existing AfD's, and a singular edit to his user page, probably so the link to his username wouldn't be red when he finally came here. Despite this user's intentions I've never seen such a clear (yet creative) sockpuppet.
Anyway, to address your points, like I said we simply cannot just take your word for it that he has sold that many books and that his WCO organization has been as successful as claimed (and everything else for that matter). Wikipedia policy prohibits original research and requires verifiability with reliable sources. And while Andrew's story and accomplishments might make a very good topic for feature pieces in news sources, I still am not seeing any evidence from you that he is notable enough to be written about here. — GT 00:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same person who also accused me of socket puppet? to you,if people are new and have different opinions from yours, then they are a sockepuppet. You ask for evidence when you accuse other people without evidence? you ask for "veriafiability from reliable soruces." where is your verifiability from reliable sources when you accuse other people? for one thing, I know you're wrong about me being a sockpuppet. the newspapers that are in andrew's article Are reliable sources. Tell me that other authors in wikipedia also supply verifiability from reliable sources of sales figures. you can't! Jasonkim

Everyone is held to the same standards here. No exception is being made for this article. Do the newspaper articles discuss his book sales or otherwise demonstrate his notability? I don't read Chinese so I don't know. Just being mentioned in a newspaper doesn't really count, especially when they are feature pieces and not real news. — GT 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think you protest too much. What are the chances that you created a Wiki account and knew immeditiately to come here and vote on this? This AfD is the only thing you have made any edits on at all. That doesn't strike you as more than a little curious?IrishGuy 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable for anything except that he may be in the future. A child prodigy is not enough to warrant notability, and the article is overstuffed with unimportant things that he has done. (Notorious4life 03:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Also, there are an unsual amount of recently created username votes on this discussion, and that does arouse the suspicion of sockpuppetry; their votes should surely be weighed less according to the warning template. (Notorious4life 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I just would like to ask everyone here to go to see all entries in Hsu and honestly ask yourself how many of them are more significant or notable than this person. If they can be listed, why can’t he be. It doesn’t make sense.

The guideline says

1. fan base: If the box on andrewhsu.com titled "ANDREW'S TAIWAN BOOK TOUR" (you have to scroll down) doesn't give evidence of a "large fan base,” what does? Again, how many in Hsu entries have a fan base such as this? They are listed.

2. book sales: which authors who are listed actually supply documentation on the sales figure of their books? Why ask for it from just one person? That is unfair.

I would like to make one thing real clear here. I did not send out any emails to anyone regarding this discussion forum. If I did, the site would be filled with many comments, I am sure.

I trust that the editors in wikipedia are fair, so I'll rest my case and leave this with them. Thank you. Solaroid

Comment Other articles aren't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not this subject is notable...and all signs point to no. If the other articles that you refer to have problems, then by all means, AfD them. But it has no bearing on this AfD.IrishGuy 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Solaroid, your argument is ridiculous and very humorous. By your logic, every thing in the world should be included in Wikipedia as long as it is not worse than the worst article. Comparing other articles is a terrible way of defending the importance of an article. You cannot make significance out of an article by pointing out articles that may be worst than it. Your befuddling comments are only antagonizing more people to vote for deletion. (Notorious4life 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom, and a sockpuppet blitz is always a bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google search does not turn up favourable results, autobiography sales figures are ambiguous. The article has been pumped up with facts that are irrelevant to his notability. While I do appreciate the enthusiasm and loyalty of the user(s) who have been creating accounts on Wikipedia to vote on this AfD, please note that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. The article can always be recreated if the subject gains more notability in future. — Tangot a ngo 04:37, 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 deleted by Starblind as a dead redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEARsports[edit]

Duplicated content of something already up for AfD Also on this AfD are the two redirects to the duplicated page, Nearsports and Nearsports.com Darquis 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Group them into the same AfD, as there is no separate content involved. Redirects can be speedied after the main article is gone. Fan1967 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has moved the content back. Doesn't matter. Closing admin can find the article and its redirects. Fan1967 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean add this to the AfD someone else started? If so, sure. Otherwise, I'm not familiar with what you're asking. Darquis 23:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that this one's a redirect, doesn't matter. Just leave it. Keep a note of the redirects and speedy them all when the main AfD's done. Fan1967 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: pre-empted by speedy deletion as adspam.

All about...MURDER, SHE WROTE[edit]

Non-notable - does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). Probable advertising The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not seeing anything there. Is this already taken care of? Darquis 23:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yip, it's been speedied. And rightly so! The external link pointed to a unknown Lycos page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn/ speedy redirected. --Rory096 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Prophets[edit]

Duplicates the material already found at President of the Church (Mormonism). ~~Delete and~~ redirect. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 22:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to create a redirect per Hetar. Would an admin please close? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Anything of note that isn't already in appropriate Mormonism articles, then delete. Redirect as appropriate. 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy redirect: Everything in this article is already in President of the Church (Mormonism). This redirect could have been done without listing here. --Hetar 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice - MORMONS are CRAZY Superbeatles 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hetar. -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hetar; no need to delete first. --Allen 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 KEEP. -Doc ^ask? 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II[edit]

This article is not an appropriate encyclopaedia article. I believe it counts as original research, because clearly it is not reporting someone else's detailed breakdown of the act, but carrying out its own. While a clause by clause explanation of legislation would be appropriate in a legal textbook, an encyclopaedia should summarise information about an act rather than carry out an analysis of it. Worldtraveller 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on February 10, 2006, it was a Wikipedia featured article. There have only been a few minor edits since then. Seems that there was a community consensus that this was a worthy article. —ERcheck @ 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I strongly object to using this article's featured status as an argument for inclusion. That perspective turns wikipedia policy (that any AFD-survivable article can be featured) on its head. Raul654 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (featured article director)[reply]
  - Ummm... say that again? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Encyclopedic" (e.g, able to survive AFD) is not a criteria we check for on the FAC (because, frankly, I don't want FAC to turn into the shitfest that AFD is). We simply assume it is encyclopedic. So I object to using "it's a featured article" as a justification for keeping it on the AFD when the FA status is based on the assumption that it would survive AFD. Raul654 15:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair call. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 30 citations to show it's not original research. (Of course, more cites are always welcome.) Moreover, a clause-by-clause breakdown of important legislation is the encyclopedic approach — certainly by the very definition of the word, whose antonym is "summary." PRRfan 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See below about the cites. Now we're not like other encyclopaedias it is true, but can you find a single other general interest encyclopaedia that has ever attempted to provide a detailed breakdown of a piece of legislation? What they do is describe how an act arose, summarise what it does, talk about criticisms, that kind of thing - Parliament Act is a good example. Clause by clause breakdowns should not be our business. Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whyever not? We evidently aren't very good at doing some main articles. Have you looked at the USA PATRIOT Act? I've already explained I'm working backwards. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The state of other articles is not relevant to the encyclopaedic worthiness of this one. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protest in the most strongest possible terms - I spent a great deal of time on this article, having it listed for deletion is a slap in the face. I consider this to be a violation of WP:POINT. The article, though it needs updating, is a featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How much work you put into it doesn't actually matter, unfortunately, if it's not an encyclopaedic article. I personally would like to see this article deleted, so how can that possibly be POINT? Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bugger. Just realised the page I was contributing to. This is not original research. I am writing about what the Act says in plain English. Maybe I should be assuming good faith here, but it's a little tough as you are trying to get an article I spent a lot of time and effort on deleted. I am assuming WP:POINT because you voted down my other WP:FAC article based on the title, not really on the content. I challenge you to find any part of the atricle that is my own opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, so you are reading the act and interpreting it into plain english - you are not reporting someone else's published interpretation of the act into plain english. Therefore, it is original research. You completely misunderstood my objection to your FAC, which was entirely about content. You seem to be saying that because you have worked on an article, someone who thinks it should be deleted is automatically acting in bad faith - very arrogant indeed. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Every single summary anywhere on Wikipedia condenses information and explains it in plain English, if it uses technical language. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep It seems as though you did this because you need a case against Ta bu shi da yu's push for featured article status of USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, but this article was ruining it. I say that that is bad WikiEthic. Please consider removing your request that this be deleted, and thus save yourself more criticism. Thank you, Chuck 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did this because, while I was complaining about the unencyclopaedic nature of one article, another similar one was pointed out to me. While at least the first unencyclopaedic article was at an encyclopaedic title, this one isn't. Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let me get this straight: you listed an article for deletion which took me about a month to write because you didn't like the title? Whatever happened to the page move button?! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The time it took you is irrelevant. The content is unencyclopaedic - the title precludes anything encyclopaedic being written in its place. Hence, a deletion nomination. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again I ask why you can't move it? If you are that concerned about it, moving it to something like Sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act would also allow commentary to be added to each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Nomination not in the best of faith, perhaps. Hornplease 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth makes you say that? Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, well-sourced with a humongously long list of references, definitely not OR. Kimchi.sg 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It has references, yes, but they are not actually references which verify the presented detailed breakdown, they verify certain points within that breakdown. The difference may be subtle, but it's very very significant. Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it so different? I am explaining what the Act says. I'm going to keep writing these articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's just the problem. 'You are doing the explaining, by means of your own research. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, how in the world is it OR? It just goes by section numbers, and those are part of the act itself; are you suggesting that, say, breaking down Hamlet by acts would be OR? Kirill Lokshin 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a scene by scene analysis of Hamlet absolutely would be original research - how could it be anything else? Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, here is why I would like it kept: so far in the USA PATRIOT Act, we have not got any real information on what the Act actually says. Orin Kerr once justly took us to task for such an atrocious bit of writing. Well, I decided to do something about it: I must admit I was somewhat stung by his commentary. On review, he's right though. The article as it stands is a dog's breakfast. So what I'm doing is to write about each of the titles and any commentary that I find on them. I'm currently writing about Title III, which is taking quite a while. I don't think it's unreasonable to read the Act, then write about what each section says. This article was originally in the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, but I was forced to split the article when I discovered that my article had ballooned to about 120-130KB. It was only logical that I summarised it and then put the detailed breakdown in its own article. The information is all good in there, and as several people have pointed out it is fully sourced. I genuinely don't see how splitting an article is a large cause for concern, especially when this article is just basically explaining the Act in plainer English. I also fail to see how it might be anything but an article written from a neutral POV. Eventually I'll be working on the other articles, so expect to see a few more of them around the traps. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I say, the state of other articles is irrelevant. What's happening here is that you are interpreting the act - original research. The references you cite cannot be used to verify your interpretation of what the act means in plain english. Therefore, the article is original research and is also unverifiable. Therefore, it should be deleted. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending policy discussion: I can see how this could be considered OR, but if that's the case, there are further reaching implications—most book/movie/drama articles would be deleted or at least have their plot summaries removed, for example. The scope of WP:NOR needs to be debated first, before deleting an FA. In a perfect world, this article would be based on the discussion found in a law textbook or on some other published breakdown of the law, but in its current form, it's still a strong article. TBSDY, for the Patriot Act articles you write in the future, would it be possible for you to find sources like those that Worldtraveller is requesting? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to do that, I'm stopping work on the USA PATRIOT Act articles. So the short answer is: "no". Do you people want a decent article about the USA PATRIOT Act or not?!? Why the heck can't you people use some common sense?! sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a "No, there are no such books?" or "No, I can't be bothered to look them up?" I'm going with the former, but you never know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking. Secondary sources are always a plus. But note that I haven't taken a position on whether or not this is OR; I've just said that the policy needs to be discussed before the article should be considered for deletion. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per ERcheck. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a scene by scene literary analysis of Hamlet is inappropriate, but a plot summary isn't. Apply that analogy here, and what do you get? Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have thought you'd get a vote for deletion, this being a scene by scene analysis rather than a summary.... Worldtraveller 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me the analysis for goodness sake! This is a summary of each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have specifically said it's not a summary but a translation into plain english. Do your sources verify that what you say the act means in plain english is actually what it means in plain english? Worldtraveller 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? Are you saying you haven't followed the sources and you are saying that this is original research?! Of course it's in plain English! It's a summary, isn't it? Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not a summary of the legislation, it's one person's translation of the legislation into what they interpret as its meaning in plain english. Worldtraveller 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is getting ridiculous. OK, time to take that Wikibreak I promised myself. Can you please review WP:SNOW and WP:IAR? Also, please find some common sense. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - An analysis would analyse the material. A summary would summarise it. The latter is encyclopedic; the former is not. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with that, but if you mean that you think this article is the latter I would have to disagree - I don't think it can claim to be a summary when it's about as long as the original legislation is. Comparing the original legislation with this detailed breakdown, many of the sections of this are longer. Worldtraveller 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The stated reason for deletion is, "not an appropriate encyclopaedia article," but that's not really what's going on here. This is a dispute about the content of the article, not the topic. Such disputes should be kept to talk pages unless the article cannot be sourced and rendered NPOV. This is not such a case. IMHO this article is well written, well sourced, and as NPOV as possible, but anyone who disagrees with me can, of course, edit the page or bring their concerns to the talk page. -Harmil 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this is all about the topic - by virtue of being called 'detailed breakdown of...' it is unencyclopaedic. The article under discussion might be well written and well sourced but it's still original research. Ask yourself, do the sources listed allow you to verify Ta Bu Shi Da Yu's personal interpretation of what the act means in plain english? Worldtraveller 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per everyone above, and the fact that it's an FA. I closed it as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW but was reverted. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, let's keep the discussion going for a little longer. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly question for Worldtraveller: is there a difference between "one person's translation of the legislation" and one person's translation of a legal textbook's description? Either way, the author of the article has to change the text so that it is not a copyvio while attempting to perserve the meaning. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference as I see it is that a translation of a piece of legislation into plain english, which this piece attempts to be, requires analysis of the legislation - that is, original research. From the sources given, I can't verify that what is claimed to be the plain english meaning actually is the plain english meaning unless I also analysethe legislation - the sources cited do not show that that is the case. On the other hand, if someone else had already summarised the essentials of the legislation, it's a simple job to describe that summary and cite your source - it's then very easy to verify from the source that what is claimed to be a summary of the legislation actually is a summary of the legislation. Worldtraveller 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ERcheck. --Oldak Quill 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OR, in relevant part, states "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position" [emphasis added]. This is not OR, as it is not advancing a position. GRBerry 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me try to word this correctly. Hamlet is a play by Shakespear that represents one intertwined writing that can be summarised under one plot summary. The USA PATRIOT Act, Title II is a non-intertwined piece of writing that can only be summarised section by section. Just because the author has combined multiple sections, in order to avoid hundreds of articles, and has thus placed those summaries one after another, does not change the summaries to analyses. Now that you are aware of the similarities between this and other articles sumaries, I reccommend (based on your Be Bold attitude) that you go and delete/change the following sections of the following articles, as they, according to your interprestation of an encyclopedic article, are not.

Hamlet - Hamlet Plot Summary and Hamlet - Hamlet as a Character

Starship Troopers - Characters in Starship Troopers

And of course many many more in both Featured articles and not. It seems as though you are suggesting copyrighted material be inserted as the breakdown of the sections. Unfortunately, that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Chuck 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with your assessment that it is impossible to summarise the act without breaking it down section by section. The author has interpreted the act section by section to give what he considers a plain english summary of it, and that's original research. Worldtraveller 19:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Looks worthy to me. — RJH 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Plenty of strong arguments above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an FA, and apparently recently made so, how would FA voters not pick up on OR? It's not that easy to make an FA after all. Besides, references are references, I dunno what else to tell ya. Homestarmy 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe they didn't pick up on it because they weren't looking for it? The references provided actually don't allow me to verify that the act has the plain english meaning that Ta Bu Shi Da Yu says it has. Worldtraveller 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never heard of an FA nom where people didn't look for extensive references on a subject :/. Homestarmy 16:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a content dispute and an article naming dispute, not a notability dispute. -Sean Curtin 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying the content is unencyclopaedic, and the title is also unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 09:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was prominent enough to be featured, and that says something about the article's quality. Deiaemeth 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it's a poor quality article - I'm saying it's an unencyclopaedic article. Worldtraveller 09:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is in no way original research unless every article in Wikipedia which interprets an original document can be considered original research. Dabbler 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name another article that interprets an original document in the same way this does? Worldtraveller 15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. This whole debate seems very much a non debate and rather a one man vendetta. Surely it is clear that the majority of people think the article should be included, despite the crusade entered upon by the forementioned critic? The article enables anyone who might have an issue to look it up, failure to have the article would mean people dont have the opportunity to look up quickly and efficiently the inns and outs of the act. And for that matter, almost all articles on history on wikipedia are subjective, and often inaccurate. That does not mean they should be deleted, that means they should be corrected. So if you, Worldtraveller, have such an issue with the article, why don't you correct the points you disagree with?. Fredheir 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The PATRIOT Act is notable, and an article on it should be considered encyclopaedic. Even if you think it's not factual enough, it can certainly be edited to become so, in which case the answer is to edit it, not to delete it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any article on it can be considered encyclopaedic - this is one man's legal interpretation of the act rather than an encyclopaedic summary of the act. Worldtraveller 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Obvious Super Speedy Keep. And a slap in the face for Worldtraveller. --GTubio 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A little bit of maturity and civility helps us all have productive discussions. Your comment lacks them both. Worldtraveller 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you are trying to talk to like every voter, that's not exactly normal for an AfD :/. Homestarmy 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, because I'm trying to argue my case, someone can be rude to me? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Worldtraveller 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No its just not normal for a nominator or really anyone to try and talk to every single voter and convince them to vote the other way, it seems....odd :/ . Homestarmy 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        When listing a featured article for deletion, it seems appropriate for the nominator to try and justify his actions. Rude comments like GTubio's are not in any way called for. Worldtraveller 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - something which people don't seem to be considering is the nature of the references here. I see lots of comments saying 'it's got 30 references, it must be OK', but actually two thirds of the references are the law itself. This is a bit like me writing an article about, say, the Helix Nebula and saying 'it's 100 arcminutes across (reference: the object itself)' - the only way i can verify that this article's analysis of the act is correct is to do my own analysis, just as if I told you the size of the Helix Nebula that I'd worked out myself from looking at it, and that number didn't appear in any peer reviewed journals, your only way of verifying my statement would be to carry out your own observations. I don't doubt that most people would agree that would not be acceptable, and would count as original research. Now how is this situation different? Worldtraveller 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The act is a primary source. A nebula can't be any source; your personal original research findings on said nebula are a primary source however (and incidentally are not accepted on Wikipedia, as per WP:NOR). The act is a valid primary source; your unpublished findings on the nebula's size aren't. Johnleemk | Talk 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about primary sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe my analogy is not the best. Let me try a different one - this detailed breakdown is 80% as long as the piece of legislation it's looking at. If someone put up an article called 'Detailed breakdown of Hamlet' which was 80% as long as the play, and which referenced the play throughout, wouldn't you think that could be considered original research? It would seem clear to me that would be unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. --Jelligraze 02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedic topic ... and an Act is a legitimate primary source for its own overt contents (though not for contentious matters of interpretation). Similarly, a movie is a legitimate primary source for what it contains (though not for contestable interpretations). I realise that there is no bright line between overt contents and interpretation, but the concept of original research has to be applied with common sense, rather than in a spirit of radical epistemological scepticism, and not stretched too far beyond the job it is designed for (eliminating crackpot theories, etc). I also endorse Johnleemk's comments here. Metamagician3000 11:19, 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. Flower party☀ 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InstantCast[edit]

Clearly an advert, made by the same user who wrote the Kikucall article, InstanCast's parent, who clearly is CEO of Kikukall. Delete Con D e m^Talk 23:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amalas =^_^= 14:14, 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? 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumrunner (Pirates of the Caribbean)[edit]

This is a neologism developed on the IMDb forums. No sources indicate its existance elsewhere. Relevant policies include WP:NOT and WP:NEO. --Hetar 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - delete per nom. Wickethewok 00:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - True, the actual group was made on an IMDb forum. However, it has grown out to other message boards and other types of places. Another message board with an establishes group can be found at. There have also been things such as a internet store that sold various Rumrunner merchandise, such as shirts and bumper stickers. I can get confirmation of all this if you need me to. --Plasma Twa 2 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Parley forum is non notable, with less than 100 members. This reminds me of Rabid Inuyasha Fan, a term applied to InuYasha fans, which was deleted (and later speedied) everytime it was created until the page was blocked. -- ReyBrujo 04:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hehehe, just noticed the RIF was recreated. People never learn :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ^ask? 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Janet. Tour[edit]

Delete - info on a specific musician's tour does not really need its own page. Wickethewok 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apparently the article was started due wikilinks to four tours in Janet Jackson page (Rhythm Nation 1814 Tour, janet. Tour, The Velvet Rope Tour and All for You Tour. I believe it would be wise to merge all these tours into a single list, although I am not sure if there can be such lists in Wikipedia (or if any other musician has one). -- ReyBrujo 04:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The administrators wanted to delete the article stating that writing specific information for a musician's tour doesn't need its own page. I find it to be unfair. There are other musicians's tours that has each of their own pages for example, Madonna. I don't see the reason why the article should be considered for deletion. All the information about the article is completed and accurate. I see other musicians that has a page for their own tours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy2006 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Some tours can have interesting information, and Janet Jackson's tours certainly reach that standard. Certainly, not every tour by every band is worth an article, but some are. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Major tour by a major artist, seen by millions of people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - if there is precedent, I withdraw the nom, though I disagree with it. Wickethewok 08:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 10:47, 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. BD2412 T 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cryptic Universe[edit]

Delete - non notable podcast TDS | talk 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ^BigE1977 02:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D._Geoffrey_Bell[edit]

Clearly a vanity page. There are, however, assertions of notability. My problem here is that the citations are either geocities pages or other personal, free web-site type pages. Between the lack of significant references and the vanity angle, my inclination is to delete. ScottW 00:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Reviewing WP:MUSIC, it seems the subject fails in all of the points, and Google has not much to say about him. I will quickly reconsider my vote if I am shown otherwise, though. -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 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? 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sundry Syndrome[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 04:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep, per WP:SNOW. Making no accusations here, but there's no point putting this through the process when it isn't going anywhere. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious[edit]

WP:WINAD refers - article is simple word definition, entry at Wiktionary TheMadTim 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. WP:WINAD refers. This article is a simple dictionary definition. The entry on Wiktionary evidences this. [28]

--TheMadTim 02:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World famous term and song. Article is hardly a dicdef. --Rob 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There's a lot more to the article than a simple dictionary definition, as the "Trivia" and "In Popular Culture" sections clearly illustrate. ekedolphin 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. -- JLaTondre 02:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. -- KarateKid7 03:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Badgerpatrol 04:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. -- Alibabs 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ekedolphin. -- ReyBrujo 04:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. You're joking about the 'merely a definition' thing, right? See, because its not really a word. Hornplease 06:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Philip Stevens 06:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- very well-established cultural notability (who hasn't heard of this?) Also an informative article, more than a dicdef. Grand master ka 06:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another bizarre AfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. RupertMillard (Talk) 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What do dictionary definitions of words look like?? See http://dictionary.reference.com and look up any word you wish and you will get an example of what a dictionary definition looks like. Georgia guy 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Zawersh 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep . Sumahoy 23:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Rob and ekedolphin PageantUpdater 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ekedolphin -- antiuser 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep GoldenEye 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was GoldenEye's first contribution to Wikipedia.--TheMadTim 04:32, 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.